HP Forum Archive 14

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

"NEW" Calculator Disappointments Message #1 Posted by David Yerka on 8 Apr 2004, 4:07 p.m. I know this may upset people but the day of the "super calculator" is past. All this agony about the latest HP models and their lack of tradition to the past is wasted. First, the HP of the 70's and 80's is gone. They are no longer a source of inovation. Those individuals who provided the inspiration for the products we fondly remember are gone--driven out by bean counters. Hp is now a company which makes the bulk of it's profit selling inkjet printers cheap, so they can profit by selling expensive inkjet cartridges. This is the way of the industry. It is sad but common. Second, the "calculator" has passed its "golden age." With the exception of certain small nitch areas; the onset of cheap processing power on the desktop has killed it. Look at TI and Casio: their major sales are to students, and probably the bulk are high school students. These students aren't interested in spending to much money--except for the geeks (I was a geek) and the geeks now want the best COMPUTER on the block. Most students in engineering and science expect/know that notebooks and desktops with amazing processing power await them in the work area. Much as I would wish it otherwise a company equiping its engineering/technical staff is going to invest in workstations and software--there is just so much more bang for the buck from an accounting point of view. All this is a factor of Moore's Law:(to broadly paraphrase) processing power doubles and costs drop quickly in the computer industry. Add economies of scale and consider rationally and its amazing that any company would think it could make an expensive line of calculators and make a profit. So, of course, a company is going to farm out design and production, Of course, more concern is going to be placed on "looking cool and different"--marketing, you know--and the cheapest cost of production is going to be most important. How many of us are there really? (Calculator fanatics!!) 100,000 world wide? That's not enough for a major company to even consider a study for a new design proposal. Like it or not, there really isn't any money in calculator design for major companies. So, don't get so upset about "eye catching" designs (ouch); the amazing thing is that HP is still trying to produce calculators at all. That RPN/RPL is still arround is amazing--'cause it isn't taught in high school, math teachers have enough to do without bucking the general teaching ideas. On a slightly different topic: I've said this before but for all those who want a prototype development calculator for emulation, etc.: Why not the HP49G+? It is already running a calculator emulation on top of a industry standard ARM CPU. It's got I/O, lots of memory, flash memory, an adequate screen, a fairly good keyboard and there are industry standard assemblers out there for ARM processors. Also there are much much faster ARM CPU's available when looking toward the future. It's available now for proof of concept. I hope a haven't offended but all the discussion about the new calculators just seems so negative. I think the fact we're even getting some choice is amazing.

Re: "NEW" Calculator Disappointments Message #2 Posted by bill platt (les Estats Unis d'Amerique) on 8 Apr 2004, 4:30 p.m., in response to message #1 by David Yerka Hi David, Your points are "spot-on" (and in fact tehy have been made before here, but yours is an eloquent essay). Indeed, I have been thinking lately about what attracts us here---most of the steady contributors come because this is a MUSEUM, and we are interested in MUSEUM PIECES! Let me put another way of seeing all of this: I think it is in fact wonderful--and remarkable, too--that I can choose to sell my more current calculators (32sii) and step back in time, using "antiques" as it were, for my daily calculating needs. Indeed, for heavy computing, I use the computer. For light stuff, or especially for portable convenience, I use the calculator. And of course, for FUN! So, just as watches are obsolete (they really are--time is everywhere--I haven't worn one in at least 8 years), so are calculators---and so for the uses for which they are still good--and always will be good---we can "express ourselves" in the vintage equipment we use daily. Some wear a MOVADO, and others carry an HP-45. I just think it is totally fun! And you are right, in the scheme of things, it is remarkable that there are still any new HP's and especially new RPN HP's at all! So, we will keep dreaming of the super-calc, the HP-15C platinum, the HP 41 superduper etc---and it is healthy---and some amazing people (Christoph, Christoph the other, Nelson, Hrastprogrammer, Smith, the list goes on, Kuipers, Sloyer, Brogger, and the Spanish Influence: Diaz, Martin,etc.....) will actually BUILD either virtual antiques, or MODERN actual RPN kits/upgrades/homebrews. It is great sport! Best regards, Bill http://plattdesign.net

Re: "NEW" Calculator Disappointments Message #3 Posted by Steve S on 8 Apr 2004, 5:16 p.m., in response to message #1 by David Yerka Count me in, too, at least up to a point. I have also said that desktop computers and other platforms with embedded computing capability are stiff competition to the idea of "yet another" stand-alone hardware calculator. But... and I think this is important... there is still room for new dedicated calculating hardware IF they feature a better, more natural interface with the user. An interface that couldn't be, for example, emulated on a typical PC or Mac. This is a point I've tried to make before, but it seems to fall on deaf ears in this forum. Maybe that's to be expected. As Bill Platt points out, this is a MUSEUM, and people are here, in large part, because of their nostalgia over past HP glories. No wonder many people here think only in terms of pursuading HP to build an HP-41+++ (or insert the HP of your choice here). When you imagine what could be done with a graphic / user interface, I think it's really a shame that most of us can only complain about how the "ENTER" key is in the wrong place!

Re: "NEW" Calculator Disappointments Message #4 Posted by bill platt on 8 Apr 2004, 7:35 p.m., in response to message #3 by Steve S Hi Steve, But do note that there are some hardware heavies that are around here, too---just search on Nelson Sicuro and you will see lots of interesting developments for making new equipment......

computers and calculators Message #5 Posted by brooks rownd on 9 Apr 2004, 11:53 a.m., in response to message #3 by Steve S WRT computers vs. calculators. You cannot carry a computer around the lab or in the field in your pocket like a calc, and in the few cases that you can the battery performance and interface are far inferior. Computers have poor user interfaces for calculation, and are extremely inefficient in that role. The good old calculator is a reliable go-anywhere tool that still reigns supreme for banging out calculations on the fly. I don't see myself giving up calculators anytime soon...or anytime. As far as a GUI on a calculator, the very thought makes me want to cry. Get a fricken palmtop if you want that junk. They already make them, so be my guest. I'll stick to the good old clicky keys.

Long rambling answer to David Y Message #6 Posted by db(martinez,california) on 8 Apr 2004, 10:11 p.m., in response to message #1 by David Yerka 1) It's great that two companies are making RPN calculators at all. 2) I work in one of those "nitch" areas; i build stuff. Right now it's our 3 sections of an airport. Like most projects there are parts that are flat un-buildable if you go by the drawings. It's too easy to run off a set of plans by computer now-a-days. Just download a disk of data, hit a few buttons and it vomits up plans that have nothing to do with this Earth which can't be built in three dimentional space. Designers/engineers/technicians trust those expensive computers and fancy programs too much. If they had to do some math along the way they would not try to pass off this kind of junk. Using a calculator makes you think. The problem today got solved by by two construction engineers from my company and me (the flunky with a calculator) walking a bunch of city people and contract engineers around while showing them our basic arithmetic skills. That and reminding them that if we build it the way it is planned; there will be 1.5 to 1.8 foot high speed bumps, "duck ponds" at the underpass and curves that bank the wrong way (so the cars slide off). The surveyors were no better. When i asked them to fix the problem the head cheese computer user asked me if i could just "make it work" (..and take his liablity for free i suppose). We did the hard part; i found the problems and put numbers on them. On the good side; i am learning to be more political. I did not tell the ernest city folks to stop promoting the terminally lazy, i did not tell the hard working surveyor that he should keep the EEO cases & drinking buddies in the office and send someone with a brain out into the field, and i did not tell the obviously inteligent engineers that i have seen better design on kraft paper in crayon. Anyway; the point to all my sniveling here is this: In my nitch (and many others) the calculator is still necessary; "the onset of cheap processing power on the desktop" has not killed it. I believe that computers are only better for repetative plug and crank jobs. Those jobs may be in the majority but none of us here want to fill them.

Re: Long rambling answer to David Y Message #7 Posted by Art Litka on 8 Apr 2004, 11:31 p.m., in response to message #6 by db(martinez,california) Well said, db! I'm with you on this-the programmable calc (along with the geek who operates it) still has a role to play. As an educator in the physical sciences, I try to get my students to "think" their way through problems and use their machines (alas, mostly TI algebraics) as tools rather than crutches. Some have been brought along to just blindly "plugging" numbers into formulas and never challenging the result or the assumptions leading up to it. They do this with computers too and are even more apt to accept whatever "answer" it gives. However with a calculator they are, in my opinion, more in touch with the problem and can be taught to think while using it in a very interactive way. If properly done during the formal education process, the student can conveniently learn fundamental concepts and test various "what if" scenarios with the calculator more readily than with a computer operating a "canned" program. Once this skill is acquired, it can be applied on the job as well.

Re: Long rambling answer to David Y Message #8 Posted by Les Bell [Sydney] on 9 Apr 2004, 2:52 a.m., in response to message #7 by Art Litka Art Litka wrote: Quote: As an educator in the physical sciences, I try to get my students to "think" their way through problems and use their machines (alas, mostly TI algebraics) as tools rather than crutches. Art, I'd be interested in your views on the use of Mathcad, Mathematica and free equivalents such as Octave (http://www.octave.org) in education. They strike me as excellent tools for visualization - much better than calcs, in fact, on account of speed, improved interface (keyboard, color, etc.) and interactivity. Is the problem one of providing computers in the classroom? I can see how computers could be distracting, take up space, etc. and they're more expensive than a calc. But I sometimes think we're approaching the point where every student will require a notebook computer because of its general applicability. That day might well ring the death knell of the calculator - especially the graphing calculator - as a pedagogical tool. Best, --- Les Bell, RHCE, CISSP [http://www.lesbell.com.au]

Re: Long rambling answer to David Y Message #9 Posted by Art Litka on 9 Apr 2004, 2:59 p.m., in response to message #8 by Les Bell [Sydney] Les, Thanks for responding to my post. It seems to me that computers are TOO available in many schools these days. It is a trend that administrators love to push and use as bragging rights. Please don't get me wrong, they are great tools and have their place in the modern world of education and training. My concern is that they are overutilized for the wrong purposes and underutilized for the appropriate ones. That however, is a separate discussion topic and need not be argued here. Students do use many software packages such as Math-Cad, Graphical Analysis etc. My point is that the calculator can offer a closer connection to the mathematical/physical problem than glitzy and sometimes intimidating software can. Besides, even laptops are still heavy and inconvenient (let alone expensive)by comparison. For many fundamental problems and concepts I feel that the calculator is still a superior tool, especially if a user developed program is involved. This is a talent that seems lost on current students who think "programming" is just learning to use a commercial software package! I'd be happy to discuss this further if you wish and compare our experiences. Art

Re: Long rambling answer to David Y Message #10 Posted by Ed Look on 9 Apr 2004, 3:53 p.m., in response to message #9 by Art Litka I'd agree with the assessment that schools often implement computers, usually PCs (sometimes out of date ones), more as bling-bling than bang for the buck. In fact, I find that sometimes, my kids only draw pictures on the ones at school. Higher education likes to use PCs to automate experiments in lab courses, but that really prevents students from knowing how to truly handle data. I am a staunch believer in keeping computer involvement in math and science courses to a minimum, until proficiency is satisfactorily proven, then at the next level, the student may try to mimic "real world" or "industrial" or "research" conditions. In non-technical fields, however, writing IS tedious, given the amounts of it required, so for writing and keeping records, it's wonderful.

Re: Long rambling answer to David Y Message #11 Posted by Les Bell [Sydney] on 9 Apr 2004, 7:43 p.m., in response to message #9 by Art Litka Art, Thanks for taking the time to comment. I think you've hit the nail on the head when you say: Quote: My concern is that they are overutilized for the wrong purposes and underutilized for the appropriate ones. My concern is really as a parent; I can see how, for many kids (and teachers) there's a tendency to become focused more on interacting with the computer than on the experiement/creative writing/etc. that is the real purpose of the exercise. It strikes me that the calculator is more appropriate in the classroom - it's less obtrusive on the lab bench. And, as you say, there's real value to the student in the exercise of developing a short program to solve a problem. It's analogous to "the best way to learn something is to explain it to someone else" - if you can "explain" it to a 'dumb' device like a calculator or computer, then you must have achieved some degree of familiarity with the problem. Best, --- Les Bell, RHCE, CISSP [http://www.lesbell.com.au]

Programming worked for me! Message #12 Posted by Michael Meyer on 10 Apr 2004, 1:56 a.m., in response to message #11 by Les Bell [Sydney] In college (Northwestern), I programmed every computer science assignment on my TI-59... and went through an entire year without missing a single point. Not on homework, quizzes, or exams.(I guess I'm a bit compulsive there....) There were and are people with computer knowledge light years beyond mine, but no one had ever done that before. I programmed all of my physics on my 59, and again, pulled the highest grade in the class... all year. The key to my grades was that I would write down all the equations for each exam question first, and then go back to the start to plug in numbers. While others wouldn't have time to even finish the exam, I got most of the points on questions I didn't even have time to solve... because I'd listed the equations needed. I knew the equations well, thanks to my having programmed and played with them. I still wonder if a statistics class is angry with me. I showed the instructior all of the equations I'd programmed, but he announced before the final that, he "wrote this exam with Mr. Meyer in mind." Though calculators were allowed, the final exam was all theory. Not a single problem. Again, having programmed them, I knew them well. Again the highest grade. I attribute all of this success to my enjoyment of programming my calculator. So, 1. I do think it's a great way to learn. 2. That's why I'm still a calculator fanatic. Of course! Michael

Re: Programming worked for me! Message #13 Posted by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) on 10 Apr 2004, 2:47 a.m., in response to message #12 by Michael Meyer Hi, Doc; may I borrow your lines? I had a few difficulties while attending classes at the Electrical Engineering course that I actually surpassed without much trouble when I decided to write programs to all of them. The ones I was sure I wasn't able to push inside the "HP41C + 1 mem module", I tried to find a reasonable approach. And that made my life as a student a lot easier. I believe that (now it's up to you) I actually "built" some neural links related to reasoning that are still active till now. Whenever I face a numerical problem I actually reason over it in some sort of RPN-related style. I even realize that my inner thoughts changed from {"value" plus two, times four} to {"value" two add, four times}. That's true, Doc, believe me. No "equals to" at the end of the reasoning. Best regards. Luiz (Brazil) Edited: 10 Apr 2004, 2:50 a.m.

Re: Programming worked for me! Message #14 Posted by Ben Salinas on 11 Apr 2004, 12:53 a.m., in response to message #13 by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) Wow... I too think in RPN. It really freaks everyone out when I am doing math aloud. For some reason it seems to make even mental math easier (for me it is easier to multiply 58 by 32 when I think of it was 58 enter 32 times) -Ben

Re: Programming worked for me! (edited) Message #15 Posted by Vieira, Luiz C. (Brazil) on 11 Apr 2004, 2:15 a.m., in response to message #14 by Ben Salinas Hi, Ben; you bet! You're lucky you're "still" a student. When you're a teacher, pupils seem to be afraid of you when you're doing that... Anyway, it's a good sign knowing that brainy "youngers" are walking this path. Thanks! Keep your way doing good things "right", Ben! Cheers. Luiz (Brazil) (P.S. - for those friends of mine and users I don't know, who own, use and prefer Algebraic calculators instead of RPN/RPL: I own some HP algebraic models, one Casio fx7000GA (bought a couple on months ago) and I was given some TI calculators: TI59 with printer and some magnetic cards (local friend), TI58C + TI55 + TI82 (thanks, M.B.) and I use them and program them as well; what matters is always keeping our HP (Head Power) up and going... I prefer RPN/RPL, but I never give up Algebraic calculators, any brand) Edited: 11 Apr 2004, 11:15 a.m.

Long rambling backup to db's long rambling answer to David Y Message #16 Posted by Wayne Stephens on 9 Apr 2004, 7:49 a.m., in response to message #6 by db(martinez,california) Thanks db, I am sorry you are dealing with such incompetent engineers. I am a civil engineer who was fortunate enough to spend my younger days working at firms that stressed designs that can actually be built. It disgusts me to see engineers (or at any rate, people with engineering degrees)using their computer software as a crutch and a place to lay the blame for their poor designs. Just the other day, I asked another engineer how he was intending to size the pumps for a water booster station he was designing. The answer? "Oh, WaterCad tells us which pumps to use". This same person was adamantly proclaiming that two identical pumps, pumping in parallel, in a relatively high head application of centrifugal pumps, would put twice the flow into the system as a single pump. I guess he's never compared the pump curves to an actual system curve? While it is true two pumps in parallel will pump twice the flow at the same head, in the real world the head will not BE the same when two pumps are pumping instead of one. By the way, that person has a PE license and designs these thing for a living. The truth of that matter is, if you don't know how to compute it by hand, you shouldn't be allowed to compute it on a calculator; and if you don't know how to compute it on a calculator, you certainly shouldn't be turned loose with powerful (but often flawed) computer software. One key to being a good engineer is being so well versed in the physics and the math that you can use calculators and computers as TOOLS, not as your entire design procedure. Another key is to have enough common sense and knowledge of what you are designing to be able to tell when the computer software is churning out junk. What's the old cliche? Garbage in, garbage out. Take care. Wayne. PS - I use my HP41C, 33S and/or 48GX almost every day. I write most of my own programs for them.

Re: "NEW" Calculator Disappointments Message #17 Posted by Eddie Shore on 8 Apr 2004, 11:08 p.m., in response to message #1 by David Yerka * The HP49G+ is a great place to start. * The calculator age hasn't past yet! I'm a young HP calc fan (since 2001).

Some Response to Reponses (long...) Message #18 Posted by David Yerka on 9 Apr 2004, 1:26 a.m., in response to message #1 by David Yerka Thanks for commenting on my post, folks. It appears that some got the point and some didn't. So... I wasn't arguing that we don't need calculators; I was arguing that the "market" (what ever that is) is blocking the production of new calculators. It's cost/benifit analysis. The profit just isn't there. Look at what is going on now: TI, HP, Casio aren't really developing NEW calculators they are just improving (!) older models. What is the HP49G+ after all, just a HP48/49 series running in emulation on off the shelf hardware. And, yes, no amount of hardware will subsitute for brains, experience and common sense. My business is consulting on hardware and software for individuals and business. All to often I see people who are getting the wrong results from technology. Often the comment is, " well the software/hardware SHOULD do this!" rather than understanding what the technology in question really can do. If the person at the workstation cranking out the blueprints doesn't understand "real world situations" it is a HUMAN problem not a technological problem. Making the guy use a calculator isn't going to fix the problem. And your ability to "make it work" doesn't derive from your calculator. It comes from your brain; and if you had a laptop you'd get your answer there and if you didn't you'd use paper and pencil. The technology is a TOOL no matter how good, cool, etc. it is. My sister and brother-in-law are teachers. He is a high school math teacher. My son is an amazingly bright 5th grader with a talent for math (yes, bragging, I know). Between tutoring my son (and several of his classmates) in math--they're at high school level at this point--and many discussion with my brother-in-law, I well know the needs for developing math skills. Again, the calculator is a tool here, using it can help but it's use doesn't guarantee understanding. Nor can some wonderful software available to teach and visualize math, geometry, trig, calculus. I had paper, pencil, slide rule, log tables, and references when I learned math. My son and classmates have computers, calculators, paper and pencils. But more importantly I had great math teachers, great mentors. My son had and has great teachers in school and an OK mentor in me. Most important of all is that my son (and classmates) think learning is fun and want to learn. And yes this is a museum, and yes most of us are "playing" with obsolete devices. But that doesn't mean they aren't useful. I often write microcode and when I do my PDA with a HP16 emulator is right next to me on the desk along with pad and paper even though most of the time code goes directly into the workstation. In fact there are a couple of emulators running on the workstation. Tools, you see. There are many tools to solve problems but some remind us that the best tool is our brain. Inovative tools are like that and for a time HP calculators were defined by inovation and that is what grabs us. Perhaps a new human friendly interface might make a better calculator but it isn't going sell more calculators in the long run. Does anyone think that Windows drove the personal computer boom? It put a friendly face on the C: prompt yes but Michael Dell (and others) put the under $1000 (now under $500) computer into the home. Inovation is nice but ultimately profit drives mature companies. And, what made the personal computer was versitility: it could be adapted to communications, calculation, data logging, control,etc. cheaply. Economies of scale again. Filling the nitch market is expensive and unfortunately if you're in the nitch you get screwed. So, don't look to HP for inovative calculators; look at lean and hungry startups, the Kimpo's who can make a profit on a smaller margin, look here for people who consider the result greater than the cost in time. Finally, I see some promise in the way calculators are going. The hardware is becoming more generalized and off-the-shelf; more adaptable. And after all, the soul of our tools is in the software, it's the code that does the math.

"Niche", Puhleeze . . [NT] Message #19 Posted by Les Bell [Sydney] on 9 Apr 2004, 2:54 a.m., in response to message #18 by David Yerka

Re: Some Response to Reponses (long...) Message #20 Posted by Arnaud Amiel on 9 Apr 2004, 4:37 a.m., in response to message #18 by David Yerka Quote: So, don't look to HP for inovative calculators; look at lean and hungry startups, the Kimpo's who can make a profit on a smaller margin, look here for people who consider the result greater than the cost in time. On c.s.hp48, JYA has been hinting very strongly to an imminent announcement of a revolutionary tool (calc?) not related to hp. I would guess an hydrix system is around the corner and may be very interesting. Arnaud

Re: Some Response to Reponses (long...) Message #21 Posted by Garth Wilson on 9 Apr 2004, 5:24 a.m., in response to message #18 by David Yerka I hang onto my 41cx not for its museum (ie, antique or nostalgic) value, but because of its practical value for my work _today_. Could I use a bigger display? I suppose; but I seldom have any use for graphics for it. As for schools, visualizing a function on a color monitor will often do no good if the student does not understand _why_ the function graphs out the way it does. It just becomes more Greek-- just cool Greek. Here again, the computer cannot do the thinking for the person. If it could, there would be no need for the person to learn the math. However HP is now taking advantage of the perception that these student calculators are somehow going to improve learning. A few people are clamoring for notebook computers in the classroom to get a full monitor because a graphing calculator is not big enough, while cell phones with internet access, cameras, and color monitors built in have, in the name of modern advancement, gotten so small they're not practical. I saved an article telling of an experiment in the midwestern U.S. where a school district was allowed to spend incredible amounts of money to improve learning. In the high school, every student had his/her own laptop. Interestingly, every one of the major performance indicators failed to improve. Addressing niche markets is not what big companies want to do. These companies are driven by profit, the only demand of the shareholders who have no interest in the product or niche. Actually that's what keeps my niche company in business. If it weren't a niche, Sony and other big engineering powerhouses would put us out of business making a better product for a fraction of the price. There is another niche computer market I would like to get into. If or when I do, I can tell you my company will not go public, because that would spell the end of the niche. Personal income was not my interest in getting into engineering. This may be the kind of mentality needed to make the HP-41 of the 21st century since HP is no longer interested.

Re: Some Response to Reponses (long...) Message #22 Posted by Wayne Stephens on 9 Apr 2004, 7:54 a.m., in response to message #18 by David Yerka David, Well said. Please see my "Long rambling backup to db's long rambling answer to David Y", above. I wrote it before I read your last posting. I think you said it better than I did. Take care. Wayne.

Re: Some Response to Reponses (long...) Message #23 Posted by Ben Salinas on 9 Apr 2004, 11:26 a.m., in response to message #18 by David Yerka I agree. The calculator market is definitley dying, and yet, it will still be around for a long time in the high school level. Just in my peers (which do not represent the normal high school students as I attend a math and science magnet school), I see a huge reliance on calculators. But, the best students do not trust their calculators. I use a 49g+ to check my integration, but I do all my own graphing, integration, differentiation (is that a word?), factoring, eqaution solving, etc, and for that reason I really don't want to use maple, or mathematica, or YACAS, or any of those other pieces of software. In my opinion, the whole purpose of a calculator is portability and specialization, while still being relatively cheap. PDA's are not at a place in which they can be cheap enough for me to use, and they are not as specialized for what I want. I want arithmetic to be done quickly, and that is what I get with a calculator. As far as playing with "old" calculators, I do it because they are better. If I had to choose between a TI 89+ (or whatever the new one is), a 49g+ and a 32sii (or the equivalent... 42s), I would definitely choose the 32sii. Do I want more memory... more programability... more screen.... more functions, YES, but as of now it is the best calculator I have access to that fits this description. The calculator market outside of schools is definitely dying, and the only reason it is surviving there is because students do not work in a single office (to use mathematica) and generally cannot afford PDAs. In addition to schools, I think that standardized tests will keep a small production of calculators coming out. I am just glad I own the ones that I do, because it might come to the 49g+ being the 41 of the future. -Ben

Re: Some Response to Reponses (long...) Message #24 Posted by Ed Look on 9 Apr 2004, 3:58 p.m., in response to message #23 by Ben Salinas Ben, hehehe... ... this is just because you've never used a 34C as your standby. Now THAT was a wonderful calculator, except for the fact that in those days, the LEDs ate power like it was free or something. (What I won't tell you is that I found the 32SII to be, in basic function, just about as good as the 34C, except I preferred the 34C's implementation of register usage and the physical feel if it, especially the keys. But the 32SII has the superior display and battery life.)

Re: "NEW" Calculator Disappointments Message #25 Posted by Guy François on 11 Apr 2004, 2:49 p.m., in response to message #1 by David Yerka I don't fully agree. I use calculators constantly, for mere number crunching and eight programs I use frequently on my HP-41CX I have the Virtual version by Warren Furlow (both on PC and PocketPC), but find myself grabbing the trusted HP's with their uncomparable keyboards nearly every time I need to calculate. Best regards.

And ... Message #26 Posted by Guy François on 11 Apr 2004, 2:54 p.m., in response to message #25 by Guy François in my darkroom I can use the HP-41CX as a timer, where it is far more convenient than a laptop.

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall