HP Forum Archive 15

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

No serial number Message #1 Posted by Arnaud Amiel on 29 Oct 2005, 5:44 a.m. I recently acquired a very cheap 6s and noticed that it does not have a serial number but a batch number instead. Are there any other hp calculators (not prototypes) that don't have serial numbers? Arnaud

serial Message #2 Posted by bill platt on 29 Oct 2005, 1:00 p.m., in response to message #1 by Arnaud Amiel Hi Arnaud, What's the difference between a "batch number" and a cereal number (oops I mean serial---I haven't had breakfast yet! :) ? Regards, Bill

Re: serial Message #3 Posted by Arnaud Amiel on 29 Oct 2005, 1:34 p.m., in response to message #2 by bill platt There is one serial number per calculators. I would assume that a batch number would be shared between many? Arnaud

Serial Message #4 Posted by bill platt on 29 Oct 2005, 2:04 p.m., in response to message #3 by Arnaud Amiel Yes, but how can you tell that it is a *batch* rather than serial? Can you give example?

Re: Serial Message #5 Posted by Arnaud Amiel on 29 Oct 2005, 3:19 p.m., in response to message #4 by bill platt On my 6s, the batch number is CN10020, on my 33s it is CNA11105782. I would believe that there are more 6s than 33s so I assume the batch number is identical for many calcs. Anyone around here with the same batch number as me? Arnaud

serial Message #6 Posted by bill platt on 29 Oct 2005, 5:16 p.m., in response to message #5 by Arnaud Amiel Your 33s has one more digit after the "A" than mine (though mine is a CN4 not a CNA4

Re: serial Message #7 Posted by Arnaud Amiel on 29 Oct 2005, 5:26 p.m., in response to message #6 by bill platt There was bad lighting, mine is actually CNA41105782, same number of digits though (?) My 49g+ has the same number of digits CNA51001296

Re: No serial number, Also for 30s Message #8 Posted by I, Claudius on 30 Oct 2005, 9:00 a.m., in response to message #1 by Arnaud Amiel The 30s also just has batch numbers.

Re: No serial number, Also for 30s Message #9 Posted by Mark Crispin on 30 Oct 2005, 11:29 p.m., in response to message #8 by I, Claudius Are you sure about that? I have two HP-30s, purchased about a month apart. They both have proper serial numbers in the CNA4060#### range, approximately 2200 apart.

Re: No serial number, Also for 30s Message #10 Posted by I, Claudius on 31 Oct 2005, 6:05 a.m., in response to message #9 by Mark Crispin Interesting, they must have changed from early units. The 30s is a junk machine, so it really doesn't matter. HP is blowing it by trying to produce multiple models as none is good quality. Instead, it should pare back to just three: the eternal 12C, the 32/33 ROM in a classic Voyager 15C case, and a top end 49+, all top quality, with no hardware/software bugs. This fairly simple strategy would go a long way to restore HP's luster in the calculator business. Edited: 31 Oct 2005, 6:08 a.m.

Re: No serial number, Also for 30s Message #11 Posted by Mark Crispin on 31 Oct 2005, 1:21 p.m., in response to message #10 by I, Claudius Quote: The 30s is a junk machine, so it really doesn't matter. True, although I think that this is more because it is algebraic-only. For $15, it is alright for the purpose to which I put it: one is tossed in the console box of the RV, and the other is on a corner of my desk at work. I usually have a much better calculator with me, but having a 30s on hand means that I have access to a reasonably competant basic calculator in the few cases when I don't. Since a 30s is a $15 throwaway, I don't need to worry about its long-term welfare. I would not worry about the loss, theft, or destruction of a 30s; I would for a 12c, 15c/16c, and even a 33s (although the 33s is hideously ugly). Quote: [HP] should pare back to just three: the eternal 12C, the 32/33 ROM in a classic Voyager 15C case, and a top end 49+ I wish that I could agree about a 15c redux. Alas, I can't. The display on the 33s is far superior, and I don't see any good way that it can fit in the Voyager case. You could get some vertical space back by moving annunciators to the side; there is sufficient real estate available on each side of the display on the Voyager. But I don't think that that this will provide enough headroom, and the result would certainly have a much "busier" look than the Voyager's elegant cosmetics. Also, I don't think that a 15c redux could underprice the 33s. That's a fatal flaw; like it or not, the 33s (or a successor, hopefully without that hideous keyboard) is the top-of-the-line scientific calculator . A new 15c, especially if the display is unchanged, would have to fit in at a lower price. I don't think that a 15c Platinum (ala 12c Platinum) would work as a 33s replacement. There's still the issue of the display. What may be more likely (and I can hear the shudders going through the community now!) would be an HP-12c Titanium which would have changable face plates that also change the key tops. The face plate also changes the microcode. So you could buy one calculator with three face plates and have a 12c, 15c, and 16c. There would be no software changes, just packaging changes. Whether the microcode is part of the face plate (leaving open the option of other calculators based on the platform), or if it's just a big switchable ROM between 12c/15c/16c is open. I think that an HP-12c Titanium could be sold at a premium price, since it's effectively three calculators in one. The catch would be that the PHBs would probably insist that it be based on the 12c Platinum rather than the 12c. As far as I know, the 12c Platinum is a complete reimplementation of the Voyager platform and not itself a Voyager; so you can't just change keytops and microcode and have it become a 15c or 16c.

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall