HP Forum Archive 17

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

35th Anniversary Calc Message #1 Posted by DaveJ on 20 May 2007, 12:11 a.m. Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what the HP 35th Anniversary calc will be and why (realistically speaking) ? Also, does anyone know what the likely release date is? They way I see it, I think it's most probable it will be either a revamped 33s in a Pioneer casing or a new scientific in Voyager casing. From a development point of view they probably would want to do as little as possible while leveraging current (or recent) housing and firmware technology. I suspect that would not rule out the Pioneer housing, and the voyager housing is still current of course. I have read that HP may have lost old firmware like the 11C/15C, if so then a Voyager scientific may need fairly heavily modified firmware from another model? Would an RPN 20S be out of the question? Dave.

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #2 Posted by Donald on 20 May 2007, 5:30 a.m., in response to message #1 by DaveJ I hope and pray for a revised HP15C. Even though they have lost the code for the original HP15C, with today's excess computing power and memory, rewriting code in C would be an easy task. As the hardware already exists for the HP12C, it should be a very low cost project for them to change the firmware, keycaps and overlays. Even a new processor and PCB is a low cost change. Using my HP15 for some 2-port circuit analysis, has reminded me of the limitation of the first HP15C. So I hope they make handling complex matrices a bit easier, perhaps by allowing one step storage and recall of the complex stack pair. A lot more memory would also be easily achieved. Speeding it up would also be acceptable. Otherwise don't change a thing. Edited: 20 May 2007, 5:32 a.m.

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #3 Posted by Thomas Radtke on 20 May 2007, 7:47 a.m., in response to message #1 by DaveJ Probably a 30S with a "35th Anniversary" Sticker and an additional and very innovative blue faceplate.

Might be a rebadged 12c again Message #4 Posted by John on 20 May 2007, 8:37 a.m., in response to message #3 by Thomas Radtke Why not? They did it for the 12c anniversary. Perhaps they will reintroduce the original 12c platinum and hope that everyone forgot it had been intro'd before?

Re: Might be a rebadged 12c again Message #5 Posted by DaveJ on 20 May 2007, 5:18 p.m., in response to message #4 by John Quote: Why not? They did it for the 12c anniversary. Perhaps they will reintroduce the original 12c platinum and hope that everyone forgot it had been intro'd before? They did it for the 12C anniversary because the 12C is a financial calculator. The 35 was a scientific calculator, so I would expect them to at least slap the anniversary badge on a scientific calculator. And given the 35 was famously RPN, I would also at least expect the badge to be on an RPN scientific calc. That leaves the 33s or 48/50 series. If not, then they will have to come out with a new scientific RPN. Given that the 35 was also a pocket calculator, that seems to rule out the graphical 48/50. That leaves the 33s the most likely candidate in my book. I don't think HP are silly enough to use a financial calc like the 12C, or anything other than an RPN scientific. Dave.

Re: Might be a rebadged 12c again Message #6 Posted by John on 20 May 2007, 5:24 p.m., in response to message #5 by DaveJ You missed the sarcasm in the original comments. You're also assuming that the marketing droids at HP know the difference between a financial and scientific calculator. Be careful of assumptions, especially when they involve marketing droids who work for HP. The 25th anniversary 12c wasn't much of an anniversary edition to begin with. Why would you expect anything beyond a sticker on the box or an embossed 35th anniversary stamp next to the battery compartment? People here get their hopes too high way too quickly. I would figure that would not continue to happen.

Re: Might be a rebadged 12c again Message #7 Posted by DaveJ on 20 May 2007, 5:54 p.m., in response to message #6 by John Quote: You missed the sarcasm in the original comments. Oops, sorry! Quote: You're also assuming that the marketing droids at HP know the difference between a financial and scientific calculator. Be careful of assumptions, especially when they involve marketing droids who work for HP. Likewise you must also be careful assuming the product spec is being driven by marketing this time. The spec may just come from a technical level as someones pet project, who knows? Quote: The 25th anniversary 12c wasn't much of an anniversary edition to begin with. Why do you say that? What's wrong with releasing the original product as-is with a nice badge? Why do there have to be any improvements or changes? Quote: Why would you expect anything beyond a sticker on the box or an embossed 35th anniversary stamp next to the battery compartment? I don't, but I'd expect it to at least be on an RPN scientific calc, not a financial calc or an algebraic. That's where I'd put my money if I was a betting man. The only basic RPN scientific in HP's line-up is the 33S. [/quote] People here get their hopes too high way too quickly. I would figure that would not continue to happen. [/quote] Nothing wrong with hoping, and speculating can be fun! Dave.

We're just realists Message #8 Posted by John on 20 May 2007, 10:32 p.m., in response to message #7 by DaveJ Quote: Likewise you must also be careful assuming the product spec is being driven by marketing this time. The spec may just come from a technical level as someones pet project, who knows? Why do you say that? What's wrong with releasing the original product as-is with a nice badge? Why do there have to be any improvements or changes?Dave. New here, aren't you? Hope springs eternal. The rest of us are realists. I do admit, it would be rather hilarious to have you show up, ask what should go into an RPN calculator just a couple of weeks ago, and then you manage to do what this openrpn project has been unable to do for years - create something real. However, perhaps my own HP65 anniversary edition machines will be back from the fabricators in time to beat you all. Took me a while to decide whether to have 128 or 256MB of ram in them.

Re: We're just realists Message #9 Posted by DaveJ on 20 May 2007, 11:03 p.m., in response to message #8 by John Quote: New here, aren't you? Hope springs eternal. Yeah, new here, sorry, I'll try to curb my enthusiasm! :-> Quote: The rest of us are realists. I do admit, it would be rather hilarious to have you show up, ask what should go into an RPN calculator just a couple of weeks ago, and then you manage to do what this openrpn project has been unable to do for years - create something real. Well, I'll have something "real" in about a weeks time when I get my prototype PCB's back, then I'll be able to (hopefully) push buttons and watch an LCD instead of clicking the mouse button on my PC. Firmware is already doing the basics on my processor simulator (but is far from finished), and I have some good reasons to have a working product to show within the next few months. There is a real deadline for this project. Just hope it turns out as cool as I think it will be. Dave.

Re: We're just realists Message #10 Posted by db (martinez, ca.) on 21 May 2007, 12:20 a.m., in response to message #9 by DaveJ Quote: Just hope it turns out as cool as I think it will be. so do we.

Re: We're just cynics by another name Message #11 Posted by Howard Owen on 21 May 2007, 2:08 a.m., in response to message #8 by John Quote: New here, aren't you? Hope springs eternal. Translation: How dare you gainsay us old-timer cynics? Quote: The rest of us are realists. Translation: and don't you dare call us cynics, either! Regards, Howard

No, realists Message #12 Posted by John on 21 May 2007, 7:26 a.m., in response to message #11 by Howard Owen Remember, us old timers are the ones that HP foisted the 33s chevron keyboards upon and the horrendous rubber key 49g upon.

Re: No, realists Message #13 Posted by Thomas Radtke on 21 May 2007, 7:36 a.m., in response to message #12 by John At least, they tried. I bought the 20S and the 32SII (both Singapour models) when they were new. No way to foist junk on me. I'm quite loyal but not stupid :-). Edit: Oops, forgot the 30S - but hey, that was just 1 EUR and now serves my girlfrend ;-). Edited: 21 May 2007, 7:38 a.m.

Re: No, realists Message #14 Posted by Howard Owen on 21 May 2007, 12:15 p.m., in response to message #12 by John Yes, you are the folks that HP forced into buying a calculator you detested, right? It's fine with me if you want to express disgust for chevron shaped keys, the lack of build quality, software bugs or what have you. Yes, it's a shame that those machines represented how far HP had fallen from its former heights, when calculators made up the bulk of their revenue. (I use past-tense because they have come back from that nadir to a small degree with the 50g.) But interpreting those shortcomings as personal affronts borders on the paranoid. These are inexpensive consumer products today, not the high end engineering tools of yesteryear. Get over it. Regards, Howard

Re: No, realists Message #15 Posted by Wayne Brown on 21 May 2007, 5:07 p.m., in response to message #14 by Howard Owen Quote: But interpreting those shortcomings as personal affronts borders on the paranoid. These are inexpensive consumer products today, not the high end engineering tools of yesteryear. The fact that they switched from building high end engineering tools to churning out inexpensive consumer products is HP's biggest shortcoming. I certainly do see it as a personal affront, not just to customers but to all those who worked for HP during their glory years.

Re: No, realists Message #16 Posted by James M. Prange (Michigan) on 21 May 2007, 6:05 p.m., in response to message #15 by Wayne Brown I agree that it's a real shame that HP stopped producing high-end engineering tools. Of course actually, the high-end engineering tools were split off into the new Agilent, with the "new HP" concentrating on the "consumer products". Too bad that the calculator division didn't go to Agilent, but I can see some logic in keeping it with the computer products, within HP. To me, it would've made more sense to keep the HP name on the high-end products and split off the "commodity" products into a separate company. The market for calculators as "consumer" and "educational" products is just too big to ignore; too bad that HP was so late trying to break into it. I don't see any reason why HP couldn't have kept making a line of high-end engineering calculator models as well as ordinary consumer and educational models. Inexpensive? Well, I can't think of any electronic device that isn't either much less expensive or else much more powerful than a few decades ago. What I do object to is the "cheap" look and feel and low quality physical design and construction of the 49 series. That said, it does seem to me that HP has made some efforts to improve things lately. As for the design of the 33S, what were they thinking? It looks more like a child's hand-held video game than a calculator, and this is the model that I'd expect to have the most functional appearance. I really don't think that HP intended to offend you or me or anyone else, it just made some (bad, in my opinion) business decisions. Regards, James

Re: No, realists Message #17 Posted by Howard Owen on 21 May 2007, 11:23 p.m., in response to message #16 by James M. Prange (Michigan) Quote: As for the design of the 33S, what were they thinking? The best guess I've heard is that they were trying to appeal to the educational market. But the other thing that is clear about the 33S is that it had minimal engineering input, just enough to slightly update the 32SII firmware, and a whole lot of marketing and design input. It seems obvious that the team that made the decision to go with the "chevron" design were completely isolated from any sense of the history of calculators at HP. Not that consumer electronics in general is known for respecting tradition. Combine that with the unfortunate production flaws, software bugs and the infamous tiny period and comma, and you have an RPN calculator people around here love to hate. Myself, I can't quite hate a shipping $50.00 programmable RPN calculator. I did wait until the fixes for the point and some of the software bugs were in before buying mine. And I also hope for better from HP someday. Regards, Howard

Re: No, realists Message #18 Posted by DaveJ on 22 May 2007, 8:56 a.m., in response to message #16 by James M. Prange (Michigan) Quote: I agree that it's a real shame that HP stopped producing high-end engineering tools. Of course actually, the high-end engineering tools were split off into the new Agilent, with the "new HP" concentrating on the "consumer products". Too bad that the calculator division didn't go to Agilent, but I can see some logic in keeping it with the computer products, within HP. To me, it would've made more sense to keep the HP name on the high-end products and split off the "commodity" products into a separate company. Indeed. HP was known as an electronics test equipment company first and foremost, and that name change was hard on the industry. Most engineers I know still call Agilent gear HP. It would have been much easier to rename the computer and consumer part, as that is common in that industry and hardly anyone would have cared I suspect. Quote: The market for calculators as "consumer" and "educational" products is just too big to ignore; too bad that HP was so late trying to break into it. I don't see any reason why HP couldn't have kept making a line of high-end engineering calculator models as well as ordinary consumer and educational models. Simple - money, profit, margin, sales, "lean" processes, product range rationalising and all that other finance and management stuff. Managers love to can stuff that isn't the leading seller, gives them something to put on their monthly report. If sales drop xx% in the last year or two, out it goes, even if it still pulls in $$$$$$$$ per year. Why did they keep the 12C and drop the scientific models? - you can bet your last dollar that it sold more, *lots* more than the scientific ones. I suspect it would have required someone really high up with a love for the old models to keep them in production. I suspect sales dropped off on the older models when the graphic units became all the rage. Sales never recovered and they got dropped from the line. That happens in almost every industry. Quote: Inexpensive? Well, I can't think of any electronic device that isn't either much less expensive or else much more powerful than a few decades ago. What I do object to is the "cheap" look and feel and low quality physical design and construction of the 49 series. That said, it does seem to me that HP has made some efforts to improve things lately. As for the design of the 33S, what were they thinking? It looks more like a child's hand-held video game than a calculator, and this is the model that I'd expect to have the most functional appearance. I really don't think that HP intended to offend you or me or anyone else, it just made some (bad, in my opinion) business decisions. I greatly doubt it was a *bad* business decision, just *usual* business for most big companies like that. Dave.

Re: No, realists Message #19 Posted by Wayne Brown on 22 May 2007, 4:47 p.m., in response to message #18 by DaveJ Quote: Why did they keep the 12C and drop the scientific models? - you can bet your last dollar that it sold more, *lots* more than the scientific ones. I suspect it would have required someone really high up with a love for the old models to keep them in production. That's the problem; no one should be allowed into a position "really high up" at HP without a love for the company's traditional product lines. I'm disgusted with HP not only for what they do, but even more for they are (or rather, for what they've become).

Re: No, romantics Message #20 Posted by Howard Owen on 23 May 2007, 2:48 p.m., in response to message #19 by Wayne Brown Here's the irony of the modern corporation: Motivated people often do what they do for the love of it. Corporations do what they do for money; specifically, for the shareholder's money. Corporations are made up of motivated people, so they often have to deal with love, but they count the results in money. People work for corporations, so they have to deal with the bottom line, but some count their results in how well things work, or how beneficially or beautifully and so forth. In other words, some people judge results by the love content. The irony is that these people tend to be the ones that can take a vision of quality and utility and make it real, if their love is aligned with the corporation's bottom line. With me so far? OK, so the reality of corporations means that although neither love nor money is enough to get the job done, the ultimate arbiter of whether or not a corporation is successful is the P/L statement. If losses mount year upon year, shareholders will fire managers, replace directors and officers, and generally make a nuisance of themselves. So love is trumped by money in the modern corporation. This means that " a love for the company's traditional product lines" is not a quality that will ensure continued employment "really high up" in any modern corporation. Taking an extreme example may make this more clear. In 1898, the (fictitious) American Buggy Whip Company was faced with an important personnel decision. They had to replace their VP of product development who had been hired away by Ford. The candidates were the current engineering chief, a 20 year veteran whose innovations in buggy whip design had led to ABW's dominance of the American buggy whip market, and a young whippersnapper (so to speak) fresh out of Harvard who advocated reinvention of the company as an automobile accessory concern. Which choice would be more likely to lead to ABW's survival? Regards, Howard

Re: No, romantics Message #21 Posted by Donald on 23 May 2007, 5:11 p.m., in response to message #20 by Howard Owen Quote: Here's the irony of the modern corporation: Motivated people often do what they do for the love of it. Corporations do what they do for money; .... The irony is that these people tend to be the ones that can take a vision of quality and utility and make it real, if their love is aligned with the corporation's bottom line. Totally agree with you Howard, so here's my ramble: It reminds me of Asmiov's psychohistory concept: the central premise of his foundation series: The path of developments over time are very predictable - groups will react in a uniform way allowing history to be mapped out. But over time, very very occasionally, a key player, a leader, a revolutionary, will arise and cause an unpredictable step change. Bill and Dave were the revolutionaries with HP, at the right place and right time to set the ball rolling. The current management, are simply custodians, following the rules of the business game evolving in a predictable fashion. As such it's unlikely anything that sets the world on fire will emerge from within. Little sparks occasionally, but no great fire. Every so often, new entrepreneurs will decide to go it alone and driven by their convictions, seed new ideas, which will amble along, die or be swallowed. But eventually one will grow into something special ... then over time stagnate and decline. Edited: 23 May 2007, 5:16 p.m.

Re: No, romantics Message #22 Posted by Howard Owen on 23 May 2007, 7:02 p.m., in response to message #21 by Donald Quote: Bill and Dave were the revolutionaries with HP, at the right place and right time to set the ball rolling. Another name for those sorts of people are "visionaries." From the point of view of the love/money dichotomy, I think such people are those who both have the talent of seeing undiscovered or unexploited alignments between love and money, and who can compellingly communicate that to others. I also don't think it's inevitable that companies that sink into complacency and stagnation will remain that way. Two examples from the 1990s are Lou Gerstner's turn around of IBM, and Steve Jobs returning to Apple. A more recent example may be Sun under Jonathan Schwartz, although the jury (in the form of financial results) is still out on that one. In each of those cases, the visionary took on the top job, and shook up and restructured a complacent organization that was heading toward financial disaster. Regards Howard

Re: No, romantics Message #23 Posted by Trent Moseley on 23 May 2007, 11:59 p.m., in response to message #21 by Donald Well postulated. tm

Re: No, romantics Message #24 Posted by Gene on 23 May 2007, 5:49 p.m., in response to message #20 by Howard Owen Good point, Howard. The other thing that people sometimes don't think about is that with a corporation, it really IS the shareholders money. They (essentially) hire the company's officers to make more money for their investment. If you loaned me money as an investment, you'd want a pretty substantial return, 10, 20, 30% or ? Would you be happy if I used it to support my "Wacky Packages" hobby? I have made about 0.1% as the return on investment on that hobby over the years. Or, would you prefer I use your money to make 20%? Gene P.S. Again, great illustration Howard! See you at HHC2007!

Re: No, romantics Message #25 Posted by Howard Owen on 23 May 2007, 7:06 p.m., in response to message #24 by Gene Quote: Or, would you prefer I use your money to make 20%? If you can guarantee that, I think you may be on to something! 8) Quote: See you at HHC2007! Looking forward to it. That ought to be an event purely on the "love" side of the dichotomy, but it takes money to get there. Funny how the world works. Regards, Howard

Where the money is Message #26 Posted by Howard Owen on 23 May 2007, 7:13 p.m., in response to message #20 by Howard Owen For HP, it's in computers, no doubt. HP Lands $5.6 Billion NASA Contract Regards, Howard

Re: No, realists Message #27 Posted by bill platt on 21 May 2007, 6:23 p.m., in response to message #15 by Wayne Brown If HP hadn't "switched" to inexpensive consumer items, we would have lost all new RPN calculators after the Voyager.

Re: Might be a rebadged 12c again Message #28 Posted by Wayne Brown on 21 May 2007, 5:10 p.m., in response to message #7 by DaveJ Quote: Likewise you must also be careful assuming the product spec is being driven by marketing this time. The spec may just come from a technical level as someones pet project, who knows? I strongly doubt that anyone at a technical level has any real influence over decisions at the "modern" HP.

Re: Might be a rebadged 12c again Message #29 Posted by Howard Owen on 21 May 2007, 11:10 p.m., in response to message #28 by Wayne Brown Someone at HP understood the shortcomings of the 49G+ enough to make a comprehensive (and mostly successful) effort to address them in the 50g. Regards, Howard

Re: "I don't think HP are silly enough to . . . " Message #30 Posted by Paul Brogger on 21 May 2007, 10:31 a.m., in response to message #5 by DaveJ Quote: I don't think HP are silly enough to ... I don't think I'm naive enough to ever begin a sentence like that again!

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #31 Posted by Namir on 20 May 2007, 1:08 p.m., in response to message #1 by DaveJ I think we have to distinguish between the emotional component of celebrating the 35th anniversary of the HP-35 and the reality of current HP resources dedicated to calculators. Within these resources one can make a good guess that HP will celebrate the special occasion. Bringing old models back, like the 15C seems to me a no go. Putting a special label on a current calculator might be a more affordable way for HP to celebrate. We can celebrate our memories and our dedication to outstanding machines like the 67, 41, 15, 11, and so on. I am celebrating the 35th anniversary by trying to design an enhanced version of programmable RPN that can compete with RPL. I will implement this programmable enhanced RPN in either VB .Net or C#. Namir Edited: 20 May 2007, 1:10 p.m.

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #32 Posted by DaveJ on 20 May 2007, 5:39 p.m., in response to message #31 by Namir Quote: I think we have to distinguish between the emotional component of celebrating the 35th anniversary of the HP-35 and the reality of current HP resources dedicated to calculators. Does anyone know exactly what resources are left in the calculator division? Quote: I am celebrating the 35th anniversary by trying to design an enhanced version of programmable RPN that can compete with RPL. I will implement this programmable enhanced RPN in either VB .Net or C#. All going to plan, my own RPN calc design will be released this year, in time for the anniversary (which never occured to me actually). Prototype PCB's are being manufactured as I write... Dave.

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #33 Posted by Donald on 20 May 2007, 6:56 p.m., in response to message #32 by DaveJ Quote: All going to plan, my own RPN design will be released this year, in time for the anniversary (which never occured to me actually). Prototype PCB's are being manufactured as I write... Ah.. so you have a vested interest in HP not producing something good :-) Anyway, I will hedge my bets and wish you success. The 12C platinum data sheet says it has a 6502 based processor: Does anyone know if it's in-circuit programmable via JTAG or similar. Perhaps it's the basis for a re-write project - once the actual processor and IO mapping is known. Beyond lack in faith ( i.e. soul-less marketing: color schemes and a new badge), I think, that the biggest unknown surrounding the 'Anniversary Edition', is will HP start to look back to the original market it addressed with the HP35: engineering and science professionals rather than school students. If they do there might be some hope of something nice. I'm not sure how a DIY video competition fits in with this scenario though :-( At the other end of the possibility spectrum: the phone has killed the gadget-PDA market ( except for GPS displays and MP4 players ), suggesting the anniversary enthused 'Innovation' is unlikely to be a feature packed and resurrected Expander with a color LCD aimed at students ( which they would not be able to use in exams anyway ). The middle ground, I see is market convergence : A high end classic RPN model with all numeric features (i.e. no alpha or IrDa comms etc.) might best satisfy both the current professional and upper student (restricted exam) markets.

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #34 Posted by DaveJ on 20 May 2007, 7:59 p.m., in response to message #33 by Donald Quote: Ah.. so you have a vested interest in HP not producing something good :-) Anyway, I will hedge my bets and wish you success. Thanks. Now that would indeed suck if they scooped me on this project, and it wouldn't be the first time that's happened to me with a project like this. On the other hand though I'd also be seriously happy if they did scoop me! Dave.

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #35 Posted by Howard Owen on 21 May 2007, 12:37 p.m., in response to message #33 by Donald Quote: The 12C platinum data sheet says it has a 6502 based processor... The new Power6 CPU from IBM does BCD in hardware. It's also built to trade off performance and power requirements, although I don't think it can go low enough for battery operation. Even if it could, getting HP to use the chip would be .. difficult. Regards, Howard

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #36 Posted by Eric Smith on 21 May 2007, 3:57 p.m., in response to message #33 by Donald The 6502-compatible Sunplus microcontrollers used in several of the current HP calculators including the 12C Platinum and 33S use masked ROM. No possibility of end users changing the code in those; it probably costs HP $50K in mask charges any time they want to change the code.

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #37 Posted by Donald on 21 May 2007, 5:05 p.m., in response to message #36 by Eric Smith Mask programmed ... oh well - so much for that plan. It just occurred to me that 1st July 2007 is the 25th anniversary of the HP15C ... probably of no significance to those at HP.

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #38 Posted by Jeff O. on 22 May 2007, 3:34 p.m., in response to message #37 by Donald Quote: It just occurred to me that 1st July 2007 is the 25th anniversary of the HP15C ... probably of no significance to those at HP. Probably not significant to HP, but it is to some of us: I was hopeful for a time that something like the above might possibly happen, based on the 12C Platinum 25th Anniversary model that HP produced last year. However that was before I realized that it is also the 35th anniversary of the HP-35, which has a better ring to it, and for which HP purportedly will be issuing some sort of commemorative model. Probably too much to expect a 35 and a 15C celebration.

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #39 Posted by Donald on 22 May 2007, 3:55 p.m., in response to message #38 by Jeff O. I like it :-) What's your intended use for the 'IO' function above the ON button ?

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #40 Posted by Jeff O. on 23 May 2007, 7:45 a.m., in response to message #39 by Donald Input and output, of course! I did not really fully conceive how it might be done. Maybe as simple as putting the calculator in “server” mode to communicate with a PC application that would let you see the contents of memory and drag and drop programs and data from and to the calculator. Or maybe a menu of functions similar to the MATRIX 0...9 and TEST 0...9 functions, where IO 0 might transfer all programs to a PC, IO 1 would transfer all storage registers, etc. The connection would be via the same USB to mini-USB (or whatever it is) cable used by the 50g. A utility program allowing 15c programs to be written and tested on the PC would also be handy.

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #41 Posted by Paul Dale on 22 May 2007, 4:52 p.m., in response to message #38 by Jeff O. More likely: MATRIX will be replaced by RPN RESULT will be replaced by ALG SOLVE will be replaced by ( Integrate will be replaced by ( Also the Re<>Im function will likely be omitted entirely. Maybe I'm being a bit synical :-) - Pauli

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #42 Posted by Chris Roccati on 21 May 2007, 4:23 p.m., in response to message #33 by Donald Quote: The 12C platinum data sheet says it has a 6502 based processor: Does anyone know if it's in-circuit programmable via JTAG or similar. Perhaps it's the basis for a re-write project - once the actual processor and IO mapping is known. The 6502-like processor is a masked rom part. You can't reprogram it. With enough dedication and patience, you could probably scrape the processor "blob" off the board and re-use the rest of the hardware...

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #43 Posted by Ron Ross on 21 May 2007, 10:36 p.m., in response to message #31 by Namir To be true to the 35th year concept (and this is really only speculation and wishful thinking), Hp could (and should) revamp/morph an Hp 33s into an Hp 35. Correct the silly layout and provide an old fashion large enter key back in the legacy location (and since you are returning the ENTER key, drop the algebraic option to save a key function, you will need to save another to substitute for a missing key the ENTER displaces). Re-badge this package as an Hp35 Anniversary ed and I feel you would have a winner. Sadly, this is probably only wishful thinking.

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #44 Posted by John on 22 May 2007, 7:58 a.m., in response to message #43 by Ron Ross Quote: Sadly, this is probably only wishful thinking. A realist at last!

Re: 33s as 35th Anniversary Calc -- key count? Message #45 Posted by Paul Brogger on 22 May 2007, 3:57 p.m., in response to message #43 by Ron Ross . . . but the 35th anniversary calculator had better have only 35 keys! (The 33s has ~48.)

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #46 Posted by sjthomas on 20 May 2007, 8:34 p.m., in response to message #1 by DaveJ Do we know for certain that there is going to be a special 35th Anniversary issue of any kind? Did I miss something?

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #47 Posted by DaveJ on 20 May 2007, 8:54 p.m., in response to message #46 by sjthomas According to here: http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/5323 A HP spokeswoman said "HP, in the next few months, will also debut a new calculator related to this anniversary" Dave.

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #48 Posted by James M. Prange (Michigan) on 20 May 2007, 9:30 p.m., in response to message #1 by DaveJ I doubt that it will be marketed as an "Anniversary" model, but CalcPro has been listing a "48GS" together with the 48gII. CalcPro doesn't say how they differ, and (as far as I know) HP hasn't announced it yet, but from a brief thread on comp.sys.hp48, I gather that we can expect an improved keyboard, flashable "ROM", and a USB port in addition to the serial port (but still no SD card port). In other words, the 48gs will bear a relationship to the 48gII similar to that of the 50g to the 49g+, a replacement model with some of the shortcomings fixed. And the relationship of the 48gs will bear a relationship to the 50g similar to that of the 48gII to the 49g+, an "economy model" for those unable or unwilling to buy the "premium" model. As for what I'd like to see as a "35th Anniversary" edition, an RPN "scientific" model that fits comfortably in my shirt pocket would seem appropriate. Regards, James Edited: 20 May 2007, 9:34 p.m.

48gs Message #49 Posted by John on 20 May 2007, 10:33 p.m., in response to message #48 by James M. Prange (Michigan) Tried to order one. Seems it is a typo.

Re: 48gs Message #50 Posted by James M. Prange (Michigan) on 20 May 2007, 10:39 p.m., in response to message #49 by John Oh well. Still, I expect that HP will start marketing some sort of replacement for the 48gII. Regards, James

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #51 Posted by Patrick R on 21 May 2007, 2:24 a.m., in response to message #1 by DaveJ In my view, a 35 year anniversary edition with any of the current production calculators would be a nice way to promote the huge backstep in product quality and feel. As long as HP doesn't manage to build a decent case around a calculator, including decent keys, I wouldn't even mind about releasing anniversary editions. I want at least the quality of a 32sii or a 48G. Put the 50G in a 48G case, resolve the emulating issues and I will buy one. Just recently a friend told me that he bought a 33S to replace his 15C. He was so disappointed by the quality of the 33S that it almost immediately went to the dustbin (I won't quote his insults towards the Chinese). Now it is rotting away in a drawer. He now considers buying a Casio. So let's celebrate this anniversary.

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #52 Posted by Bob on 21 May 2007, 5:59 p.m., in response to message #51 by Patrick R Quote: Just recently a friend told me that he bought a 33S to replace his 15C. He was so disappointed by the quality of the 33S that it almost immediately went to the dustbin ...Now it is rotting away in a drawer. He now considers buying a Casio. I have used the 33S for over a year now and I have to say that I have been pleasantly surprised by its performance. Is it perfect? No, but I also don't have to watch it like a hawk or worry about dropping it like I would my 41CV/42S/48GX models. The chevron pattern is more disturbing in pictures than in use. Besides, it is not bad for $20 each. (I bought 4) I certainly wouldn't trade a 33S for a comparable Casio, strictly based on my personal preferences. But, to each his own. Edited: 21 May 2007, 6:01 p.m.

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #53 Posted by bill platt on 21 May 2007, 6:27 p.m., in response to message #52 by Bob Where did you get a $20 33s?

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #54 Posted by Bob on 21 May 2007, 7:15 p.m., in response to message #53 by bill platt When Walmart had them on clearance last year, I bought them. Two of them have start with 527 and another one starts with 541. I gave one to a friend. I don't know what number it started with for sure, but it was in the 500's too. I just saw another one on the clearance rack the other day, but I wasn't sure I needed yet another one. When it gets down to $20, though I might go back and pick it up.

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #55 Posted by Ed Look on 22 May 2007, 12:19 p.m., in response to message #54 by Bob Yow! I saw the Wal-Mart clearance on HP-33Ss- they were charging $47 USD. I might have considered buying a second 33S, but not at $47 when I paid just a little more for the first one! $20! I'm jealous!!

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #56 Posted by Paul Brogger on 22 May 2007, 2:12 p.m., in response to message #52 by Bob The 33s is so freakin' beautiful inside that it's just possible to get past its outside. Even with its inherent limitations, that easiest-to-use 32s programming interface combined with essentially unlimited memory makes programming the 33s a sheer joy -- at least to this sub-RPL user. In something like the old Pioneer or Voyager packaging, it would be fabulous. As it is, I still find it very usable. (But, I repeat myself.)

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #57 Posted by Wayne Brown on 22 May 2007, 4:53 p.m., in response to message #56 by Paul Brogger Quote: The 33s is so freakin' beautiful inside that it's just possible to get past its outside. Not for me. Nothing is enough to get me past its outside.

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc (something like 33s?) Message #58 Posted by Walter B on 22 May 2007, 5:42 p.m., in response to message #56 by Paul Brogger Quote: In something like the old Pioneer or Voyager packaging, it (the 33s) would be fabulous. Fully agree. Quote: As it is, I still find it very usable. Completely disagree. But we had this discussion several times in this forum already, so I won't repeat it. Edited: 22 May 2007, 5:49 p.m.

Re: 35th Anniversary Calc Message #59 Posted by Patrick R on 23 May 2007, 6:40 a.m., in response to message #56 by Paul Brogger Quote: The 33s is so freakin' beautiful inside that it's just possible to get past its outside. I also completely disagree. You shouldn't forget that the (almost) only interaction with the calculator goes via the keyboard (input) and the display (output). As a professional (I am a physics teacher), I use calculators on a daily basis (most of the time a 10 year old 32Sii) for numerical calculations (in exercises and problems, for correcting tests etc.). As I want to work fast, efficiently and flawlessly, I have to trust my hardware to 100%. This is not possible when using confusing keyboards or bad responding keyboards. The keyboard of the calculator simply is the "key" for accurate and fast calculations. The currently produced HP calculators simply don't respond to these (my, and hopefully other's) needs. New funtions, more memory, bigger screens etc., are useless if it is no longer possible to interact adequately with the calculator. Sometimes HP is listening, so please, please, DO something!

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall