HP Forum Archive 20

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #1 Posted by Gerardo Rincon on 29 Jan 2011, 11:08 a.m. I have always wondered the reason why HP discontinued the HP-15C and decided to keep in production the HP-12C? Both the HP-12C and HP-15C calculators are what I would consider near perfect in calculator design and functionality.

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #2 Posted by Michael de Estrada on 29 Jan 2011, 11:44 a.m., in response to message #1 by Gerardo Rincon Totally different markets. The Hp-15c, as well as the HP-10c and HP-11c appealed to scientists and engineers who wanted to do programming, whereas the HP-12c was used by business and financial types who for the most part do not write programs. The programming capabilities if the HP-15c were severely limited and subsequent models with better programming capacity and features replaced it. Edited: 29 Jan 2011, 1:23 p.m.

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #3 Posted by bill platt on 29 Jan 2011, 1:13 p.m., in response to message #1 by Gerardo Rincon 42s

Re: Why was the HP-15C discontinued and not the HP-12C Message #4 Posted by Mike Morrow on 29 Jan 2011, 1:39 p.m., in response to message #1 by Gerardo Rincon Bill beat me to the answer...the HP 42S. But I'll add some detail. The HP 42S is very marginally longer than the 15C but is otherwise the same size. It has an order of magnitude more functionality which due to great alphanumeric support is much easier to use. It's five times faster and has much greater accuracy and precision in its numerical results. It has tone and beep audio output and IR printer output. It has about 16 times more RAM. I can't help but remark once again that the HP-15C's awkward and pointless landscape layout (for which no one cites an advantage other than attributes best summed up by "cuteness") alone is valid reason for HP not preserving that mistake in subsequent products other than endless primitive HP-12C re-treads. The HP-15C does, however, get consolation prize as the second best RPN calculator ever made. And, its color style is more attractive. (IMHO) The real question that should be asked is: "Why has a replacement as or more capable in the same size package as the HP 42S *not* been produced in the 23 years since the HP 42S was first introduced?" Edited: 29 Jan 2011, 2:05 p.m.

Re: Why was the HP-15C discontinued and not the HP-12C Message #5 Posted by Gerardo Rincon on 29 Jan 2011, 2:31 p.m., in response to message #4 by Mike Morrow Mike you are so correct in your statement: "The real question that should be asked is: "Why has a replacement as or more capable in the same size package as the HP 42S *not* been produced in the 23 years since the HP 42S was first introduced?" Also, Size does matter, and I don't like menus. One of the things I really like about the HP-15C is the size/portability and access to so many functions direct from the keyboard, without having to use Menus. Menus is the single reason I don't use my HP-30b at work (so many key strokes are needed just to execute a % change burried somewhere in a menu is an example). If the HP-35S were smaller, pocket size, it would be a wonderful calculator to use around the office. Edited: 29 Jan 2011, 2:52 p.m. after one or more responses were posted

Re: Why was the HP-15C discontinued and not the HP-12C Message #6 Posted by Jim Yohe on 29 Jan 2011, 2:52 p.m., in response to message #5 by Gerardo Rincon I'm beginning to dislike my 30b for that same reason of having to enter too many key strokes to get to functions deep down in menus.

Re: Why was the HP-15C discontinued and not the HP-12C Message #7 Posted by Don Shepherd on 29 Jan 2011, 3:58 p.m., in response to message #6 by Jim Yohe Guys, remember the 30b can bring any embedded function to a key of your choice with a simple program. If you are of a scientific-bent, immediately assign 6 desired functions to the TVM keys and AMORT on the top line and put a thin little sticky above them to note how you redefined them. Gene suggested this many times and it's a great idea. Don

Re: Why was the HP-15C discontinued and not the HP-12C Message #8 Posted by Mark Harman on 29 Jan 2011, 4:39 p.m., in response to message #7 by Don Shepherd Since I don't like the primary and shifted functions to be replaced, I will assign the nested and new functions as Shift-Hold functions. Thereby, acting as a second shift. I have a number of custom programs that I created that are assigned as shift-hold functions. For example, I have a program that will calculate combinations with repeating. Where did I put it? The logical spot - as a shift-hold function on the decimal key, thereby sharing the key with the shifted combinatorial function. I also added a Mod function that I placed as a shift-hold function on my multiplication key, amongst other things... Regards, Mark

Re: Why was the HP-15C discontinued and not the HP-12C Message #9 Posted by Mark Harman on 29 Jan 2011, 4:30 p.m., in response to message #5 by Gerardo Rincon I can understand the frustration regarding the menu system. However, there is no menu on this machine that is more than two levels deep. I can't say that about other menu-based calcs that HP has made (I mean, heck, the 17bII+ has one menu that is buried seven levels deep!). That being said, the percentage change function is not that hard to get to. Just shift % and arrow up and you're there. One thing that I think many users might neglect to learn is that the menus roll around, so one can start at the bottom of the menu if they want to save keystrokes. Still, if you really want to avoid that function altogether, just remember the percentage change formula. (New - Old)/ Old * 100 For example, if you want to know the change from 90 to 100, do the following: 100 enter 90 - 90 / 100* You should get 11.111 Now, of course, if any changes over multiple periods, that will require a few extra steps that I don't want to explain at this time. In this situation, the %Change menu function is very handy and more efficient than going through the steps. Regards, Mark Edited: 29 Jan 2011, 5:08 p.m.

Re: Why was the HP-15C discontinued and not the HP-12C Message #10 Posted by Mark Harman on 30 Jan 2011, 4:57 p.m., in response to message #5 by Gerardo Rincon Here is a program I whipped up really quick to add a straight %Change function to the 30b. I have it assigned as a Shift-hold to the percentage key. Use a high-numbered program space so you can keep the low numbered ones for processor-intensive programs. When programming it, scroll up to start at line zero so you can assign the key. Press Shift-hold % SH% Swap - Ans (this is the same as Lastx) / 1 0 0 * You can enter a message on line 9 so your function is represented. I entered in [delta symbol] % It takes 13 bytes and your checksum should be 050 To get it to work. Just enter in your old number first and the number it is changing to second, then hit shift-hold % to execute this function. For example, what is the percentage change from 80 to 200? 80 Input 200 shift-hold % Nine lines is all it takes - and now you can bring your 30b with you to work! Cheers, Mark Edited: 30 Jan 2011, 5:09 p.m.

Re: Why was the HP-15C discontinued and not the HP-12C Message #11 Posted by Crawl on 4 Feb 2011, 6:18 p.m., in response to message #5 by Gerardo Rincon Quote: Also, Size does matter, and I don't like menus. One of the things I really like about the HP-15C is the size/portability and access to so many functions direct from the keyboard, without having to use Menus. Menus is the single reason I don't use my HP-30b at work (so many key strokes are needed just to execute a % change burried somewhere in a menu is an example). If the HP-35S were smaller, pocket size, it would be a wonderful calculator to use around the office. Agreed -- sort of. I love the HP50g, menus and all. But I usually carry two calculators with me, a CAS graphing calculator, and a scientific with few / no menus for more basic number crunching. I think a 50g / 15c combination would work well with this mindset, but a 50g / 42 not so much.

Re: Why was the HP-15C discontinued and not the HP-12C Message #12 Posted by Ed Look on 5 Feb 2011, 12:51 p.m., in response to message #11 by Crawl Quote: I think a 50g / 15c combination would work well with this mindset, but a 50g / 42 not so much. Hmmm... you have something here. I carry and use exactly a combination of a 50g and a 33s (35s when teaching) at work and a 49g+ and 33s (or trusty ol' 32SII) at home. It seems that there is most often the need for quick calculations or simple programs that can be handled with a 33s or 35s (maybe not a 32SII) with minimum fuss. And then not always, but often enough, you need more programming power or maybe the storage and display and program running capability of the (50/49)g(+). The only issue with the graphing models is that it does take more time and trouble to program them as opposed to that taken with the scientifics.

Re: Why was the HP-15C discontinued and not the HP-12C Message #13 Posted by Håkan Thörngren on 29 Jan 2011, 4:58 p.m., in response to message #4 by Mike Morrow I would not say the Voyager series landscape being pointless. Granted, if you hold it in your hand it is really awkward, but the size is very attractive, and I tend to put the calculator on the table anyway. I find it easier to get closer to view the LCD on a Voyager when being busy with lots of things on the table. The vertical machines sometimes feel a bit tall, with the LCD getting a bit far away, this from my school memories. I think the vertical ENTER key was the biggest mistake, it is really pointless. Quote: I can't help but remark once again that the HP-15C's awkward and pointless landscape layout (for which no one cites an advantage other than attributes best summed up by "cuteness") alone is valid reason for HP not preserving that mistake in subsequent products other than endless primitive HP-12C re-treads.

Re: Why was the HP-15C discontinued and not the HP-12C Message #14 Posted by BruceH on 1 Feb 2011, 4:33 p.m., in response to message #13 by Håkan Thörngren Quote: I think the vertical ENTER key was the biggest mistake, it is really pointless. Turn the calculator 90 degrees. Now look at the key layout. Does it remind you of anything?

Re: Why was the HP-15C discontinued and not the HP-12C Message #15 Posted by reth on 29 Jan 2011, 10:53 p.m., in response to message #4 by Mike Morrow Quote: The HP-15C does, however, get consolation prize as the second best RPN calculator ever made. And where is, according to you, HP-41? Unless referring to the HP42S you mean both 41 and 42?

Re: Why was the HP-15C discontinued and not the HP-12C Message #16 Posted by Mike Morrow on 31 Jan 2011, 12:58 p.m., in response to message #15 by reth Quote: And where is, according to you, HP-41? Unless referring to the HP42S you mean both 41 and 42? The HP-41CX would be third best, if one doesn't need its magnetic card, time, bar-code, and HP-IL capabilities. I suspect that the vast majority of 41C users never had any need for bar-code and HP-IL, and if they need magnetic card features, then they'll have to have repaired the gummy wheel problem by now. The most outstanding feature of the HP-41C series over all *later* models is the excellent "best-in-class" keyboard quality. Otherwise, the HP-41C is more of a slightly faster, alpha-capable HP-15C with tone and printer output, but without the 15C's native solver, integrator, and complex number facilities. Even the Advantage Module doesn't do a good job of giving the 41C those capabilities of the 15C. I have the HP-41CX that I bought new 26 years ago, with most common accessories. It's nice, but I value my HP 42S units more. Much much more. Thanks for asking. Edited: 31 Jan 2011, 3:03 p.m.

Re: Why was the HP-15C discontinued and not the HP-12C Message #17 Posted by reth on 1 Feb 2011, 5:37 a.m., in response to message #16 by Mike Morrow Quote: HP-41C is more of a slightly faster, alpha-capable HP-15C with tone and printer output, but without the 15C's native solver, integrator, and complex number facilities Well to me and I guess to all surveyors of the time "native solver, integrator, and complex number facilities" are things we can't care less, and alpha-capabilities, the BEST EVER MADE keyboard plus reasonable amount of memory and IO made it THE BEST. The HP-42s is crippled in a way of professional use in my area. So I guess it's all a matter of a point of view. I wander how many calculators from each models are sold. Thanks for the answer and best regards, Reth

Re: Why was the HP-15C discontinued and not the HP-12C Message #18 Posted by uhmgawa on 30 Jan 2011, 8:55 a.m., in response to message #4 by Mike Morrow Quote: I can't help but remark once again that the HP-15C's awkward and pointless landscape layout (for which no one cites an advantage other than attributes best summed up by "cuteness") alone is valid reason for HP not preserving that mistake in subsequent products other than endless primitive HP-12C re-treads. Wow. I believe I've heard such an assessment before which equally mystified me. Personally the landscape configuration of the voyager series was the initial ergonomic attraction for myself to that model series. IMO any handheld calculator used as such requires two hands to pilot. With a landscape configuration digits of both hands are readily available for keypad duty where in a profile orientation the non-dominant hand holds the device and the other has at the keypad. In my experience tactile feedback and control is much greater when a key is actuated within the clutch of a hand vs. hand-to-hand in the case of a profile format. While a conventional vertical profile unit may be operated similarly with both hands, the natural coverage of both user "thumbs" falls into a wide horizontal vs. vertical area. Measured by marketing presence I see my preference is in the minority. However I can't imagine why a landscape configuration isn't the default for *every* handheld calculator.

Re: Why was the HP-15C discontinued and not the HP-12C Message #19 Posted by David Hayden on 31 Jan 2011, 6:58 a.m., in response to message #18 by uhmgawa Quote: IMO any handheld calculator used as such requires two hands to pilot. The woodstocks could be operated entirely with one hand. It's one thing I loved about my long lost 29C. You cradle the calculator in your fingers and operate it with your thumb. I did a lot of high school homework that way with the calculator in one hand and a pencil in the other. It was very efficient.

Landscape format Message #20 Posted by Frank Boehm (Germany) on 31 Jan 2011, 6:31 a.m., in response to message #4 by Mike Morrow Personally, I totally like landscape designs - not only for QWERTY layouts. Olympia CD 200 I find this a great concept - maybe not for left handed persons though <g>

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #21 Posted by Egan Ford on 29 Jan 2011, 2:34 p.m., in response to message #1 by Gerardo Rincon The 12C became an established standard for finance types. It became the de facto standard in classes, text books, real estate classes, etc... HP didn't discontinue the 12C because the demand after 30 years still exists. The TI-83 in high school enjoys the same success. The HP scientific line had to evolve to compete. The 15C was dropped for more capable and less expensive models. That evolution gave us the 42S--the peak of RPN scientific calculators. I'll never understand why things went downhill after that.

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #22 Posted by Don Shepherd on 29 Jan 2011, 4:01 p.m., in response to message #21 by Egan Ford Quote: I'll never understand why things went downhill after that. For the same reason that the 12c did NOT go away--demand. The same reason the 16c went away.

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #23 Posted by Karl Schneider on 29 Jan 2011, 2:37 p.m., in response to message #1 by Gerardo Rincon Gerardo -- HP introduced Pioneer-series replacements for both the Voyager-series HP-11C, HP-15C and the HP-12C -- the HP-32S, HP-42S and HP-17B -- but the HP-17B apparently did not achieve acceptance in the larger financial market as a replacement. Appearance and the lack of familiarity and compatibility may have played a role. The Voyager-series landscape layout that Mike Morrow continually criticizes is actually well-suited for desktop use, as financial people likely prefer. Thus, the HP-12C was continued, as demand still exists. I disagree with Michael de Estrada that the programming capabilities of the HP-15C were ostensibly "severely limited". That term might apply to those of the HP-10C and HP-12C, which lacked insert/delete editing as well as most of the programming features, and also offered far less RAM for the user. The HP-15C offered broad, cohesive functionality, along with ample programming features and sufficient resources to accomplish practically any task appropriate for that particular tool. However, its non-alphanumeric 7-segment display and limited program-management capabilities made the use and maintenance of permanent-residence programs rather inconvenient. -- Karl Edited: 29 Jan 2011, 4:49 p.m.

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #24 Posted by Mark Harman on 29 Jan 2011, 4:58 p.m., in response to message #23 by Karl Schneider I think also the fact that the 17B started out as an algebraic machine and the 10B series continues to be this way lent heavily to the 12c maintaining its demand. Mark

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #25 Posted by Karl Schneider on 29 Jan 2011, 5:29 p.m., in response to message #24 by Mark Harman Quote: I think also the fact that the 17B started out as an algebraic machine ... lent heavily to the 12c maintaining its demand. Yes, that's a major part of the "lack of ... compatibility" I had mentioned, although I'm not convinced that financial types would be tied to RPN. Even though the HP-17BII provided RPN and a dressier appearance to equal that of the HP-12C, the application programs written and published for the HP-12C remained incompatible with the HP-17B/BII, which did offer the fine algebraic solver. The HP-10B and HP-14B were not programmable in any fashion, although I'd prefer to use them over the HP-12C for standard finanacial calculations. -- Karl

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #26 Posted by Eric Smith on 29 Jan 2011, 6:17 p.m., in response to message #25 by Karl Schneider <i>although I'm not convinced that financial types would be tied to RPN.</i> A fairly large number of them ARE tied to RPN. They learned how to solve problems on the 12C don't want to relearn it differently, if they can avoid it. They'd rather just buy another 12C. It doesn't matter if a 17BII, 20B, or 30B might in some sense be easier to use than a 12C. It's easier yet to stick with what you already know. Having more features on a newer financial calculator will get some users to switch, but many are perfectly happy with the 12C and don't need the additional features.

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #27 Posted by db (martinez, ca.) on 29 Jan 2011, 6:49 p.m., in response to message #26 by Eric Smith A lot of bean counter types enter that one-strange-function as a program on their 12c too, along with the fine trig routines that have been posted here. This is my favorite though.

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #28 Posted by Don Shepherd on 29 Jan 2011, 8:20 p.m., in response to message #27 by db (martinez, ca.) db, what is the "one strange function" you are referring to? I'm curious.

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #29 Posted by Mark Harman on 29 Jan 2011, 8:32 p.m., in response to message #28 by Don Shepherd I'll take a stab at guessing. I think he is referring to the Black-Scholes function. Mark

that one missing function Message #30 Posted by db (martinez, ca.) on 31 Jan 2011, 12:54 a.m., in response to message #29 by Mark Harman Mark & Don; I should have said that one missing function. I've noticed that there's usually at least one thing that everyones favorite calculator (whichever) doesn't do and it's of course always something different. That's why we program, or set up the solver. That was especially true in the calcs with smaller memories and the 41 where more programs meant less data storage. I bet everyone here could name that one thing that should have been in ROM instead of xxxx. To which everyone else would reply "that's minor - the real omission is...."

Re: that one missing function Message #31 Posted by Mark Harman on 31 Jan 2011, 1:30 a.m., in response to message #30 by db (martinez, ca.) db, I get what you are saying now. Honestly, before I got my 30b, I used a TI BA II Plus Professional. It is a very nice device and served me well for a long time with its fairly robust function set and fair speed. However, there were functions that I always wanted to have that I could not add. It isn't a programmable device, so I got the functions it came with. When I did get my 30b, I was thrilled because, first, it had RPN and, second, it could be programmed. I have since added a number of functions to the calculator that I really enjoy having. I am at the point right now where I am considering starting a blog based on this device by posting some of my "programs" that I have thus far written... I also agree with your last sentence. It always seems like one user's specific request is less important than the one that another feels is important. Unfortunately, we can't get everything we want and, like I mentioned in another post, designers are always going to make a decision or compromise that will make one group of users happy while alienating another. Regards, Mark

Re: that one missing function Message #32 Posted by Don Shepherd on 31 Jan 2011, 2:21 a.m., in response to message #30 by db (martinez, ca.) Thanks, db, I see what you mean and I would agree. I once had a discussion with Katie, who consults for the financial types, about whether they typically use any programs on their 12c's. She said a lot of them actually do, but typically not programs they wrote themselves, rather programs written by someone else (frequently her) for the "one function they often need but isn't there". Given the 12c's program execution method and 99 line capacity, I would imagine they would be limited to a single function since otherwise they would have to GOTO a certain line number first for additional functions. They wouldn't have that restriction on the 30b since any key can activate whatever programmable function they want, but there is still the 290 byte limit on that machine. And you're certainly right about what that missing function would actually be. Like Mark said, it might be Black Scholes for the bean counters, but for me it would be something related to number theory. Thanks for clarifying. Don

Re: that one missing function Message #33 Posted by Thomas Klemm on 31 Jan 2011, 3:44 a.m., in response to message #32 by Don Shepherd My guess is you're missing a N-queens solver in the HP-17BII. Cheers Thomas

Re: that one missing function Message #34 Posted by Don Shepherd on 31 Jan 2011, 7:29 a.m., in response to message #33 by Thomas Klemm : )

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #35 Posted by Art Litka on 2 Feb 2011, 10:08 a.m., in response to message #27 by db (martinez, ca.) db, Thanks for this article! It looks like it will be useful and I will pass it on to my daughter as well as program it into one of my 12C's!

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #36 Posted by db (martinez, ca.) on 4 Feb 2011, 8:10 p.m., in response to message #35 by Art Litka Art; But what if she gets accustomed to RPN and wants daddy to loan her his favorites? Sure you gave her your heart long ago, but would you let her borrow your 55? -db

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #37 Posted by Art Litka on 6 Feb 2011, 5:48 p.m., in response to message #36 by db (martinez, ca.) db, The 55 is strictly "Mayan", not hers!

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #38 Posted by Martin Pinckney on 30 Jan 2011, 1:02 a.m., in response to message #24 by Mark Harman I wonder what the sales percentages are today for the Platinum vs. the regular 12c.

Re: Why was the HP-15C discontinued and not the HP-12C Message #39 Posted by Mike Morrow on 29 Jan 2011, 11:33 p.m., in response to message #23 by Karl Schneider Quote: The Voyager-series landscape layout that Mike Morrow continually criticizes is actually well-suited for desktop use... Karl, that is not much of a distinction. The exact same thing can be said for every HP calculator ever made (well...maybe not the HP 6S, et al), even that HP 9820 in my storage shed. But just as the 9820 is not a good handheld device, unfortunately neither is a Voyager. The HP 50g is easier to use as a *hand held* machine than the much smaller Voyager. That surprising disadvantage stems *solely* from the Voyager's landscape layout. I have large hands, still I find it impractical to hold a Voyager for use in one hand. The Voyager can not accurately be termed a "handheld" calculator if such use is impractical. Perhaps a Voyager should be called a "two-hands-held" or "mini-tabletop" calculator. Landscape works well only when the total width of the calculator is easily cupped in a typical-size palm. If the HP-15C could be scaled down until its width is about the same as a Pioneer's, I'd readily and enthusiastically buy several such machines. Such an item would be exciting on a number of levels! An HP 15CM (Mini) anyone? (I'm not holding my breath.) Edited: 30 Jan 2011, 12:09 a.m.

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #40 Posted by Michael de Estrada on 30 Jan 2011, 12:09 a.m., in response to message #39 by Mike Morrow When it comes down to it, the best handheld HP calcs were the Woodstocks. They were by far the narrowest of HP's pocket RPN calcs and weighed only 1.6 oz more than a Pioneer. Despite having very small hands, I can both hold and operate my Woodstocks with one hand, something I cannot do with any other of my HP calcs. When placed in a shirt pocket, they were no taller than a Voyager, and least likely to fall out if you bent over. And their battery pack design made it a snap to swap batteries.

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #41 Posted by Mike Morrow on 30 Jan 2011, 12:22 a.m., in response to message #40 by Michael de Estrada I agree about the Woodstock's great characteristic as a handheld device. The mechanically sturdy arrangement of the Woodstock is re-assuring. I'd love to have an HP-34C (very flimsy mechanically) in a Woodstock body (same number of keys...30). But I could also fall for an HP-15C (or an HP 42S) in a Woodstock body as well. But the HP-15C has 39 keys, and the HP 42S has 37, which are significant increases above the Woodstock's 30 keys.

Re: Why was the HP-15C discontinued and not the HP-12C Message #42 Posted by Martin Pinckney on 30 Jan 2011, 1:12 a.m., in response to message #39 by Mike Morrow Mike, I think the first point is that most people do not use their calculator hand-held most of the time, so the LS format of the Voyagers becomes moot. That being the case, the other things about Voyagers that are appealing (compactness and style) come to the forefront. Yes, you are correct about the 42s being so great, but the second point is many have stated they do not like a menu-driven interface. This accounts for the continuing popularity of both the 15c and the 32sii, which you also don't like. Different strokes...

Re: Why was the HP-15C discontinued and not the HP-12C Message #43 Posted by robert rozee on 30 Jan 2011, 8:38 a.m., in response to message #42 by Martin Pinckney the whole battle over landscape versus portrait format is starting to wear a little thin methinks. i have a 20s and an 11c, and like both. as far as i am aware they are all called POCKET calculators, which makes no reference as to how one should use said calculator once you have removed it from your pocket at the "location of calculation". the term 'handheld' only really came into use much later with the advent of small handheld computers like the sharp PC-1211, most of which happened to be portrait format! Edited: 30 Jan 2011, 8:40 a.m.

Re: Why was the HP-15C discontinued and not the HP-12C Message #44 Posted by Mike Morrow on 30 Jan 2011, 1:43 p.m., in response to message #43 by robert rozee Quote: the whole battle over landscape versus portrait format is starting to wear a little thin Your threshold for perceiving a "battle" is too low. Quote: as far as i am aware they are all called POCKET calculators As far as I an aware they are all not. Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur. In any event, that completely misses the point of the discussions. The Voyagers could have been designed with portrait layout and been otherwise exactly the same size, shape, weight, style, and function...plus sit just as well on a table top. What rationale justified choosing the layout that makes the unit inarguably impractical to use in hand, yet provides no advantages to justify that choice? History shows that HP did not repeat the mistake again in a new design during the 30 years following Voyager introduction. It appears that HP came to the obvious conclusion. There are a *lot* of good reasons to like the Voyagers, especially the HP-15C. I like them...I've got two, and a couple of HP-12C units as well. I believe that most Voyager fans have recognized the many great characteristics and unconsciously or uncritically included the unique layout as an integral part of what makes the machine great. But no one has ever been able to coherently explain any *advantage* that stems from the landscape layout. "Cute" and "different" and "I just like it" are subjective artistic-type considerations that do not provide a real answer to the question. But maybe it *is* just like the tail fins on some 1959 Buick automobiles! :-) None of us can change the Voyager design, so it could be termed of little value to discuss. But...this is a forum. Perhaps some day someone who helped make such decisions will contribute. Or maybe not. Perhaps someone will present information that will reshape a concept for myself or others. Or maybe not. Such discussions take place on all forums for all subjects. That's why forums exist!

The rationale of "landscape" layout, in detail Message #45 Posted by Karl Schneider on 30 Jan 2011, 3:31 p.m., in response to message #44 by Mike Morrow Quote: But no one has ever been able to coherently explain any *advantage* that stems from the landscape layout. "Cute" and "different" and "I just like it" are subjective artistic-type considerations that do not provide a real answer to the question. Mike -- Those insinuations are far from the truth. Many people here have plainly and coherently explained the advantages, appeal, and rationale for this and other things you seem to despise, yet you continually ignore it and then re-hash your predictable "talking points" a few months later, or even subsequently in the same thread (for example, after Håkan Thörngren posted in this one). Certainly for actual handheld use, the portrait layout is ideal. I suspect that many users of the HP-35 and successors took them to construction sites and other "field" locations. However, many or most users in the early 1980's -- such as office workers and students -- would place the calculator near the front of a tabletop or desktop, using it to calculate numbers to write on their papers. In that era, few people had a PC or computer terminal on their desks. Thus, no pull-out keyboard trays to move the user away from the desk or table. 90% of people are also right-handed, and would press the keys with that hand. With all of that in mind, the Voyager-series portrait layout made perfect sense. These calc's also have the display window offset to the left, shift keys in the lower-left corner, and data-entry keys on the right side, but just to the left of the arithmetic keys. With the calc placed to the user's right near the edge of the desk, the following ergonomic advantages were achieved: The display window is moved a few inches closer to the user than with portrait layout. The user's right hand is moved in a natural side-to-side motion to reach keys, instead of a back-and-forth ("to and fro") motion that involves the user's upper arm. The shift keys can be pressed with the right thumb, if desired. Most "operation" and transcedental-function keys (other than arithmetic) are not obstructed by the user's hand while entering data. Yes, HP thought this through quite well. Portable computers of the era, such as the HP-71B and the models by Sharp also used this layout for similar reasons. Please note that "cuteness", "different", and "artisan" had nothing to do with them. (The HP-71B and HP-75 were too large to reasonably use as handhelds, anyway.) Also remember that HP was selling the HP-41 as a calculator well-suited for handheld field use, with its expandability, advanced programmability, and limited data-storage capability. The HP-34C was also available as a handheld alternative, up until 1983. The Voyager-series models, however, were not really intended for field use. By the latter 1980's, the modus operandi of office work was evolving. Most white-collar workers began to get PC's for their desks, along with pull-out keyboard trays for entering numbers into documents, e-mails, or even spreadsheets in some cases. The user was no longer sitting next to the calculator placed on the edge of the desk surface, and would no longer write the calculated result onto paper placed nearby on the desktop. Hand-held use was becoming the norm, dictating a portrait layout for the Pioneer series. Students, meanwhile, continued to use desks without PC's, as Håkan and others could attest. The landscape layout worked great for that. One final point: HP's landscape layout isn't optimal for those who want to operate the calculator with their left hand, but is still workable. It should be noted that telephones have long been optimally configured for right-handed operation and left-handed listening -- even more so with rotary dialing. Predominant right-handedness of people is why the dials were turned clockwise, and why the handset is plugged into the left side of the phone. The objective was to optimize ergonomics for the most-typical method of usage -- something that, unfortunately, is often not achieved in modern consumer produtcts. Alles klar? Coherent enough? -- Karl Edited: 31 Jan 2011, 2:06 a.m. after one or more responses were posted

Re: The rationale of "landscape" layout, in detail Message #46 Posted by Martin Pinckney on 30 Jan 2011, 6:38 p.m., in response to message #45 by Karl Schneider Karl, Coherent and well thought-out explanation of the evolution of the calculator form factor. It brought to mind scenes I had not thought of for a few years. When I started working in Florida in 1986, the company supplied calculators to anyone who needed one. The model they supplied - because the company President thought it was the best - was the 11c. I remember him remarking that the 15c was overkill. I remember people using them just the way you said, on the corner of a desk or drawing board, where the LS format worked perfectly. Mike, You are right about this being a forum for the free exchange of ideas and opinions. What's annoying sometimes is when you present your opinions as incontrovertible fact, even in the face of others giving reasons why they prefer something different. For example uhmgawa's explanation of how, for him, the LS format actually works better as a handheld.

Re: The rationale of "landscape" layout, in detail Message #47 Posted by Mike Morrow on 1 Feb 2011, 2:54 p.m., in response to message #46 by Martin Pinckney Quote: What's annoying sometimes is when you present your opinions as incontrovertible fact... Hi Martin, It's a common forum technique, designed to provoke a counter response and discussion. All assertions (including...even especially...mine own) expressed on a forum are, without necessity of labeling, made with an implied "in my opinion" caveat. Concrete facts and details obviously represent an exception. My outlooks come from 39 years of calculator use, 35 years of HP ownership in particular, during which time I have owned every model about which I've expressed opinion and developed not just a few comments on each. If I were not interested in other viewpoints, I'd refrain from bringing any of my views to the fore on the forum. I've had my run on this issue. I thank every one who voiced contrary positions and stated the basis.

Re: The rationale of "landscape" layout, in detail Message #48 Posted by Martin Pinckney on 1 Feb 2011, 4:28 p.m., in response to message #47 by Mike Morrow Quote: It's a common forum technique, designed to provoke a counter response and discussion. It works! Quote: All assertions ... are, without necessity of labeling, made with an implied "in my opinion" caveat. Good point. That's what I keep trying to tell my wife!

Re: The rationale of "landscape" layout, in detail Message #49 Posted by Garth Wilson on 30 Jan 2011, 7:28 p.m., in response to message #45 by Karl Schneider Quote: Portable computers of the era, such as the HP-71B [...] (The HP-71B and HP-75 were too large to reasonably use as handhelds, anyway.) I was able to type at 30wpm on the 71B when in my full-featured text editor, so I was glad they did the landscape layout there. Edited: 30 Jan 2011, 7:28 p.m.

Re: The rationale of "landscape" layout, in detail Message #50 Posted by John B. Smitherman on 31 Jan 2011, 3:04 p.m., in response to message #49 by Garth Wilson My sliderule used the landscape layout as well. John

Re: The rationale of "landscape" layout, in detail Message #51 Posted by Martin Pinckney on 31 Jan 2011, 3:21 p.m., in response to message #50 by John B. Smitherman I have a circular one. Sure to please everyone. Or no one.

Re: The rationale of "landscape" layout, in detail Message #52 Posted by Mike Morrow on 1 Feb 2011, 1:29 p.m., in response to message #45 by Karl Schneider Karl, Thanks for taking the time to produce the canonical list of the advantages of the Voyager being made in landscape rather than portrait layout: Quote: ...the Voyager-series portrait layout made perfect sense...the following ergonomic advantages were achieved: The display window is moved a few inches closer to the user than with portrait layout. The user's right hand is moved in a natural side-to-side motion to reach keys, instead of a back-and-forth ("to and fro") motion that involves the user's upper arm. The shift keys can be pressed with the right thumb, if desired. Most "operation" and transcedental-function keys (other than arithmetic) are not obstructed by the user's hand while entering data. I have some remarks/questions on that list: I agree that this advantage exists. Is it likely that a significant number of users found the advantage to having a calculator's display at most two inches (46 mm) closer was worth a keyboard layout that precluded effective use as a handheld calculator? I agree that this advantage exists. Is it likely that a significant number of users found enough advantage to having a calculator keyboard layout that encouraged right-left rather than down-up hand motion, three inches (72 mm) maximum, was worth a keyboard layout that precluded effective use as a handheld calculator? I disagree with your premise. The shift-key-on-left quality has NOTHING to do with landscape vs. portrait advantages. The Pioneers *also* have the shift key on the left side allowing right thumb use just as effectively as you suggest the Voyager allows. IIRC, all HP calculators since the HP-41C have placed the shift key(s) on the left side. Further, were this in fact to be considered an advantage for either layout, it would be one for RIGHT hand users only. I disagree with your premise. The quality that you cite of the Voyager layout placing the various function keys on the left where the keys are not obscured illustrates a problem or advantage that occurs BECAUSE of the landscape layout. You describe the arrangement as an advantage, but it is only that for RIGHT handed users. It's a problem for LEFT handed users. In contrast, the portrait layout is a decided advantage in this area because these function keys are not obscured regardless of the user being LEFT or RIGHT handed. Frankly, I had never considered that, and I thank you for noting yet another advantage to the portrait layout. Quote: The Voyager-series models, however, were not really intended for field use. I doubt that limiting the theater of use was in HP's design objectives ("intent") for the Voyager. Any citation of such a concession at HP would be of interest. Quote: HP's landscape layout isn't optimal for those who want to operate the calculator with their left hand, but is still workable. Still, you're talking about two-handed use. However, it is use in-hand, with that hand, which is the acid test. Most portrait layout models may be used with varying degrees of ease completely one-handed while hand held. Even the HP 50G. The small Voyagers do not possess that characteristic. I don't have any objection to landscape layout that doesn't stem simply from the fact that, as implemented in the Voyagers, it makes hand held operation inefficient. Any perceived advantages, as have been recently presented, do not compensate for that. However, a mini-Voyager that was scaled down to be about the same width of HP portrait models would completely overcome the objections that I have to the design. Quote: Alles klar? Coherent enough? Meine Frage auch. Edited: 1 Feb 2011, 2:33 p.m.

Re: The rationale of "landscape" layout, in detail Message #53 Posted by Karl Schneider on 2 Feb 2011, 1:25 a.m., in response to message #52 by Mike Morrow Mike -- A few comments: 1. Thank you for using ALL CAPS to emphasize the words, "NOTHING", "BECAUSE", "LEFT" (twice), and "RIGHT" (thrice). Else, I (we?) might not have grasped their full significance... Quote: "The shift-key-on-left quality has NOTHING to do with landscape vs. portrait advantages... 2. Thank you for the revelation. Indeed -- that, along with arithmetic keys to the right of data-entry (number) keys -- had more to do with optimization for right-handed use, as with the Pioneer series. While quoting me, you omitted a sentence that mentioned certain attributes distinct from landscape layout: "These calc's also have the display window offset to the left, shift keys in the lower-left corner, and data-entry keys on the right side, but just to the left of the arithmetic keys. 3. Notwithstanding your statement that included all the capitalized LEFT's and RIGHT's, an HP-15C placed on a desktop/tabletop to the left of the user can be operated adroitly with the left hand. It's not absolutely optimal in all aspects, but it's certainly not a "problem", either. Quote: Still, you're talking about two-handed use. Most portrait layout models may be used with varying degrees of ease completely one-handed while hand held. Even the HP 50G. 4. No I wasn't; I was talking about desktop use. As for one-handed hand-held use, those "degrees of ease" might range from 'effortless' for those with hands like baseball gloves to 'unworkable' for the rest of us when using a larger model. Quote: However, a mini-Voyager that was scaled down to be about the same width of HP portrait models... ... would be a credit-card-sized uCalc. I wouldn't want to try cramming an HP-15C's functionality onto it. Quote: My outlooks come from 39 years of calculator use, 35 years of HP ownership in particular, during which time I have owned every model about which I've expressed opinion... 5. Is this intended to convince us that you have special insight? Most of us have used HP's for 20+ years, not that it takes that long to form assessments. Many of us have fairly-complete collections, too. My basic point: HP did not, shall we say, 'blunder' with the landscape layout of the Voyager series, as you have repeatedly opined. The engineers knew what they were doing, and likely had solid reasons for the decisions they made at the time. My own well-documented observations suggest that every detail of the HP-15C was carefully considered. The apparent objective of the Voyager-series design was to optimize ergonomics for routine desktop-placed use by students and office workers who dominated the market, with a modest bias in favor of the 90% of people who are right-handed. The HP-15C is the only calc I owned through most of the 1980's and 1990's, and that's how I used it then -- placed on the desktop. This is no longer the case for myself and countless others, who use PC keyboards on pull-out trays that all but necessitate hand-held use of calculators. The portrait layout is much better for that purpose, and HP probably recognized that as well in the latter half of the 1980's. -- Karl Edited: 2 Feb 2011, 11:11 p.m. after one or more responses were posted

Habitat of pull out trays? Message #54 Posted by Walter B on 2 Feb 2011, 2:22 a.m., in response to message #53 by Karl Schneider Quote: ... countless others, who use PC keyboards on pull-out trays that all but necessitate hand-held use of calculators. The portrait layout is much better for that ... I remember having seen such trays decades ago, but no more in modern offices on this side of the Atlantic. I wonder they are still popular in the USA, or are these just old desks?

Re: The rationale of "landscape" layout, in detail Message #55 Posted by Mike Morrow on 2 Feb 2011, 12:43 p.m., in response to message #53 by Karl Schneider Karl, Thanks (seriously!) for the time and effort you've taken to explain your position. It's all been well worth reading. BTW, I am guilty of using a capitalized individual word at times for emphasis on that word. It seems to me to lend a voice-type conversational characteristic. IMO, a phrase in caps is shouting, not a single word, though there's no internet forum standard that supports my position. I had no other purpose beyond that with my use of a capitalized word. I apologize for causing offense.

Re: The rationale of "landscape" layout, in detail Message #56 Posted by Walter B on 2 Feb 2011, 3:27 p.m., in response to message #55 by Mike Morrow FYI, there's an opportunity to underline, what shall be emphasized. Capitalizing takes less effort though.

Re: The rationale of "landscape" layout, in detail Message #57 Posted by Egan Ford on 2 Feb 2011, 4:53 p.m., in response to message #56 by Walter B Or, italic--my preference. Of course bold is an option too. Old-school net-etiquette for emphasis is still used, e.g. *emphasized*. Some online forums (not this one :-), actually interpret *statement* and will display italic.

Re: The rationale of "landscape" layout, in detail Message #58 Posted by BruceH on 1 Feb 2011, 4:30 p.m., in response to message #45 by Karl Schneider Quote: The display window is moved a few inches closer to the user than with portrait layout. A practical consequence of this is that when you are a stock exchange trader on a narrow cramped desk with several screens and keyboards and precious little spare space, it is easy to slide your computer keyboard back a couple of inches in order to put the 12C on the edge of the desk, in front of it. A landscape calculator means you have to move your keyboard much further back which might not be possible. Edited: 1 Feb 2011, 4:30 p.m.

Re: The rationale of "landscape" layout, in detail Message #59 Posted by Walter B on 1 Feb 2011, 4:36 p.m., in response to message #58 by BruceH Quote: ... when you are a stock exchange trader ..., it is easy to slide your computer keyboard back a couple of inches in order to put the 12C on the edge of the desk, in front of it. A landscape calculator means you have to move your keyboard much further back which might not be possible. One more proof of financial people losing contact to the real world: How shall they know what landscape means? d;-) Edited correcting an error in a foreign language. Edited: 2 Feb 2011, 7:52 a.m.

Re: The rationale of "landscape" layout, in detail Message #60 Posted by BruceH on 2 Feb 2011, 6:15 p.m., in response to message #59 by Walter B Doh! I'm so keen on landscape calcs that my fingers can barely bring themselves to type 'portrait'. ;-)

Re: The rationale of "landscape" layout, in detail Message #61 Posted by Jim Yohe on 2 Feb 2011, 8:41 p.m., in response to message #58 by BruceH I think you mean in portrait layout you'd have to push your keyboard further back. Landscape layout would give you a little more room to pull your keyboard closer to you.

Re: The rationale of "landscape" layout, in detail Message #62 Posted by David Hayden on 2 Feb 2011, 7:34 a.m., in response to message #45 by Karl Schneider To me, the important thing for HP to recognize is that different people have different preferences. I think it's important for them to produce calculators in a variety of form factors. I also think it's crucial on the high end machines to allow assignable keys and way for the user to know which functions are assigned to which keys. The 50g has thousands of functions but I suspect that each user has a small number that they use frequently. Ideally, they would assign these functions to less used keys. I really liked the 41C series with its removable keyboard overlay and the fact that holding down the key showed the name of the function it would invoke. Again, my point here isn't that form factor X is "better" than factor Y, or that A should be on the keyboard rather than function B. My point is that these factors vary from person to person and the manufacturer should design with this in mind. Thus a scientific calculator in the landscape format would be a nice addition, as would a physical change to allow keyboard overlays on all models that support assignable keys. Dave

Re: Why was the HP-15C discontinued and not the HP-12C Message #63 Posted by bill platt on 31 Jan 2011, 2:25 p.m., in response to message #39 by Mike Morrow Hi Mike, You dislike the voyagers because you never learned to read sideways;-)

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #64 Posted by Paul Gaster on 31 Jan 2011, 1:28 a.m., in response to message #1 by Gerardo Rincon Don't forget that the 12C is approved for several professional financial exams and has been for a long time.

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #65 Posted by Anthony (USA) on 1 Feb 2011, 4:48 p.m., in response to message #1 by Gerardo Rincon There's a petition to bring back HP 15c. <http://hp15c.org/petition.php>

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #66 Posted by Michael de Estrada on 1 Feb 2011, 5:10 p.m., in response to message #65 by Anthony (USA) That petition has been around forever. I submitted my vote many years ago. It has about the same chance of success as getting a Democratic governor in Texas.

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #67 Posted by Martin Pinckney on 1 Feb 2011, 5:21 p.m., in response to message #66 by Michael de Estrada Score: Democrat - 39 Republican - 6

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #68 Posted by Mark Harman on 1 Feb 2011, 5:23 p.m., in response to message #66 by Michael de Estrada Tell that to the late Ann Richards... Regards, Mark

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #69 Posted by Michael de Estrada on 1 Feb 2011, 5:53 p.m., in response to message #68 by Mark Harman She was an outlier and ran against a complete moron. How much do you care to bet we'll see another Democratic governor in Texas any time soon?

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #70 Posted by Martin Pinckney on 1 Feb 2011, 8:45 p.m., in response to message #69 by Michael de Estrada Quote: She was an outlier ... See my post above.

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #71 Posted by Michael de Estrada on 1 Feb 2011, 8:57 p.m., in response to message #70 by Martin Pinckney I know, but times have changed. Looking to the realistic future, there's just as much chance of the resurrection of the HP-15c as there is of getting a future Democratic governor in Texas. ;)

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #72 Posted by Martin Pinckney on 1 Feb 2011, 9:10 p.m., in response to message #71 by Michael de Estrada I'll take your word on Texas politics, but I still think we will see a 15c+. 2012 is 30 years.

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #73 Posted by Gerardo Rincon on 1 Feb 2011, 9:21 p.m., in response to message #72 by Martin Pinckney What a great thought! I would buy many of them and even give them as gifts!

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #74 Posted by Etienne Victoria on 3 Feb 2011, 6:00 a.m., in response to message #1 by Gerardo Rincon Because the Hp-12C sold and still sells. Etienne

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #75 Posted by Patrick Rendulic on 4 Feb 2011, 3:56 a.m., in response to message #74 by Etienne Victoria If they stopped making the 15c because of the 42s then why did they stop making the 42s? There is no replacement, they simply stopped making it. People always say that there is a market for the 12c but not for a 15c or a 42s. In my view that's bullshit. Students, engineers and scientists need calculators with "scientific" capabilities. It is just normal that nowadays they use Casios and TIs because there no longer is an alternative from HP, readily available.

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #76 Posted by Eric Smith on 4 Feb 2011, 4:24 a.m., in response to message #75 by Patrick Rendulic HP makes the 35s for those people. We could debate the merits of the 35s vs. the 15C and 42S, but the reality is that most students, engineers, and scientists that need a scientific calculator don't want or need more than a fairly basic one. The 35s is actually overkill for them. I don't think they stopped making the 15C because of the 42S. I think they stopped making the 15C because sales of the 15C tapered off. Richard Nelson has related the story of the 42S discontinuation, which was that Educalc was selling a moderate number of them, but that NO OTHER HP DEALER was selling any significant number. In other words, the sales of the 42S had tapered off also. Some people seem to think there are big conspiracies or extreme stupidity going on in product discontinuation, but the reality is that HP, like almost any other company, discontinues products when they stop bringing in revenue. There are only rare exceptions to that. [I don't work for HP; these are just my personal opinions.]

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #77 Posted by Ron Ross on 4 Feb 2011, 1:20 p.m., in response to message #75 by Patrick Rendulic Also, if I remember correctly, the Hp48S and then the Hp48G were made available for only a few dollars more. In fact the Hp48g was selling for $100 on the street when the Hp42s was still selling for $120. While a professional would still buy an Hp42s, that likely professional ALREADY had an Hp42s. A student who wanted a graphing calculator, more memory, ability to share programs would buy the Hp48G (or better). And Hp realized that for every Hp42s sold, they probably lost the sale of an Hp48G (which was a two tiered sale, ie a student who buys an Hp48G, might then upgrade to an HP48GX!!! KA Ching!! Two sales). Under such market conditions, it is no wonder the Hp42s was discontinued. Had Hp sold the Hp42s for $70-80, it would have sold much better, but then it would have definitely robbed sales from the Hp48G line and still would have been dropped.

Re: Why was the HP-15C dicontinued and not the HP-12C Message #78 Posted by Mike Morrow on 4 Feb 2011, 5:40 p.m., in response to message #77 by Ron Ross Ron, I believe you have identified all the key aspects for why the HP 42S was discontinued. I had used an HP-15C almost daily in my job as a nuclear plant control room engineer and supervisor. In 1997, after eleven years of 15C use, I decided to retire the beloved 15C and get the current equivalent model in HP's line. That happened to be the HP 32SII, because the HP 42S had been discontinued in 1995. I very quickly found the 32SII to be woefully inadequate as replacement for the 15C. And...two years after the 42S had been discontinued, typical prices on the used market were at least double the pre-1995 price. (IIRC, Edu-Calc sold the 42S for $95 before discontinuance.) (Momentary tangent follows: The college bookstore at U. of Alabama at Huntsville did not believe in discounting old stock to encourage sales. There I found (still in 1997) two **new** HP 42S units that had been on the shelf for more than **four** years...so long that the batteries were dead! I bought both for $114 each. The last 42S that I bought I found in the box, open but unused, at a ham radio flea market last year. The last 15C I bought was also at a ham radio flea market (used, with manual...$10!). Places like that can gold mines for old calculators.) The thing that aggravates me is that the HP scientific calculators (33S, 35S) that followed copied the inadequacies and limitations of the 32SII. How much would it have cost to put most 42S capabilities in the 33S and 35S during the development phase? I suspect the answer is that HP still thought that they'd be creating competition with their top-end HP 49G+/50G model. I suspect that the same fear exists today, which makes it unlikely that we'll ever again see a small HP calculator with 42S capability. Edited: 4 Feb 2011, 6:02 p.m.

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall