|Re: 21, 45, 32E--which should be next?|
Message #4 Posted by Maximilian Hohmann on 24 Mar 2012, 5:56 a.m.,
in response to message #1 by Matt Agajanian
So, which do you recommend. Also, perhaps you could chime in other features I've not mentioned.
If I had to pick one of those three out of my box, it would always be the 21. I like pocket calculators to be small and Woodstocks simply have that "cuteness" factor that's missing from all other HP calcs.
Also, the 21 is a very functional calculator even today. Put in two inexpensive 2000-2500mAh NiMH cells and you can use it for weeks and weeks between recharging. (Always charge the batteries of Woodstocks externally! There are lots of threads regarding this issue.)
And regarding the functions: Personally, I would not do anything with a pocket calculator that a 21 can't do. We live in the year 2012 and there are better tools for complex calculations than pocket calculators, however sophisticated they might me.
Regarding the other two: The 45 is really boring and offers almost nothing that the 35 didn't already have. They could have gone straight from the 35 to the programmable 55. If your collector's heart looks for something special, you might consider the 46 instead. It is the (much rarer) desktop printing version of the 45. A _must_ for every HP collection.
The 32 belongs to the worst series - mechanically speaking - of calculators that HP ever made. Three out of four units that you can find today are defective (compared to maybe one out of ten of the earlier 35 and 45!). Even if you find a working one, it may fail under your fingers after an hour of playing with it. The cheap plastic breaks from only looking at it. This also explains the relatively high price of working units from this series: There are not many left.
Edited: 24 Mar 2012, 5:57 a.m.