The Museum of HP Calculators

HP Forum Archive 21

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

21, 45, 32E--which should be next?
Message #1 Posted by Matt Agajanian on 23 Mar 2012, 5:50 p.m.

Hello all.

While each have their cool points, I'm wondering which should be my calc.

Yes, the 21's a next gen 35. I'm rather fond of the Woodstock styling. Although, am I right in that the algorithms for Woodstocks much improved? But then again, the 31E's also a souped up 35 & 21. Perhaps even better algorithms still (yikes, another calc to consider)

Yes the 32E's the step up from the 45, plus it's got more memory, two-variable stats and linear regression too.

So, which do you recommend. Also, perhaps you could chime in other features I've not mentioned.

Thanks

Edited: 23 Mar 2012, 5:51 p.m.

      
Re: 21, 45, 32E--which should be next?
Message #2 Posted by Walter B on 23 Mar 2012, 6:31 p.m.,
in response to message #1 by Matt Agajanian

Hello Matt,

That's a matter of personal preference. I still remember how impressed I was looking a the 45 and reading its features. Everything I could dream of that time - but far beyond my budget!

OTOH, the 21 is a nice solid calc, but at a significantly lower level, though I like the Woodstock design as you do. Far from the leading edge of technology, however. The 25C was running circles around it.

And the 32E is 'just another calculator'. At its time, the 34C was the one to go for - but expensive again.

Just my 20m :-)

            
Re: 21, 45, 32E--which should be next?
Message #3 Posted by M. Joury on 23 Mar 2012, 9:32 p.m.,
in response to message #2 by Walter B

Lets hear it for the 34C. I had a 41C at the time and being in college at that point really could not justify a 34C just because I wanted one. I now have several in my collection. As I noted in another post recently it is one of my favorite HP's.

Cheers,

-Marwan

      
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

Hello!

Quote:
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.

Regards, max

Edited: 24 Mar 2012, 5:57 a.m.

            
Re: 21, 45, 32E--which should be next?
Message #5 Posted by M. Joury on 24 Mar 2012, 9:19 a.m.,
in response to message #4 by Maximilian Hohmann

Quote:
Three out of four units that you can find today are defective

Interesting statistics there. I have over a dozen 32E, 33C, 34C, units and not one has been defective. Maybe I have just been lucky but it seems to me that with those numbers at least one should have failed. Now I do realize that all your assertions about the issues that this series suffered are correct but I do question the "3/4 are bad" bit.

Cheers,

-Marwan

                  
Re: 21, 45, 32E--which should be next?
Message #6 Posted by Walter B on 24 Mar 2012, 11:02 a.m.,
in response to message #5 by M. Joury

I concur with Marwan - based on my collection.

                  
Re: 21, 45, 32E--which should be next?
Message #7 Posted by Maximilian Hohmann on 24 Mar 2012, 12:46 p.m.,
in response to message #5 by M. Joury

Hi!

Quote:
Interesting statistics there. I have over a dozen 32E, 33C, 34C, units and not one has been defective.

My statistics come from the dozen or so that I have. Most of the non-working ones are damaged by corrosion from leaking batteries as there is nothing that separates the battery compartment from the calculator. Often the battery contacts (sometimes the whole PCB below them) are completely gone, including the socket for the power plug. Two have defective keyboards (a rare issue with old HP calculators), one has a defective display.

But the underlying source of those statistics is of course the price one pays for the calculators. If I am willing (and able) to spend 200+ Euros/Dollars (each!) for a dozen of "fully working and in good cosmetic shape" units, then I will get a dozen fully working units...

Regards, max

                        
Re: 21, 45, 32E--which should be next?
Message #8 Posted by Massimo Gnerucci (Italy) on 24 Mar 2012, 1:11 p.m.,
in response to message #7 by Maximilian Hohmann

21 Spices: 2 with a fault in one digit, one not working, 18 OK (more or less, I seem to remember). But yes, corrosion is almost always an issue. Mean price was way less than one fourth your 200 price tag.

And why the hell did I collect seven 31E? O.o

Greetings,
Massimo

Edited: 24 Mar 2012, 1:13 p.m.

                              
Re: 21, 45, 32E--which should be next?
Message #9 Posted by Matt Agajanian on 24 Mar 2012, 11:07 p.m.,
in response to message #8 by Massimo Gnerucci (Italy)

Now, now. Don't beat yourself up for that one. As somebody who just bought a 21 and, a week ago bought a 35, I can see merit in the 31 in that it's the 21 plus the 35 plus the LASTx register I wanted in the other to PLUS four memory registers too! Yes, the 31's a powerful, versatile and robust little dynamo.

                        
Re: 21, 45, 32E--which should be next?
Message #10 Posted by M. Joury on 24 Mar 2012, 4:07 p.m.,
in response to message #7 by Maximilian Hohmann

As with Massimo all of mine were less than 1/4 200 euro. So I would not say that mine were in any way special. Admittedly I got mine years ago and have not looked at prices recently.

Cheers,

-Marwan

                              
Re: 21, 45, 32E--which should be next?
Message #11 Posted by Massimo Gnerucci (Italy) on 24 Mar 2012, 4:12 p.m.,
in response to message #10 by M. Joury

Quote:
Admittedly I got mine years ago and have not looked at prices recently.

Ditto

            
Re: 21, 45, 32E--which should be next?
Message #12 Posted by Matt Agajanian on 24 Mar 2012, 11:34 a.m.,
in response to message #4 by Maximilian Hohmann

Well, take this for what it's worth. I am today returning a 32E I bought off eBay. It's the one I've been posting about with the bad diode. BUT, I found another and the description says it's in mint condition. But yes, the 21 does seem like it'll be a lot more fun and it's a Woodstock!

!!UPDATE!!! I JUST GOT THE 21!! In good condition, too!! Yes, from eBay.

Edited: 24 Mar 2012, 11:40 a.m.

            
Re: 21, 45, 32E--which should be next?
Message #13 Posted by Thomas Radtke on 24 Mar 2012, 2:48 p.m.,
in response to message #4 by Maximilian Hohmann

Quote:
Regarding the other two: The 45 is really boring and offers almost nothing that the 35 didn't already have.
The 45 adds *a lot* of memory and new functions.
                  
Re: 21, 45, 32E--which should be next?
Message #14 Posted by Matt Agajanian on 24 Mar 2012, 8:04 p.m.,
in response to message #13 by Thomas Radtke

Yes, that be so but, after thinking about it, for what the 45 has (in addition to it monstrous price tag on eBay), I already have in the 25 and 29C. As such, I also have my 32sII, 33s and 35s that I use as everyday calcs. The 45 though, I'd be way too protective and cautious of than to carry it out of the house. Especially due to the fact that I would have paid five C notes for it.

                        
Re: 21, 45, 32E--which should be next?
Message #15 Posted by Thomas Radtke on 25 Mar 2012, 2:48 a.m.,
in response to message #14 by Matt Agajanian

I haven't follow the prices recently. When I got mine, it was at about 25 EUR, and always less expensive than a 32SII. However, you cannot compare it to high end Woodstocks or Pioneers.

Of course, the 45 isn't something to carry around. Weight and power consumption make it impractical, and I'd never replace my 32SII with it.

If the 32SII is all you need functionality-wise, why changing? I tried the 35s and soon went back to it.


[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall