HP Forum Archive 21

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

95C--Seemed like a good idea at the time Message #1 Posted by Matt Agajanian on 13 Apr 2012, 11:38 p.m. Hi all. I've been thinking. Perhaps either the 95C was ahead of its time. Or was it that there were too many similar calculators in all three lines at the time--Woodstock, Topcat and Classic which would've washed out the the strengths of the 95C? On that note, did HP incorporate any 95C features & concepts in the models which were produced? In any case, despite HP's shelving the project, would the 95C have been successful?

Re: 95C--Seemed like a good idea at the time Message #2 Posted by Geoff Quickfall on 14 Apr 2012, 1:41 a.m., in response to message #1 by Matt Agajanian Hi Matt A good reference would be by Wlodek Mier-Jedrzejowicz, Ph.D Guide to HP Handheld Calculators and Computers Or anything written by him! Cheers, Geoff Try googling his name and see the wealth of information that arises!

Re: 95C--Seemed like a good idea at the time Message #3 Posted by Eric Smith on 14 Apr 2012, 2:29 a.m., in response to message #1 by Matt Agajanian There wasn't enough room in the product line for three scientific printing calculators, so they kept the low-end (91) and high end (97). The "excluded middle" isn't always a bad thing. :-) The odd part isn't that they cancelled the 95C, so much as that they planned it in the first place.

Re: 95C--Seemed like a good idea at the time Message #4 Posted by Namir on 14 Apr 2012, 6:30 a.m., in response to message #1 by Matt Agajanian There is no reason that someone can get hold of a copy of the manual (on the museum's DVDs) and craft and emulator for the machine! Namir Edited: 14 Apr 2012, 10:42 a.m.

Re: 95C--Seemed like a good idea at the time Message #5 Posted by Jake Schwartz on 14 Apr 2012, 11:45 a.m., in response to message #1 by Matt Agajanian Quote: On that note, did HP incorporate any 95C features & concepts in the models which were produced? One feature which only returned with the 33S/35S a whole 27 years later was separate program "spaces" designated with a letter of the alphabet. With the 95C, it was programs "A" through "D", with steps A001, A002, etc. through D001, D002, etc. and of course, with the later models, it was A through Z. Jake

Re: 95C--Seemed like a good idea at the time Message #6 Posted by Katie Wasserman on 14 Apr 2012, 3:07 p.m., in response to message #5 by Jake Schwartz What about the 32s/ii? The 32s was introduced in 1988 so only an 11 year gap.

Re: 95C--Seemed like a good idea at the time Message #7 Posted by Jake Schwartz on 15 Apr 2012, 10:11 a.m., in response to message #6 by Katie Wasserman Quote: What about the 32s/ii? The 32s was introduced in 1988 so only an 11 year gap. Whoops! My bad.

Re: 95C--Seemed like a good idea at the time Message #8 Posted by Matt Agajanian on 14 Apr 2012, 4:47 p.m., in response to message #5 by Jake Schwartz Well yes indeed those too. Even though the 32S/SII and 33S only branch to labels, I'll say that I can now see the 95C influence. But, from what I can gather, the full 95C implementation was offered in the 35S. Edited: 14 Apr 2012, 5:00 p.m.

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall