11212014, 12:20 AM
Two days ago I found an emulator not asking for any key, registration or payment on an HP support site, yesterday this page was gone; only a few Q&A left explaining things findable in the manual (or on MoHPC) with slightly more effort. Just three days ago I had received my 'spare' 35s (you never know), that obviously someone had returned to the store (it has the known bugs, otherwise it's ok, no different rev.). My hope is still to become a happy WP 31s and WP 34s owner, maybe even a WP 43s?
Like others here I find myself using the 35s more and more despite it's size and shortcomings of which most annoying to me is that some RPN function positions moved against the 15C e.g. (RCL STO Rdn x<>y no more around ENTER, but a "()" primary function key that does nothing in RPN etc.). Many functions require 3 keystrokes to be reached, that's similiar to "the other" nongraphing programmable scientific calculator fx5800P. But I doubt that I'll afford to 'teach' the Casio RPN; it's possible, but you can save the programs only on paper or textfile via PC keyboard. Another point is that the hinge for the front cover will likely break soon (as it did on my first unit), so it's not to takeeverywhere.
At this place I'd like to vote for more RPN use  many posts refer to 35s EQN or ALG use, but  the bugs aside  in programs they're much slower, and if you take the time to note down at least the important things for a program, there's far less trouble later and an RPN keystroke program doesn't have to look more complicated. To me these endless round bracket chains are more confusing.
Tony Thimet published his version of a performance test with an explicit program listing for HP 35S. The test considered 34 "substantial operations"; if it finishes in less than 5 s, an outer loop should give the measuring more accuracy. Thus the "performance index" calculates
((outer loops) x 34) / time (s).
(It's not exactly operations per second, but it allows for comparison.) Here's my test on HP 35S in RPN and in ALG modes. I broke the single line expressions to show better how the code compares:
In ALG mode it's almost as slow as the fx4500PA (slightly slower successor to the fx4500P from 1989) which I personally like for it's compactness and it's approach to save keystrokes (no mandatory brackets with singleoperand functions and avoiding some multiplication signs e.g.)
(This is all on one line, broken just for comparison to the above. The "v" stands for square root. The "[fi]"  endif  is a special character, outlined triangle towards right, delimiting expressions as ":" or CRLF would.)
The competition is more than 3 times faster, it has also commands for structured programming, but these are on the third page of the ProgramFunction menu (6 keystrokes):
(Also the "v" means square root here, and I entered the programs as "1 line" using ":" as expression/command separator only.) Maybe it's not fair to use the advanced loop commands in such a comparison? Should I do another test with DSE (which the 4500P lacks) on the 35s?
 So far about the ALG mode  I'd say: Use RPN :)
Then there are the limited trigonometric function calculations near n x pi/4. The forum archive has a beautiful demonstration listing in message 27 from KS in the thread "The trigonometric bug is spreading !?".
Somewhere in this or a related thread I read that other calculators give even shorter responses in this range  these are from my collection:
sin 3.1415926 (rad)
free42 (1.5.5 dec) 5.35897932384626...e8
TI66: 5.358979323846E08
fx4500PA: 5.36E08
HP 15C LE: 5.359E08
fx5800P: 5.35898E8
HP 35S: 5.358979E8
If I'd need for sure higher accuracy in this field (but I'm not aware of any such need for myself), I could type in and use Takayuki Hosoda's alternate trig. functions or look for other workarounds like e.g. sine for angles from 1e2 to 1e4 deg (below 1e4 deg the >RAD does it):
1e4
>RAD
ENTER
ENTER
3
y^x
6
/

result: 1.74532925199E6
 It contines endlessly: I like the nicely readable display except for some too small annunciators and the exponent out of sight in "all" mode, I like the programming except for missing indirect branches and just singleletter labels, I love the RPN use except for some keys moved around, I like the good readable key labels except for there's no distinction between menus and just functions ... where was binary burried?
Two years after I bought it and more than seven years now after HP released the 35s I have little hope that the industry will issue any new nice and pocketable *RPN* calculator or even fix the boldest issues with this one. Comparing the 300s+ with other manufactuerers' I see almost no difference left. Let's make the best out of what we have and support the efforts around the WP family. (Am I nostalgic?)
Long live RPN!
Cheers, Dirk
_______________
Sanyo CZ1210, TI66, fx4500P, HP 15C LE, fx5800P, HP 35s ...?
Like others here I find myself using the 35s more and more despite it's size and shortcomings of which most annoying to me is that some RPN function positions moved against the 15C e.g. (RCL STO Rdn x<>y no more around ENTER, but a "()" primary function key that does nothing in RPN etc.). Many functions require 3 keystrokes to be reached, that's similiar to "the other" nongraphing programmable scientific calculator fx5800P. But I doubt that I'll afford to 'teach' the Casio RPN; it's possible, but you can save the programs only on paper or textfile via PC keyboard. Another point is that the hinge for the front cover will likely break soon (as it did on my first unit), so it's not to takeeverywhere.
At this place I'd like to vote for more RPN use  many posts refer to 35s EQN or ALG use, but  the bugs aside  in programs they're much slower, and if you take the time to note down at least the important things for a program, there's far less trouble later and an RPN keystroke program doesn't have to look more complicated. To me these endless round bracket chains are more confusing.
Tony Thimet published his version of a performance test with an explicit program listing for HP 35S. The test considered 34 "substantial operations"; if it finishes in less than 5 s, an outer loop should give the measuring more accuracy. Thus the "performance index" calculates
((outer loops) x 34) / time (s).
(It's not exactly operations per second, but it allows for comparison.) Here's my test on HP 35S in RPN and in ALG modes. I broke the single line expressions to show better how the code compares:
Code:
HP 35s
RPN ALG
37.05 s perf.idx 9.2 51.05 s perf.idx 6.7
B001 LBL B A001 LBL A
B002 10 STO A A002 10 >A
B004 10 STO B A003 10 >B
B006 1 + A004 (B + 1
B008 4.567E4   4.567E4
B010 70 + + 70
B012 69   69)
B014 7 x x 7
B016 11 / / 11
B018 RCL B A005 B
B019 1   1
B021 STO B >B
B022 x!=0? GTO B006 A006 x!=0? GTO A004
B024 Rv A008 SQRT(
B025 LOG SQRT(
B026 SIN SIN(
B027 vX LOG(
B028 vX REGy))))
B029 RCL A A009 A
B030 1   1
B032 STO A >A
B033 x!=0? GTO B004 A010 x!=0? GTO A003
B035 RTN A012 RTN
Code:
fx4500PA
55.09 s perf.idx 6.1
Prog PERFM
LINE1 A=10 :
LBL 0 : B=10 :
LBL 1 : X=(B+1
4.567E4
+70
69)
x7
/11 :
B=
B
1 :
B>0 => Goto 1 [fi]
X=v _
v
sin
log
X :
A=
A
1 :
A>0 => Goto 0 [fi]
X
The competition is more than 3 times faster, it has also commands for structured programming, but these are on the third page of the ProgramFunction menu (6 keystrokes):
Code:
fx5800P
10.09 s (10x) perf.idx 33.7 8.42 s (10x) perf.idx 40.4
30.04 s (30x) perf.idx 34.0 24.72 s (30x) perf.idx 41.3
Prog PERFM Prog PERFS
30 >A : For 30 >A To 1 Step 1 :
LBL 0 : 10 >B : For 10 >B To 1 Step 1 :
LBL 1 : (B+1 (B+1
4.567E4 4.567E4
+70 +70
69) 69)
x7 x7
/11 >X : /11 >X :
B Next:
1
>B :
B>0 => Goto 1 :
v _( v _(
v ( v (
sin ( sin (
log ( log (
X)))) >X : X)))) >X :
A Next:
1
>A :
A>0 => Goto 0 :
X X
 So far about the ALG mode  I'd say: Use RPN :)
Then there are the limited trigonometric function calculations near n x pi/4. The forum archive has a beautiful demonstration listing in message 27 from KS in the thread "The trigonometric bug is spreading !?".
Somewhere in this or a related thread I read that other calculators give even shorter responses in this range  these are from my collection:
sin 3.1415926 (rad)
free42 (1.5.5 dec) 5.35897932384626...e8
TI66: 5.358979323846E08
fx4500PA: 5.36E08
HP 15C LE: 5.359E08
fx5800P: 5.35898E8
HP 35S: 5.358979E8
If I'd need for sure higher accuracy in this field (but I'm not aware of any such need for myself), I could type in and use Takayuki Hosoda's alternate trig. functions or look for other workarounds like e.g. sine for angles from 1e2 to 1e4 deg (below 1e4 deg the >RAD does it):
1e4
>RAD
ENTER
ENTER
3
y^x
6
/

result: 1.74532925199E6
 It contines endlessly: I like the nicely readable display except for some too small annunciators and the exponent out of sight in "all" mode, I like the programming except for missing indirect branches and just singleletter labels, I love the RPN use except for some keys moved around, I like the good readable key labels except for there's no distinction between menus and just functions ... where was binary burried?
Two years after I bought it and more than seven years now after HP released the 35s I have little hope that the industry will issue any new nice and pocketable *RPN* calculator or even fix the boldest issues with this one. Comparing the 300s+ with other manufactuerers' I see almost no difference left. Let's make the best out of what we have and support the efforts around the WP family. (Am I nostalgic?)
Long live RPN!
Cheers, Dirk
_______________
Sanyo CZ1210, TI66, fx4500P, HP 15C LE, fx5800P, HP 35s ...?