|Re: Amazing! An HP-32SII is faster than an HP-35s|
Message #18 Posted by M. Joury on 3 Aug 2011, 11:36 p.m.,
in response to message #17 by Michael de Estrada
While I like the 32Sii it is near the bottom of my list when I grab for a calculator so maybe I should just stay out of this :-). However, while it is true that the 32Sii is faster than the 35S in many areas this is largely due (as discussed earlier) to the greater number of data types that the 35S can handle.
So, the question becomes, aside from speed how else can these calculators be compared? Let's start by accepting the fact that the 35S has bugs that are problematic for some (so far I have not been effected by them) and that this in and of itself may make the 35S unusable for many. For those it may be that the 32Sii or the 33S are the only choices.
For me, however, programming capability is a big draw. I play with these things to program them. It has been many years since I have needed the "higher math" capability of any of my calculators (I think the last time was when I took my Astronomy Comprehensive Exams to graduate from college and that was more years ago than I am willing to share--I will say that the 41 I used back then was in it's relative infancy).
In the area of programming the 35S has many nice additions over the 32Sii and even the 33S.
1. A less cluttered keyboard thanks to the sloping face keys. At least I find it easier to use the keyboard on the 35S than I ever did on the 32/33 (leaving aside the really silly placement of STO as a shifted function).
2. Much more memory than the 32Sii. For some programs this is essential although I love trying to squeeze every last byte out of a program to make it fit in the 32.
3. Many more memory registers, although you have to address them indirectly. Depending on what you are trying to do this can be a huge plus.
4. Two indirect addressing register (I and J) instead of one. The 32/33 do get a little back here since, with them, the indirect register (i) is separate from the 26 primary registers while with the 35S the I and J registers are part of the 26 primary register set.
5. Can jump to line numbers. For example GTO A100. This allows much better utilization of the available memory than is offered by the 33S which is limited to 26 labels. Good luck trying to use all of the 32K available with 26 labels. I guess one could have lots (and LOTS) of equations. With the 35S one can have 26 separate programs labeled A-Z whereas this is not possible with the 32/33 for anything but the most trivial programs. At an extreme with the 35S one could even have multiple programs with a single alpha label.
6. The ENTER key is in the right place (this is a dig at the 33S and obviously does not refer to the 32Sii which also has it's ENTER key in the right place).
7. The arrow keys are primary which is a bonus when single stepping. In this case the 33S beats the 32Sii as it also has it's arrow keys in the primary plane.
I might be able to think of other features that are improved on the 35S but my point here is not to try to convince you that the 35S is better (as noted earlier it may not even be usable for you) but to show that it does have certain advantageous features. Whether your requirements make use of these features is for you to decide and from what you said it would seem that the 32 suits your needs better and is the better solution for you.
Finally, as I stated earlier, the 32Sii is one of the LAST calculators I reach for. This is also true of the 35S. My calculators of choice are (somewhat in order) the 41, 42, 48 (S/X, G/X), and (believe it or not) the 39GS which I like playing with for a completely different set of reasons. The WP34S is also becoming a go-to machine for me (Thanks Pauli, Walter, and Marcus!) and, oh yes, I like the 17bii for it's solver. All these machines have one thing in common: Separate programs (functions in the 17bii) that can be named by multi-character labels that make it clear what the program/function is supposed to do. Maybe I am getting old but trying to remember what the program labeled 'A' is supposed to do just seems like too much trouble.