HP Forums

Full Version: New HP-35s ranking
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

Hi,

the new HP-35s specifications are known by now. Also its design, color-sheme and keyboard-layout. If you should give it a ranking from 0 to 100 in the range of (old and current) HP-calculators, where would the new HP-35s end up?

Criteria could be:
- Man-Machine-Interface / Ergonomics
- bang for the buck
(lets say we are talking about the same price as for a HP-33s)
- build quality (hard to judge by now)
- emotional factor (do you think it would be FUN to use?)

Of course a ranking is by nature always very personal depending on ones expectations and needs. I passed my engineer exam for many years ago. So graphics are not longer that important to me. A simple but yet powerfull number crunching machine is what I prefer.

I am curious where the community places the new HP-35s.

Personally I´ll give it 70 out of 100
(wherby 100 stands for the HP-42s)

Functionwise the HP-35s is more a 60. But I gave it 10 more points for the low price compared to old school HPs which used to be really expensive.

Frank

Personally, I would not give the HP42s a 100. The user interface is terrible for alpha, IMO.

I'd give it a 78.

thanks,
bruce

I'll give it an 80, although I don't know whether to add or subtract 10 points due to not actually having used it yet, so i'll do both.

I am going to wait until I actually get one.

I must admit that I like the looks of the prototype in the photos with Cyrille's son. The size and shape, including the taper, is reminiscent of the Classics, Woodstocks, Spice and 41 series. The colours are attractive. We will need to wait and see if the concerns about certain missing functions is borne out--they may be concealed in menus like the statistical functions on the 33s.

The promised 800 registers makes me very optimistic indeed. However, I am really hoping that number of available labels is substantially greater than the measly 26 available on the HP33s. The 33s has gobs of memory yet with so few labels, that cannot be reused in different programs, programs cannot achieve anywhere near the level of complexity that all the memory could theoretically allow. The limited label paradigm works beautifully on the limited memory 32sii, but seems incongruous and unnecessary restrictive on the 33s. I hope the 35s corrected this limitation. If the processor speed matches the 33s, I would like to port certain 41 series routines that are painfully slow on the original calculator. Indeed, the one thing that I love about the 33s is its speed. It would be great for the 35s to have a more flexible programming capacity so that those of us who wish to program the calculator can take advantage of it.

As for the 42S, I must admit I love the IDEA of the calculator more than the actual machine. I use Free42 extensively on my Palm TX, and the ability to save and import programs as files makes it easy to use and create 41-style keystroke programs that execute very quickly. But I rarely take the trouble to enter them into the actual 42S. Keystroke entry is cumbersome, and I really don't like the wimpy contrast of the display. The 35s will have the disadvantage of no flash media storage, but a sharper display and quick processor may make it otherwise gratifying to use. I hope!

At any rate, the 35s will be priced about the same as the 33s, so there really is not much to lose. This isn't 1975, when the HP65 sold for what would be a months salary for many people in this Forum.

Cheers,

Les

For me, it would depend on what exactly was being rated. If the 100 represented "the best keystroke programmable calculator HP ever produced, neglecting I/O" then I would have to give the 42S a 100. (With I/O and expandability considered, I'd go with the 41 as the best.) If the scale included the best RPN scientific keystroke programmable I could imagine at the 100 spot, I'd probably give the 42s a 40, and the 33s a 20.

I agree that the 42S sucks in a number of ways, including the cumbersome alpha input. Although that "pick board" arrangement is workable, if you practice some, I'd prefer voice input or better - sub-vocalization. (Or in an even more whimsical vein, direct brain-wave reading - a technology not that far off, judging by current research.)

What I mean by all that is that the form factor severely limits your choices. "Typing" on the 50g sucks too, just a little less than the 42S. A QWERTY arrangement in a small form factor works really well, in comparison. I've had several portable devices with that approach. The most successful in my opinion are the "clamshell" Sharp Zaurus line. But of course, we want keyboards optimized for calculation, not alpha input, so that means what you really need is a full size keyboard with number pad, and a generous amount of real estate for mathematical functions. You just can't get all that in a calculator form factor. The 200LX has a nice little keyboard which fits the bill feature-wise. But that's a "palmtop," not a calculator. And even though the keyboard is well built, it doesn't hold candle to the finest Corvallis produced for the 200's smaller brethren.

While I like the shape of the characters on the 42S better than the 33S, I agree that the contrast of the former's screen is poor in comparison.

So assuming the 42S is 100 - neglecting I/O remember - then I'd put the 33s at 50, and a 35s that met all my expectations at 75 or so. In economic terms, it doesn't matter at all, since I will certainly buy at least one of the 35s when they come out.

Regards,
Howard

I think Frank's ranking is a good rank using the 42s as a basis. I agree that there are things about the 42s that could be better, but if you use a know quantity as a base for comparison the base would have to be the maximum on the scale.

I too hold the 42s in high regards and will use it as my base to compare the new 35s with a maximum score of 100 points.

I will break my comparison up in several criteria:

All are assumption from the description and image given in the fact sheet.

Display 100 (characters look to be well separated and readable.)
Key design 80 (directional keys take up too much space.)
Keyboard layout 70 (some heavily used commands are now shifted and require more key strokes to use.)
Color Scheme 100 (case, keys, and shifted function colors are well defined.)
Function List 60 (alphanumeric entry function list could be increased.)
Size 90 (would fit shirt pocket better if slightly shorter and narrower.)
Memory 100
Battery Life 50 (without IR battery life should be much greater.)

Overall Score 81.25

Quote:
Hi,

the new HP-35s specifications are known by now. Also its design, color-sheme and keyboard-layout. If you should give it a ranking from 0 to 100 in the range of (old and current) HP-calculators, where would the new HP-35s end up?

Criteria could be:
- Man-Machine-Interface / Ergonomics
- bang for the buck
(lets say we are talking about the same price as for a HP-33s)
- build quality (hard to judge by now)
- emotional factor (do you think it would be FUN to use?)


Man-machine interface is let down by the redundant backspace key, incorrect Blue Function key, and excessive keys dedicated to programming (ok for some, not ok for me). I would have preferred a few more keys dedicated to often used functions like Log, X^2 and ENG.

Big pluses are ENG and <ENG support, not wasting a key on HYP (a pet hate), and good colour contrast on key legends.

LCD contrast looks ok for a dot matrix type, but I want to know what the exponent symbol looks like.

Arrow keys I've decided to stay neutral on. I would prefer keys that look the same, but I know the new arrangement is more practical. But I could also say a scientific calc doesn't need cursor keys.

Gets a 75 on Man-Machine interface.

Emotional Factor - I just like it, it's old-school, it's a beautiful piece of engineering to look at, it looks like it belongs on an engineers desk and not a students desk, and it's got cool looking stripes.

Gets a 95 on the Emotional factor.

Dave.

Quote:
Emotional Factor - I just like it, it's old-school, it's a beautiful piece of engineering to look at, it looks like it belongs on an engineers desk and not a students desk, and it's got cool looking stripes.

Gets a 95 on the Emotional factor.


BTW, I knocked the 5 points off for it not having a 35th anniversary logo or something like that on it.
Maybe a nice "The HP Way" written along the bottom, or make it a Bill Hewlett signature edition, that would be cool.

Dave.

Having seen only the specs, I'll give it a 65.

HP-42s = 75
HP-41CX = 100

Hello!

35 of course ;-) but only, if it has a decent keyboard! And 35 Euros I would bid for it on eBay. Nothing with a grey LCD will ever get more than 50 from me, the full 50 going to the Ti Voyage 200.


The closest to 100 for me so far are hp-67 and hp-97.


Greetings, Max (hopelessly old-fashioned)

Quote:
Hello!

35 of course ;-) but only, if it has a decent keyboard! And 35 Euros I would bid for it on eBay. Nothing with a grey LCD will ever get more than 50 from me

Why on earth does anyone need a colour screen on a basic scientific calculator?

Dave.

Hello!

Quote:
Why on earth does anyone need a colour screen on a basic scientific calculator?

Why on earth does anyone need a colour screen (or even two of them!) on a cellphone? And yet, no cellphone came without one in the last five years...

But it is not really a colour screen that I would like to see, but any kind of display that glows in the dark, just like the real hp-35. Either a true LED display or a backlit LCD or a modern OLED display. In my working environment, this feature really makes a difference!


Greetings, Max

Edited: 4 June 2007, 2:28 a.m.

Quote:
Hello!

Why on earth does anyone need a colour screen (or even two of them!) on a cellphone? And yet, no cellphone came without one in the last five years...


That is why I still have a 5+ year old phone!
and if it goes bust I'll get another 5+ year old phone.
At least I can read the display in almost any lighting condition without having to press a key to turn on the stupid backlight.

Quote:
But it is not really a colour screen that I would like to see, but any kind of display that glows in the dark, just like the real hp-35. Either a true LED display or a backlit LCD or a modern OLED display. In my working environment, this feature really makes a difference!


Greetings, Max

I'd rather have a longer battery life, thanks!

What is wrong with your lighting condition that a nice high contrast black segmented LCD that draws almost no power can't be seen properly?

Dave.

OK, what do we have?

Howard 75 / Richard 81 / Bruce 78 / Steve 80 / Dave ? / Geir 65 / Me 70

Makes an average 35s-score of 75 / 100 - Not bad. Actually more than I expected.

Quote:
OK, what do we have?

Howard 75 / Richard 81 / Bruce 78 / Steve 80 / Dave ? / Geir 65 / Me 70


Averaging my two scores gives an overall value of 85, making me the top scorer.
Geeze, you guys are a bit harsh! :->
Come on, the 35S is beautiful!

Dave.

Hello!

Quote:
I'd rather have a longer battery life, thanks!

With two rechargeable AAA cells, a two-line dot-matrix OLED display should last for many, many hours.

Quote:
What is wrong with your lighting condition that a nice high contrast black segmented LCD that draws almost no power can't be seen properly?

Reddish night-time cockpit lighting makes almost anything unreadable... and having to shine a flashlight at the calculator with one hand all the time can be a real pain. The best thing to do calculations with when flying at night is actuelly a cellphone, believe it or not! Illuminated keys, illuminated screen and mine has even a very complete units coverter.


But apart from the actual useability, for me a pocket calculator (that no-one really needs any more, to be honest) must be an aestetic device with a large fun-factor. And since LCDs are neither aestetically pleasing nor funny in any way, 50 points is all an LCD calculator will ever get from me :-)

It is with great pleasure that I see the renaissance of the LED watch (just look at eBay!) and I am sure, that within this year, we will also see the rebirth of the LED calcualtor. It is a pity, that it will not come from hp...

Greetings, Max

I can't wait to get my hands on it in real life. Once I do, I'm sure my score will go up. ;-)

thanks,
bruce

Quote:
Hello!

Reddish night-time cockpit lighting makes almost anything unreadable... and having to shine a flashlight at the calculator with one hand all the time can be a real pain. The best thing to do calculations with when flying at night is actuelly a cellphone, believe it or not! Illuminated keys, illuminated screen and mine has even a very complete units coverter.



Ah, ok, a very specialised case indeed.

Quote:
But apart from the actual useability, for me a pocket calculator (that no-one really needs any more, to be honest)

I'll completely disagree on that. One of my biggest gripes is that no one makes a truly *small* scientific calculator, they just get bigger and bigger every year, it's getting ridiculous. You just can't carry calcs of today around in your shirt pocket or your lab coat pocket, they are too big and too heavy.
My desk space is limited enough without having to make room for a big silly looking calc. It's harder to balance a big calc on an open book or catalog on your desk, or hold it on your hand and carry it around the office etc.
Smaller is better.

The most useful calculator I ever owned was a Casio CFX-400 Scientific calculator watch.

Quote:
must be an aestetic device with a large fun-factor. And since LCDs are neither aestetically pleasing nor funny in any way, 50 points is all an LCD calculator will ever get from me :-)

It is with great pleasure that I see the renaissance of the LED watch (just look at eBay!) and I am sure, that within this year, we will also see the rebirth of the LED calcualtor.

Won't happen.
Most people don't care about calculators, and the people who do want long battery life.

Quote:
With two rechargeable AAA cells, a two-line dot-matrix OLED display should last for many, many hours.

Some of my calcs last for 10+ years on the one set of batteries, some with a little help from their solar cell.
Changing batteries is a truly horrible experience.

Watch out for the limited display life of OLED displays, they don't last forever.

Reflective LCD's have a simplistic elegance about them!

Dave.

Hello!

Quote:
Ah, ok, a very specialised case indeed.

Well, if you look at the bottom of this page (topic: "Where is everybody from" or so) you will see, that there are quite a few aviators here! And onboard the aircraft is really the only place where I ever need a pocket calculator; in the office there are enough real computers...

Quote:
One of my biggest gripes is that no one makes a truly *small* scientific calculator, they just get bigger and bigger every year, it's getting ridiculous.

Just look at this forum: Whenever there is a new calculator coming out, the first one says: "But I want matrices too" and the next one says: "I want dedicated function keys for everything" and so on ... that's what keeps them growing larger and larger!

Quote:
You just can't carry calcs of today around in your shirt pocket or your lab coat pocket, they are too big and too heavy.

There are still some small ones around, like the HP-6S or some Ti30 variants. Not programmable though! Of course, the times of truly pocket sized Sinclair programmables are gone forever.

Quote:
Watch out for the limited display life of OLED displays, they don't last forever.

Neither do LCDs... I have enough calculators in my collection with leaking or otherwise broken LCDs!


Greetings, Max

Edited: 4 June 2007, 10:06 a.m.

Quote:
Reddish night-time cockpit lighting makes almost anything unreadable... and having to shine a flashlight at the calculator with one hand all the time can be a real pain.

I don't know how you feel about handling a soldering iron, but maybe you could simply add a LED backlight to an LCD display. Take a look at www.farnell.com, under Optoelectronics > Backlighting > Backlight LED .

e.g.: http://ie.farnell.com/jsp/Optoelectronics/Backlighting/LED+TECHNOLOGY/BSRGS15308TE/displayProduct.jsp?sku=1208899


Maybe someone who has opened, say, a HP33s, could comment on feasibility.

regards,

koen

Quote:
But it is not really a colour screen that I would like to see, but any kind of display that glows in the dark, just like the real hp-35. Either a true LED display or a backlit LCD or a modern OLED display. In my working environment, this feature really makes a difference!

Perhaps the 35th Anniversary Edition version of the 35S will have LED/OLED. That would be a nice touch and a valuable limited edition.

Quote:
Just look at this forum: Whenever there is a new calculator coming out, the first one says: "But I want matrices too" and the next one says: "I want dedicated function keys for everything" and so on ... that's what keeps them growing larger and larger!

Not necessarily. Example: HP-15c, it has matrices and full complex in a very small form factor. OK, its not so comfortable to enter matrices with an one-line-LCD only. But it works. In my opinion matrix-calculations are one of the most important things I expect from a mature scientific calculator. Even today (it is years ago I was freshman) it happens that I need to solve a system of equations. And each time this happens I am gladly putting away the 33s to reactivate my 28s. Matrices, even with objects and complex numbers, are a piece of cake for this machine.

HP - do you copy me? Please give the 35s a decent build-in matrix function! Its not even hardware - only software - and you have lots of ROM. Let´s do it.

Quote:
Perhaps the 35th Anniversary Edition version of the 35S will have LED/OLED.

Before the HP35S data-sheet appeared, I was thinking that might have been a possibility ( even hinted at - those requests to show up at HHC 2007 with LED displays glowing in the dark ).

But it would need a prismatic Li-ion cell and a USB port to charge it.
The 2x2032 coin cells would not supply the current ( 210mAh, 15mA max pulse current ).

However, an otherwise almost identical ( apart from the 35th Anniversary logo ) HP35SX with backlighting, a user replaceable Li-ion battery and a USB port for data and charging would be possible.
A small cell-phone style microSD card ( for backup and the matrix library ) could also hide under the cover next to the battery.

HP35s score 65

HP35SX score 80

HP41CX score 85

HP15C score 85

Edited: 4 June 2007, 2:14 p.m.

Quote:
Just look at this forum: Whenever there is a new calculator coming out, the first one says: "But I want matrices too" and the next one says: "I want dedicated function keys for everything" and so on ... that's what keeps them growing larger and larger!

That's not an excuse, it is just lazy engineering that makes them larger, and/or lack of a specification to keep it small.

Extra firmware functions take no room except in ROM
Extra keys can take up no more room is you trim a few thou here and few thou there. Even my smallest scientific calc has ample room between the keys.

Dave.

Quote:


That's not an excuse, it is just lazy engineering that makes them larger, and/or lack of a specification to keep it small.


I hear what you are saying, but I disagree, in part.

The HP Journal article than introduced the 41C began with a discussion about the problem of proliferating functions. The then current top-of-the line pocket calculator was the HP-67. That machine has quite a "busy" keyboard, with two shift keys, and labels on the key top, key face and keyboard background. The problem was that each function had to be accessible via simple combinations of keystrokes - there was no menu capability for less frequently used functions.

But that isn't what the HP engineers came up with for a solution on the HP-41C. Instead, they used the alphanumeric capability to invoke functions by spelling out their names. This allowed them to greatly expand the CATalog of functions. One problem with this approach was that each decision made about which function to leave on the keyboard , and which to relegate to the CATalog was likely to annoy somebody. However, they apparently were aware of this problem, because they implemented a completely redefineable keyboard. This allowed users to get around the annoyance by defining their own set of trade offs between completeness and keyboard accessibility. (I know that USER mode on the 41 had other reasons to exist besides this.) I remember that despite nice features like programmatic redefinition of the keys , which became fully general with synthetic programming, and later with the CX and Xfunctions module, it was still a hassle for me to juggle between different keyboard modes with the various ROM modules and programs I had written. But I was grateful on balance for the rich feature set, and accepted the hassle as an inevitable consequence of that abundance.

With the 42S, having a two line display, HP moved to using menus with redefineable soft keys. This was more convenient because it grouped related functions together under a single menu key. This made the functions more "discoverable," and less a matter of wading through a long CATalog listing (or six!) to find that obscure function you had forgotten the name of.

But of course, things didn't stop with the 42s. The high end calculator line moved on to the 28c, with its double keyboard allowing even more functions on the keyboard combined with menus. The feature set continued to explode through the 48s, 48g, 49g and 49g+ machines, with each nw machine offering expanded feature sets, and a new take on how to access all that functionality. The current top of the line is the HP-50g. This machine has added hardly any features to those offered by the 49g+, but it hardly needed to. Between the Metakernal and the CAS, the machine has an enormous vocabulary of built in words.

It's interesting to compare the 50g side by side with the 67, to see how the keyboard has come full circle since 1979. The 50g is much larger, of course. it's something under an inch taller than the 67, but most of that comes from the comparatively huge display. The keyboards of the two machines are actually about the same height. The Y axis height of the keys and their spacings on the 50g are less, on average, than those on the 67, so the former squeezes in 10 rows where the latter has only 8. Remarkably, the calculators are about the same width. But the same factors that pack the vertical dimension are also at work in the horizontal, allowing for an extra column on the 50g as compared to the 67. But then the 50g adds cursor keys (and makes very good use of them throughout the implementation, btw) which subtracts from the number of columns in the upper half. But in total, the 50g sports 51 keys while the 67 has 35, just like its progenitor, the HP-35. So much for the differences. On the similarity side, both calculators have two shift keys, and both crowd an enormous number of functions into the available space. But the 50g adds the alpha key as a third shift key. For that reason, and because there are more keys, and their labels are smaller and closer together to fit, the 50g's keyboard looks a lot more cluttered than the 67s. One last difference: the 50g has tons of menus, too.

The menu implementation on the 50g is pretty good. It provides soft labels that can be left or right shifted, providing three functions per soft key. With the addition of KeyMan, you can also assign long hold and double press actions to any key, including a soft key. Speaking of redefining keys, the 50g, like the 48 and 49s before it, has a completely redefineable keyboard like the 41C had. So your options for accessing the mind bogglingly large feature set of the HP-50g combines bright ideas from practically the entire heritage of HP calculators - and boy, do you need them!

Let's see. I want to debug this user RPL program I'm working on. I have the code saved to a soft key in the VAR menu. So first, I set up the stack with my input parameters, Then I hit:

VAR ' A LSHIFT EVAL UP  ENTER A B B B

That translates to "Go to the VAR menu, (VAR) hit the single quote key (') which actually enters two single quotes and leaves your cursor sitting between them. Hit the first soft key (A). Ordinarily, pressing A when in the VAR menu would execute the function assigned to that key. But since I'm between those single quotes, the name of the function gets entered instead. So now I go to the PRG menu (LSHIFT EVAL) where I select the DEBUG entry (UP). DEBUG is the last entry in the PRG menu, so UP wraps around and selects it in the list box) Now pressing ENTER activates the DEBUG menu. Now I press the DEBUG soft key (A) and the debugger starts. It uses the program name on level one (X for us RPN types) as input, so that's the program I'm now debugging. I can now single step (SST - the B soft key) and try to figure out what's not working.

So that is complicated. Of course, I've memorized the sequence, so it takes much more time to describe than to actually perform it. But the calculator has hundreds upon hundreds of such sequences. If I have to do something I don't have memorized, it's likely to take me a while to get to the actual thing I need. This is the main drawback of a menu system traversing a tree hierarchy. You can only see the local structure, so its hard to navigate to separated parts of the tree. You run into the same problems with a windowing file manager, but since there is lots of screen real estate on a PC, you can get more of the global view. On Unix, I just use find.

So this started out as a partial refutation of the idea that complexity in a calculator interface is due just to laziness on the part of the designers. I think that far from being lazy, those designers are straining mightily to balance usability with the demands of the specs they are given for features on the calculator. I think that these two items have an inverse relationship to one another, and that the genius of HP over the years has been to find ways to fudge the balance. I think that result is less than ideal*, as my example above should show, but I think it may be nearly optimal in a real device. I, for one, am not willing to give up features in a high end machine like the 50g in order to improve the balance.

On a machine that doesn't aspire to be the "all singing, all dancing" top-of-the-line mega-calculator, I don't mind dropping features to achieve a better balance with usability. But the laughing devil in the details is this: my optimal compromise doesn't match yours. This is the conundrum that makes those "lazy" designers work overtime.

Regards,

Howard

* I've written elsewhere that I would prefer a brainwave connection as my ideal interface to a computing device. for me, this is ideal, but not optimal, since such a thing doesn't exist - yet. 8)

How can anyone rank anything until one has the real thing in their hot little hands?

tm

Quote:
How can anyone rank anything until one has the real thing in their hot little hands?


Easily done:

Quote:
.. and a 35s that met all my expectations at 75 or so.

We rank our expectations (of the 35s) against our experiences (of othe HP calculators,) knowing full well that expectations can be left unmet or exceeded by reality.

Regards,
Howard

Hi, Frank --

Quote:
Example: HP-15c, it has matrices and full complex in a very small form factor. OK, its not so comfortable to enter matrices with an one-line-LCD only. But it works. In my opinion matrix-calculations are one of the most important things I expect from a mature scientific calculator.

Excellent points.

Quote:
HP - do you copy me? Please give the 35s a decent build-in matrix function!

I fully agree with your sentiment. The following issues would need to be addressed:

  • Matrix identification
  • Resolution of ambiguity between scalars and matrices
  • Editing (ideally, make use of the cursor keys)
  • Placing matrix-specific functionality (e.g., transpose, determinant, norms, residual)

A good implementation would borrow from both the HP-15C and HP-42S, while utilizing the two-line display.

-- KS