HP Forums

Full Version: How about a Phoenix 35S?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

Ok, how about this idea...

Take one HP 35S
Take one Newhaven 20x4 display
Add one new PCB.

What do you have?
A 4 line x 20 character Phoenix 35S that looks and feels like the real thing.

The viewing area of that display seems to match the display window on the 35S, although I do not have an actual 35S to check. The LCD is 77x47x14.2mm with a display area of 55x17.5mm
Scaling the dimensions of the 35S screen from a photo I get a roughly 61mm x 21.4mm display window.

Display characters too small you say? - I'm sure there is a 2 line display out there that would fit as well. You could even put a graphic or OLED screen in there if you really wanted. A graphic screen could be any size that fits, excess pixels simply aren't used.

Display mounting? - nothing some epoxy can't fix I'm sure.

PCB mounting? - use the existing mounting holes.

Keys? - Use the existing keys and the exact same PCB interface (tactile domes or carbon tracks?, has anyone taken one apart that far yet?)

Custom keys? - Simply copy the existing HP35S keys and get some rapid prototype keys made. Much easier task than a full Phoenix/DIY3 style project.

Custom key overlay? - Don't bother, use an LCD menu system.

A very very do-able project at first glance, as opposed to the Phoenix project everyone wants but will be extremely difficult to pull off with any sense of a professional look'n'feel.

Dave.

Hi Dave,

this is exactly one of the opportunities I had in mind when starting the other thread. Maybe I did write it a bit too abstract ;) Anyway, I'll see how this LCD will look in a 35S.

This Display also fits. A 120x32 graphic display.

I'm now thinking that a graphic display might be the way to go actually. This would enable a BIG character (16x3?) display. Otherwise it would enable a smaller font 20x4 display. Much harder in software though, but more flexible and wider appeal.

SD card is of course an option, this would require a small cutout in the side of the case, the only "external" modification.

Battery life would be roughly a hundred hours continuous operation.

I'd call it the Phoenix 35X.

Dave.

Quote:
I'm now thinking that a graphic display might be the way to go actually.

:)

P.S.: BTW, their "Mechanical Drawing" is not consistent with their "Spec". Seems their spec is valid, since the MD carries a different part number in its footing. Reliable company?

P.P.S.: Measuring the dimensions of the 35S screen I get a 60mm x 20mm (+/- 0.3mm) display window. IMHO, the 20x4 LCD of message #1 does not fit into a 35S housing in either dimension. The 2nd one may well do. Aproximately 110x26 dots of 120x32 may be usable, corresponding 22 characters times 3 lines.


Edited: 27 Nov 2007, 6:03 p.m.

I wanted to try out a Poll script on my website, so thought a Phoenix 35X poll would be interesting:

VOTE NOW

Dave.

Edited: 28 Nov 2007, 12:20 a.m.

Quote:
I wanted to try out a Poll script on my website, so thought a Phoenix 35X poll would be interesting:

VOTE NOW

Dave.


15 respondents so far, keep it coming!
I'll post the results as it progresses.

Dave.

Quote:


15 respondents so far, keep it coming!
I'll post the results as it progresses.

Dave.


Sure you wanted to say "15 responses" or do you have a way to figure out how many times one respondent entered your poll? ;-) (I did only ONCE!)

An issue I see with the poll relates to the options...

My most desired feature is having the calc show multiple levels of the stack. In fact, that reason is why I went for a 50g (well, a 48gII would've done the job, too, but...) instead of a 35s.

There's no option to specify something like that.

Quote:
An issue I see with the poll relates to the options...

My most desired feature is having the calc show multiple levels of the stack. In fact, that reason is why I went for a 50g (well, a 48gII would've done the job, too, but...) instead of a 35s.

There's no option to specify something like that.


That's because that feature is a given.
A 4 line LCD display has been talked about, and any graphic screen option will give at least 3 lines.

At the moment, more than 40% of people have said that they don't care what type of display it is, as long as they get their customisable DIY calc.

Dave.

Hello!

Does this really make sense, economically? Spend 70 Euros (or whatever it costs) for an hp-35S, of which only the housing and the keyboard contacts are kept. For 70 Euros, I can have the housing machined from a solid block of aluminium to my specs and anodized in the most fancy color I can think of!

Greetings, Max

Quote:
For 70 Euros, I can have the housing machined from a solid block of aluminium to my specs and anodized in the most fancy color I can think of!

Oooh! I want one of those too!

(Man! This is one memorable Christmas buying season!)

Edited: 28 Nov 2007, 9:35 a.m.

I've been considering machining a DIY3 out of aluminum, using my FDM case design. I can do it myself at Techshop on a small CNC mill, but I have a very hard time believing that I could get someone else to do it for only 70 Euros. The quotes I've gotten from machine shops are almost ten times that, and I don't think many people are interested in a 700 Euro calculator.

Hello!

Quote:
I have a very hard time believing that I could get someone else to do it for only 70 Euros.

In Eastern Europe (e.g. Poland, Slovakia) you can find a lot of machine shops that will do it for much less than that.

An alternative would be that someone buys a small, PC controlled 3D precision milling machine (they cost less than 5000 Euros new! see here for example: http://www.angelodiavolo.de/11.html), makes the 100 or 200 calculator shells and re-sells the machine thereafter for 3000 Euros - or keeps it for the Phoenix II.

If he allows himself 10 Euros per calculator (all he really has to do is hitting Enter a couple of times, turn around the raw metal once and change tools twice), then the cost would be 20 Euros per piece (plus about 5 Euros for the aluminium block) based on a production run of 200. I wouldn't mind doing that myself...

Greetings, Max

Quote:
Does this really make sense, economically? Spend 70 Euros (or whatever it costs) for an hp-35S, of which only the housing and the keyboard contacts are kept. For 70 Euros, I can have the housing machined from a solid block of aluminium to my specs and anodized in the most fancy color I can think of!

Really?, 70 euros for the machining and the anodising?
Who will do it for that price? I don't know anyone who will even think about talking to you for $70.

You have also missed the point, and are not taking into consideration the devil in the detail with such a DIY project.

a) who's going to design this fantastic case? and I mean down to every last dimensioned detail?

b) You are going to need at least 2 halves of a calculator case to be machined, remember. You've doubled your money just there.

c) How are the keys going to work? How are they going to be maufactured?, and at what cost?, who's going to design them and prototype them?, what about the key labeling?, how are they going to feel?

d) What about the finer details like the battery door?

e) Do you really think it's going to look like anything but a "home made" calculator?

I could go on and on, the devil is in the detail.

Everyone talks and talks about a DIY calculator, but face it, it's not going to happen without BIG dollars, LOTS of development time, several spins of the development cycle to tweak it, and a lot of very committed people with the right skills. Just talk to Eric and Co, they have spent thousands of dollars on the DIY prototypes, and I think they got away with that cheaply.

So yes, a 35X makes *massive* sense economically. Roughly:
$100 for the calc
$100 for the PCB (comes down with volume)
$100 for the parts (comes down with volume)

and order or magnitude less "devil in the detail" than a full custom design. And the end result is you get the most professional looking calculator possible without all the hard work. Sure it's not perfect, but it gives you a good base to work with. A $200 calc is almost guaranteed regardless of volume.

A fully custom DIY project will not get under $200 unless you start talking several hundred units, with the first few prototypes costing thousands. So the 35X is cheaper both ways.

The 35X also has benefits in that you can't get carried away with "feature creep", and the project falling apart because people want to go in different directions with the case, batteries, number of keys, key layout, battery door, etc. Most of the key decisions are already made, and you work around what you've got.

Dave.

Hello!

Quote:
1) Really?, 70 euros for the machining and the anodising?
Who will do it for that price? I don't know anyone who will even think about talking to you for $70.

a) who's going to design this fantastic case? and I mean down to every last dimensioned detail?

b) You are going to need at least 2 halves of a calculator case to be machined, remember. You've doubled your money just there.

c) How are the keys going to work? How are they going to be maufactured?, and at what cost?, who's going to design them and prototype them?, what about the key labeling?, how are they going to feel?

d) What about the finer details like the battery door?

e) Do you really think it's going to look like anything but a "home made" calculator?

2) So yes, a 35X makes *massive* sense economically. Roughly:
$100 for the calc
$100 for the PCB (comes down with volume)
$100 for the parts (comes down with volume)


1) I answered that above already. I have done some eBay searches in the meantime, there are lots and lots of offers both for manufacturing of prototypes as well as for small milling machines aimed at modelers.

a) I could. I have access to Catia V4, V5 and ProE and know more or less how to use them.

b) With a flat underside, it would not be necessary. Look at this example here (a small (approx. 6 x 2 in) "design" calculator made of solid metal, very heavy for it's size. I think it is cast aluminium alloy, anodized, but too heavy for aluminium, maybe the flat bottom plate is steel)

c) Keys are going to be a problem, I agree. But this problem also exists when modifying an hp-35S if different lettering is required.

d) Just look at the photos above!

e) No, it can look exactly as my little toy above. Machined, sand-blasted and anodized, it will even look better. And it will not have these awful rubber keys of course :-)

2) Yes, but this is 300 $ for nothing but a 35S with a larger display, an SD-Card slot and modified software. I still think, that for 300 Dollars we can get much, much more than that.

Greetings, Max

Quote:
1) I answered that above already. I have done some eBay searches in the meantime, there are lots and lots of offers both for manufacturing of prototypes as well as for small milling machines aimed at modelers.

Please provide the links.

Quote:
a) I could. I have access to Catia V4, V5 and ProE and know more or less how to use them.

Then please do, we'd all love to see a first draft.
Good luck trying to get any sort of agreement on the shape, size, number of keys, type of keys, key actuation mechanism, PCB mounting, type of battery etc. All that has to be factored into the case design from the very start.

All of that is already done for you in the 35X.

Quote:
b) With a flat underside, it would not be necessary. Look at this example here (a small (approx. 6 x 2 in) "design" calculator made of solid metal, very heavy for it's size. I think it is cast aluminium alloy, anodized, but too heavy for aluminium, maybe the flat bottom plate is steel)



Quite possibly you are right with a flat plate underside.

Quote:
c) Keys are going to be a problem, I agree. But this problem also exists when modifying an hp-35S if different lettering is required.

Not as much of a problem though. You simply copy the exact key on the 35S and get blanks made. All the hard trial-and-error design work has been done for us.
Yes, the key lettering issues remain the same either way.

With the 35X we get a working calc with real keys from day one.
With a complete "from scratch" design, I bet you anything you'll still be mucking around with getting the keys right after the second or third prototype.

Quote:
d) Just look at the photos above!

I much prefer the look of the 35S. Much more professional.

Quote:
e) No, it can look exactly as my little toy above. Machined, sand-blasted and anodized, it will even look better. And it will not have these awful rubber keys of course :-)

Exactly what type of keys will it have then?
I assume you have a plan for the key top design, the key top material, the actuation system, the PCB interface etc etc

Quote:
2) Yes, but this is 300 $ for nothing but a 35S with a larger display, an SD-Card slot and modified software. I still think, that for 300 Dollars we can get much, much more than that.

Yes, $300 *only* if you produce several hundred of them at a minimum, and you get the design absolutely perfect of course.
Do you really think several hundred people are going to want your calc? I bet half won't even like the shape.

The 35X can be done simply and cheaply in one-off quantities.

Sorry to dampen your enthusiasm, but I think you are grossly underestimating the work and cost involved involved in a complete DIY calc from scratch.

The whole idea of a DIY calc should be about the fact that you can program it yourself, and doing it "just for fun". The 35X is a cheap and easy way to get that satisfaction.

Tell me, if the real 35S was an open design and was able to the re-programmed easily, and had a graphic screen, how many people do you think would be working on new software right now?
How massively popular would it be?
My guess is it would be very popular indeed. That's what I'm talking about creating with the 35X.

Dave.

The first 50 responses are in:

I guess that means there are lot of lurkers on the forum!

Results are very interesting.
76% of people said they would want one, with 16% offering to help out.

6% don't want a DIY calc in any form.

The majority of people don't really care about the display, as long as it works.
Backlighting seems like a bit of a waste of time, and maybe isn't very practical with the coin cell batteries in the 35S anyway.

A not insignificant number of people want a luminous display.

SD card and serial I/O seem to be must-haves.

Dave.

It seems to me that there is a middle ground here would make everyone happy.

Someone design the PCB and stuff to fit in a 35S to get things going. At the same time, someone else can build a custom case and keys that will accept that PCB/display.

Both people can start right now, and not be dependent on the other, because the spec is already defined. In the case that the PCB never gets made, someone can have a one of a kind metal calculator with 35s guts. If the case never gets made someone can have a 35s with custom calculator guts. Everyone wins!

-Jonathan

Quote:
It seems to me that there is a middle ground here would make everyone happy.

Someone design the PCB and stuff to fit in a 35S to get things going. At the same time, someone else can build a custom case and keys that will accept that PCB/display.

Both people can start right now, and not be dependent on the other, because the spec is already defined. In the case that the PCB never gets made, someone can have a one of a kind metal calculator with 35s guts. If the case never gets made someone can have a 35s with custom calculator guts. Everyone wins!


Sounds great, in theory, but does anyone (but Max) actually want a metal case 35X with the same keys and key layout as the 35S?
As Max said, it can be so much more.
The 35S case already looks fantastic as I'm sure most people will agree. The metal case will never look as professional, ever.

If the PCB never gets made, then the metal case is useless because it won't be designed to fit the original 35S screen. It would be designed to fit the new 35X LCD.

Dave.

Now comes the crunch.
Is someone willing to completely take apart their 35S and take some high res photos for us all to peruse to see how easy or hard this is going to be?

I'd do it, but I don't actually have a 35S.

Dave.

My point of view:

I don't like the HP35s. The "feeling" of the hardware is way too "cheap" in comparision to those calculators available a decade and more ago. So I certainly won't like a HP35 with modified innards. If I don't like it, I won't buy it.

I don't really understand why there must be a DIY calculator. I completely understand that there are people who enjoy building a calculator, some of them already have shown us nice working prototypes! But is there really a need to build a DIY calculator with a professional touch that will be available in large quantities? Just get a HP42 or a calculator from the 48 series and you have the ultimate customizability concerning software including a professional housing.

Edited: 29 Nov 2007, 1:16 a.m.

Quote:
My point of view:

I don't like the HP35s. The "feeling" of the hardware is way too "cheap" in comparision to those calculators available a decade and more ago. So I certainly won't like a HP35 with modified innards. If I don't like it, I won't buy it.

I don't really understand why there must be a DIY calculator. I completely understand that there are people who enjoy building a calculator, some of them already have shown us nice working prototypes! But is there really a need to build a DIY calculator with a professional touch that will be available in large quantities? Just get a HP42 or a calculator from the 48 series and you have the ultimate customizability concerning software including a professional housing.


There must be a DIY calculator because we are geeks (or nerds), and that's what we do :->

Based on the poll there are currently 46 people who said they want a DIY calculator, 34 of whom said they want a 35X.

Dave.

Quote:
There must be a DIY calculator because we are geeks (or nerds), and that's what we do :->

I completely understand your view ! ;)

But then please, the DIYcalc must be something close to perfection, no compromises in terms of quality and feel.

Has someone ever asked HP to produce "custom" calculators?

Hello!

Quote:
But then please, the DIYcalc must be something close to perfection, no compromises in terms of quality and feel.

That's what I think, too. For me, calculators are like watches: Their time is over, you really don't need them any more (I do not even wear a watch when flying, the time is displayed in dozens of places). And in the few occasions when I wear a watch, it must be more than just a device that tells the time, it must be an object of art, a fashion accessory (not for me though), something that is pleasant to touch and to look at. And therefore, I would never, never, never wear a plastic watch with an LCD, no matter how many fancy functions it has to offer.

And the same applies to calculators: There are plenty of plastic calculators with LCDs and fancy functions, if we wanted to do this thing as a software project, there are a dozen candidates from HP, Ti and Casio that could be used as a starting point without any modification to the hardware at all. But for me, this would be a project not worth the effort (I don't need the extra added fancy functions anyway). And therefore, I expect this DIY calculator to be special both in hardware and software!

But this is only one reason for my "fixation" on metal as a bulding material. The other is the fact, that metal really is easier to work with as a do-it-yourselfer and cheaper to produce in small batches then plastic (because "we" have more than 5000 years experience with metal, but only about 100 years with plastic :-) )

Greetings, Max

Seems there are different basic reasons for a DIYcalc shining up in this community. Making a long story short, the community feels there are 2 areas where modern RPN scientific calcs like the 35S are inferior to previous models:

  • Some of us miss the quality appeal of (some) vintage calcs. Thus, they strive for a better surface (like metal housing, pocketability, OLED etc.), accepting the function set as is.
  • Some of us miss several functions the 42S featured (like reasonable matrix, complex and integer calculating abilities). Thus, they strive for a better function set (even going beyond the 42S), accepting the surface as is.
Plus, some of us see space for improvement of the way the function set is displayed on the keyboard, incl. the selection which functions show up there.

Of course, some even find 2 or all 3 aspects annoying, thus striving for a quality calc with a more complete function set and a more logical implementation. Unfortunately, these different points of view mix, tending to bring every shy attempt of improvement or project to a standstill.

So, I'd second Jonathan's post above: there shall start separate projects, one for better packaging and one for extended functions. When both have reached their targets, they may merge, but we'll reduce the burden for each by running them separately before.

Of course, these are just my 20 Milli-Euros again.

Edited: 29 Nov 2007, 1:47 p.m.

Quote:
And the same applies to calculators: There are plenty of plastic calculators with LCDs and fancy functions, if we wanted to do this thing as a software project, there are a dozen candidates from HP, Ti and Casio that could be used as a starting point without any modification to the hardware at all.

Which calculators have such open hardware that it is accessible for complete re-programming without any mods?

Dave.

If a better case is all you want, then just pick your favourite calc, take it apart, copy the case in metal, and reassemble. Or just design a metal shell that fits around the existing calc, that may even have very wide appeal.

Such a project would border on trivial for any mechanical/CAD skilled person.

Some calcs are better suited to this than others, so the the degree of difficulty may vary.

Dave.

Quote:
Which calculators have such open hardware that it is accessible for complete re-programming without any mods?

I've advocated (some would say too many times) a look at the TI-83+/84+ and/or the TI-89. Available: Z-80 & M68000 processors (respectively), flash memory, serial I/O, and (at no cost) emulators, assemblers, a C compiler (I think, for the TI-89), & documentation.

The only real hitch (and it may be significant) is the license agreement one agrees to in order to get at he development kit, which I think reinforces the fact that the tools are provided for the purpose of developing loadable "apps" (or whatever they're called), not for reconfiguring the underlying OS. This may be a minor issue -- I don't know. (But one would want to be very careful about messing with the OS upgrade and serial I/O routines, lest a useless brick result!)

All of that aside, the hardware package seems to me almost exactly what's wanted. The case & keys aren't the slimmest or handsomest calculators ever made, but I will say the tactile feedback and accuracy of the keyboards (those that I've played with, anyway) are about on par with those of the 35s.

The PCB's are a bit too large for easy incorporation in smaller cases. However, the older models have the separate display board connected to the main PCB via a ~15-conductor ribbon cable, offering (as I've noted recently elsewhere) the possibility of some creative folding -- maybe a smaller (41c?) keyboard and the display wired to, and sitting on top of the main board, reducing the y & (hopefully) z dimensions somewhat. (The original cases contain more air than anything else.)

Another possibility might be an extendable/retractable display: maybe two alphanumeric lines showing for basic mode, and the full graphics screen (and cursor/graphics keys, too?) extending for graphics work.

As many of you know, I've found this easy to talk about, but haven't delivered anything. I've got one 83+ dismantled, with some 41c parts too, the development kit downloaded, and the documentation printed -- but that's about it so far. (I did have, once upon a time, a 41c keyboard connected to an 83+ via wire-wrap wires, and a kludgy RPN "OS" written in TI-Basic.) Obviously not one of my prime priorities, but something I hope to mess with sooner or later.

NT

Final results:

Anyone going to take apart their 35S?

Dave.

Hi, Max --

Quote:
For me, calculators are like watches: Their [era] is over, you really don't need them any more (I do not even wear a watch when flying, the time is displayed in dozens of places).

I suspect that many people use their cell-phones for keeping time and date, but it's still not as expedient as an analog wristwatch. Most cars have clock displays, and of course, computer screens provide time and date. So, that info is almost always readily available from other sources. The ones that communicate (cell phones, caller-ID devices) also stay synchronized to correct local time.

Quote:
And in the few occasions when I wear a watch, it must be more than just a device that tells the time, it must be an object of art, a fashion accessory (not for me though)

That, along with the lack of absolute necessity, might explain why most modern wristwatches seem to be either crude bare-bones time-telling devices (e.g., Timex), or enormous and garishly-overstyled artistic designs. I still wear a 1981 Seiko quartz watch. Clean and crisp, it offers an analog display with blue-green face. An LCD unit above the face displays time, date, alarm, or stopwatch as selected. Setting, and any other function, is easy using a crown and two buttons. I lost the manual long ago, but don't need it. The fact that it still works within specifications after 26 years attests to its quality.

There is apparently nothing else like it available today. Most "upscale" men's analog watches provide multiple small inset dials with tiny needle hands that are difficult to read, even when they are not blocked by the main hour and minute hands. They are, to me, clear examples of style and gimmickry over substance and practicality. Maybe that's the point: a fashion-accessory statement, instead of a well-designed and versatile tool.

-- KS


Edited: 2 Dec 2007, 7:57 p.m.

What about this slide rule watch. No misleading dials and useful when one forgets one's calculators.

- Pauli

Karl,

I'll stick with my 1962 Rolex Oyster. I has no small dials, no date , I have to wind it every day, plus I can tell time in the dark.

tm

Hi, Paul --

Thanks for the link; the watch was interesting to look at. However, it still doesn't "measure up" to mine, slide rule notwithstanding:

  • "Busy" face
  • No day-of-week display
  • No alarm
  • No stopwatch
  • Date-of-month display is obscured by minute hand 20 minutes after the hour

My Seiko H357 watch and the HP Voyager line are two examples of those well-designed and well-made 1980's consumer goods, whose attributes are now sometimes hard to find.

Here are a few links to examples of the Seiko H357 line:

a "5040" -- the basis of the watch Roger Moore as James Bond wore in the 1981 movie "For Your Eyes Only"

Bond's actual watch was retrofitted with a red LED (perhaps a first!) that displayed messages.

Mine is a 5030 -- a plainer, more traditional design.


Plenty of gimmicky "nerd watches" from 20-30 years ago can be found at the pocketcalculatorshow.

The above is certainly not intended as a boast about my wristwatch. After all, Seiko is entitled to all the credit. Rather, it's a mild lament that such a thoughtful, non-nonsense approach to product design seems to be almost passe nowadays.

-- KS


Edited: 4 Dec 2007, 12:47 a.m. after one or more responses were posted

Hi, Trent --

Quote:
I'll stick with my 1962 Rolex Oyster. I has no small dials, no date , I have to wind it every day, plus I can tell time in the dark.

A 45-year-old mechanical watch that still runs! That might be even more impressive, from a standpoint of quality.

But, can a company be profitable by producing goods that last so long if buyers did not purchase the newer ones? Rolex apparently is, but the "price of entry" is high...

-- KS


Edited: 3 Dec 2007, 3:12 a.m.

How many votes were counted? (Always fun to read *fractions* of % though the sample size may be well below 100 ;)

I may be willing to open my 35s, but only if this is the last inevitably necessary step to support a project deemed to be successful. Means I will not risk to destroy my 35s for nothing. And so far, I do not see sufficiently solid commitments to this project to make me do it.

Quote:
How many votes were counted? (Always fun to read *fractions* of % though the sample size may be well below 100 ;)

I may be willing to open my 35s, but only if this is the last inevitably necessary step to support a project deemed to be successful. Means I will not risk to destroy my 35s for nothing. And so far, I do not see sufficiently solid commitments to this project to make me do it.


There were 67 responses to the poll. Although I technically do not know if that is 67 different people, or a dozen people entering multiple times. I would presume most people weren't silly enough to enter more than once.

Dave.

You are right, analog/digital combo watches rarely come with a separate dial these days.
This Casio is one of the few exceptions.
But it doesn't look like it has a stopwatch.


This Victorinox also might fit the bill

Dave.

Edited: 3 Dec 2007, 4:18 a.m.

Hi,

my Rolex DateJust is much younger, only about 25 years old, and still works perfectly.

Last year the watch was serviced and the case polished,

which cost a small fortune, but now it also _looks_ like new again:-)

And yes, the entry price is high, but as you know,

you always get what you pay for;-)

Raymond

Quote:
Hi,

my Rolex DateJust is much younger, only about 25 years old, and still works perfectly.

Last year the watch was serviced and the case polished,

which cost a small fortune, but now it also _looks_ like new again:-)

And yes, the entry price is high, but as you know,

you always get what you pay for;-)

Raymond


Hmmm... I remember what I paid for the service of my IWC Fliegerchronograph ... so I'm not shocked. At least the watch manufacturers do a service after such a long time.

BTW I remember, they kept the watch for about 2 months in Switzerland :-(

Ifyou want a slide rule wath, just take a Breitling Navitimer.

A HP35X (for me) should have an aluminium body (to make it looking like a valuable device and good keys, just like the 10C-15C, 71B, 41, ... keyboards.

I think, building the keys is a real challenge.

I hope I didn't give the impression that over the years my Rolex never had any maintenance. It's been in several times to the official Rolex Service Center in San Francisco. No need to ship it to Switzerland.

tm

P.S. to my last. It seems as if it is in better shape today than when it was presented to me as a gift.

tm

There's no official service center in Austria (AFAIK). Seems they send all watches to Switzerland - it's some 100 kms away from Vienna, so it wouldn't make sense to have a dedicated service center here.

No, you didn't leave the impression of doing a service every 25 years :-)