|
95C--Seemed like a good idea at the time
|
04-13-2012, 11:38 PM
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?
04-14-2012, 01:41 AM
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!
04-14-2012, 02:29 AM
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.
04-14-2012, 06:30 AM
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.
04-14-2012, 11:45 AM
Quote: 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
04-14-2012, 03:07 PM
What about the 32s/ii? The 32s was introduced in 1988 so only an 11 year gap.
04-14-2012, 04:47 PM
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.
04-15-2012, 10:11 AM
Quote: Whoops! My bad.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
