Posts: 19
Threads: 3
Joined: Aug 2013
I haven't got a 33s for comparison, but according to Wikipedia, the 35s is the same height, 1mm narrower,and 2mm thicker (at the thickest point behind the display) than the 33s. Very little in the difference.
With all handheld calculators there's a trade-off. If you want it to fit in a small pocket you have to put up with a cramped keyboard and small display. If you want it comfortable for the desktop, pocketability suffers. For me, the HP 35s is a very good compromise.
Posts: 20
Threads: 3
Joined: Sep 2011
Quote:
Thanks for the clarification. But, what's to the contention from the post I cited which states the 35S is not pocketable?
Fred mentioned above that the 35S is slightly thinner than the 35 with a similar footprint. Bill Hewlett required that the original 35 fit into his shirt pocket, therefore the 35S will also fit into a shirt pocket.
Posts: 168
Threads: 10
Joined: Jul 2007
I Ron misspoke. The HP-35S is clearly pocketable.
Edited: 30 Aug 2013, 9:41 p.m.