For those saying that 35s screen is an improvement over 33s



#27

Hi there,

I have taken a few good res pictures under two lighting conditions:

These are under outdoor light directly coming from a window:


With good light, both LCD displays look similar. You can see that the 25s display has a bit more glare, and the 33s is easier to see. Also, notice the theta character on the top line of the 35s. Too similar to an 8.

Now, let's go to indoor working with these machines. The following pictures are taken indoors with enough light to work, write, or jot down numbers (like any regular office or lab):


In these pictures, the HP-35s can be seen sucking out loud with its bad LCD.

These photos are just my $0.02 for those considering the 35s.

Judge for yourself.

I work in an environment with constantly changling light conditions, going from bright sunlight to diffuse haze the next minute. I haven't tested it yet (I bought it two days ago), but I have serious doubt that it'll improve "in the field".

Oh, and the decimal point from the 33s that so many people disliked is rendered identically on the 35s.

Improved display? I don't think so.

Greetings,

Rafael


#28

now that just looks wrong!

whatever possessed someone at some time and place that a comma would be a good replacement for a decimal point? isn't that the whole definition of a decimal point? that it is indeed a point and not an amorphous mass? [g]

i looked at a 33s today at fry's and those keyboard labels all ugly colors and squashed together just turned my stomach. uglier than my 49g+ even and even harder to read. i ended up buying a ti-30sx and didn't notice until i got it home that it has green lettering on a green keyboard plate. sometimes you just have to scratch your head and conclude that designers work in a broom closet with no friends to shake them briskly when they go so wrong.

anyway, one of my favorite calculators of all the many i've owned is the 27s which i would argue has the worst display of any hp i've seen or owned. add the insult of (expensive) battery life measured in days instead of weeks or months and you know i'd have to really like it to keep it in play all these (20+?) years.

bottom line: i think they got the look and the keyboard feel of the 35s nearly perfect. hp need to build on that baseline with some good followups.

/guy

Edited: 16 Sept 2007, 8:29 a.m.


#29

In several countries the decimal separator is indeed the comma. Even in Canada, Québec, where I live, this is the standart decimal separator. You refer to it as a decimal point because that is what you use. In countries where the comma is used it is refered as the decimal comma. I prefer the more generic term of decimal separator. I just bought a HP 32E from someone in Spain and I was happy to see that it came with comma as decimal separator. I just cannot get used to the point.

Regards,

Miguel

Edited: 16 Sept 2007, 9:20 a.m.

#30

Quote:
now that just looks wrong!

whatever possessed someone at some time and place that a comma would be a good replacement for a decimal point? isn't that the whole definition of a decimal point? that it is indeed a point and not an amorphous mass? [g]

i looked at a 33s today at fry's and those keyboard labels all ugly colors and squashed together just turned my stomach. uglier than my 49g+ even and even harder to read. i ended up buying a ti-30sx and didn't notice until i got it home that it has green lettering on a green keyboard plate. sometimes you just have to scratch your head and conclude that designers work in a broom closet with no friends to shake them briskly when they go so wrong.

anyway, one of my favorite calculators of all the many i've owned is the 27s which i would argue has the worst display of any hp i've seen or owned. add the insult of (expensive) battery life measured in days instead of weeks or months and you know i'd have to really like it to keep it in play all these (20+?) years.

bottom line: i think they got the look and the keyboard feel of the 35s nearly perfect. hp need to build on that baseline with some good followups.

/guy


Hello all,

Please, dont get me wrong. I also like to point out good qualities, and I like this cal (that's why I bought ir). But the 35s has a very bad one for a 21st century calculator. I took some pictures and I believe they speak for themselves.

Oh and, as Miguel said, the "dot" is not used as the decimal point everywhere. However, that's not the reason why I use the comma. I like the dot best, and the reason for me to use the comma is the bad LCD, where the dot can barely be seen.

Cheers,

Rafael.


#31

I put both my 33S and 35S side by side and looked at the displays. There is some difference, but it is minor. The decimal point in the 35S is perfectly acceptable.

#32

Hello,

and thanks for the comparison.

The problem here is that the comparison is not neutral IMHO.

To get a real comparison you'd also have to take photos with

the left and right calcs on display swapped,

while retaining the same point of view.

That way, you will have the same conditions for both calcs,

regarding the sunlight reflection.

The way you made the photographs, you'll always have a small

difference in the viewing angle towards the respective display,

and this actually voids the comparison;-)


Regards

Raymond


#33

Quote:
Hello,

and thanks for the comparison.

The problem here is that the comparison is not neutral IMHO.

To get a real comparison you'd also have to take photos with

the left and right calcs on display swapped,

while retaining the same point of view.

That way, you will have the same conditions for both calcs,

regarding the sunlight reflection.

The way you made the photographs, you'll always have a small

difference in the viewing angle towards the respective display,

and this actually voids the comparison;-)

Regards

Raymond


Ha ha ha

I did actually, Raymond, but I only posted these ones.

I swapped the calculators from side to side, I moved them to different locations to get an objective perspective, and finally I posted only these pictures to save space in the forum (they're too big already).

I posted the zenithal photos because they were the most informative. Both screens were very parallel, and you can see the reflection of my face only in the 35. I guess that they used a more antireflective surface (or less refective) in the 33. I prefer the 35 anyway. It's just a pity that they made this mistake.

Rafael.


#34

Hello Rafael,
And did you calibrate the screen contrast?
It looks to me like the 35s has its contrast turned down; mine certainly doesn't look the same as yours- even next to my 33s :0)

#35

The 35s screen is the identical part to the 33s screen (the one with the updated decimal point).

The only difference is the matte vs. glossy cover.

Gene


#36

Quote:
The only difference is the matte vs. glossy cover.

So why was this changed? Must have been cost reasons, but how many Milli$ were saved? Probably easy to calculate. However, how many $ - in comparison - are lost by the consequences of inferior quality in this respect? Far more difficult to compute! And so the easy way was chosen ... :(

I really hope I'm wrong!

#37

Quote:
The only difference is the matte vs. glossy cover.

So why was this changed? Must have been cost reasons, but how many Milli$ were saved? Probably easy to calculate. However, how many $ - in comparison - are lost by the consequences of inferior quality in this respect? Far more difficult to compute! And so the easy way was chosen ... :(

I really hope I'm wrong!


#38

Perhaps the matte vs gloss wasn't specified precisely enough and has nothing to do with money.


#39

I have no idea about the matte vs. glossy change.

#40

Hello,
Nice pictures. I also notice that the display of the 35s scratchs like hell compared with the one and a half year old 33s wich has no scratches at all. You can scracht it even cleaning it with a cloth. I wonder if there's a protection you can remove. Wath a shame.

#41

The complaints about the HP 33s display were mostly concerned with its initial release. The decimal point was very small and almost impossible to see in a number like 2.2. This was corrected in time by HP.

The display does not "suck out loud". I do not dispute that it could be better. Having used both the 35s and the 33s with the improved display, it is my opinion that there is almost no discernible difference. The display of the 35s could be greatly improvved with a matte display, such as the one used for the 32sii.

I am very pleased with the HP 35s, and would recommend it to anyone. Sometimes it seems like there is an anti-HP35s bandwagon on this site. Is it perfect? No. Is it bug free? No. Is it good enough for daily use? Absolutely. It is my daily use calculator as a structural engineer, and it works just fine.


#42

Quote:
The complaints about the HP 33s display were mostly concerned with its initial release. The decimal point was very small and almost impossible to see in a number like 2.2. This was corrected in time by HP.

The display does not "suck out loud". I do not dispute that it could be better. Having used both the 35s and the 33s with the improved display, it is my opinion that there is almost no discernible difference. The display of the 35s could be greatly improvved with a matte display, such as the one used for the 32sii.

I am very pleased with the HP 35s, and would recommend it to anyone. Sometimes it seems like there is an anti-HP35s bandwagon on this site. Is it perfect? No. Is it bug free? No. Is it good enough for daily use? Absolutely. It is my daily use calculator as a structural engineer, and it works just fine.


I apologize to anyone that could be offended by my "sucking out loud" comment. It was not my intention to offend Anyone. Brian, I am sorry if my words made you think I'm against the 35s. I am not exerienced enough to put down a machine that so many people cherish. I actually like it very much. I just thought I'd take those pictures and remark the bad point of the machine I see at first when I open the box. But hey, I like it, that's why I own one. if I were a member of some bandwagon, I wouldn't want to learn to use it better ;-)

Again, thanks to everyone posting in reply to my comments and everyone helping me in my other posts.

Cheers,

Rafael.


#43

I apparently interpreted your "sucking out loud" more harshly than you meant it. No offense was taken.

I do agree with you that the display could be better though. In my opinion a matte finish for the display window would make it a lot better.

I like the 35s but I don't think that its design is as good as the 32sii, although the 35s is more powerful.

Thanks for a cool level headed response.


#44

From one who has invested in a 35s but yet not got it I liked to read a positive mail about it :-) However I have liked reading the post about all the problems, for one thing, I am prepared to not be disapointed!

Ofcourse one must also take into acount this population, propably some of the most knowledgable hp calculator people and also it is the problems that for natural reasons get discussed.

Also I think the anger sometime one feel present in post is not so much about how terrible terrible 35s is but how good it could have been...

In a close paralell universe there are people jumping up and down in joy for ho-35s, it does not have any bugs in our bug list article, it has the old normal R<->P, vectors has dim operator and cross product and can be used for input to the linear equation solver, it have basic usb I/O.

We would smile also then, he?


#45

Ja, where is the wormhole? Tak so mykket! (Thx!)


#46

I need a rpn calculator to calculate the 11 dimensional coordinates for whormhole to happy hp user unieverse,... blame lazy norwegian custom guys... :-)


#47

Oh, your first message made me believe there exists a universe with some happy hp users therein. Now you are telling us it is even a "happy hp user universe". Where did you get this information from? Please, calculate the coordinates asap. To ease your work, remember 7 of these 11 dimensions are just coiled and may be dropped for practical use (but are kept to keep theoretical physicists busy and out of the way ;)

Edited: 18 Sept 2007, 2:50 a.m.


#48

Thx for the tip, but ofcourse there is an infinity of possibilities, so I think I will not try this after all. I would not be the one to blame for that the buggy hp35s makes a small error and get us all to the one where rpn users are looked up on as devil worshipers!

"7 of these 11 dimensions are just coiled and may be dropped for practical use (but are kept to keep theoretical physicists busy and out of the way ;)"

Realy, my friend 'the theoretical physicists' will be interested in that!

Edited: 18 Sept 2007, 3:24 a.m.

#49

I can't directly compare the HP-35s display to the improved HP-33s display, which is probably nearly the same.

The original HP-33s display has 14 full-grid positions plus a leading negative-sign position. The one-line HP-32SII display has 12 larger full-grid positions plus a leading negative-sign position.

It is noteworthy that HP-32SII display window is slightly wider, and with no annunciators on the sides, the space alloted for numbers in the HP-32SII display is significantly wider. The HP-35s would benefit from a 15th display position, as that would make possible the display of any complex number, if the mantissa is rounded to a single significant figure, e.g.:

-9.E-234i-5.E-167 

which really ought to be displayed in mathematically-correct HP-42S style as

-9.E-234-i5.E-167 

SHOW could then display the mantissas of each part of the complex number without exponents.

Presently, the HP-35s truncates display of real or complex numbers (if necessary) after the 14th character, relying on the scrolling function to display the entire number. The magnitude is not always apparent, and SHOW doesn't work at all on a complex number.

-- KS


Edited: 18 Sept 2007, 4:01 p.m.

#50

Indeed.

I taped my HP35S display with Scott Magic tape (the one which smells a bit like a new HP calculator). It adds the necessary matte. OK, not a perfect solution, but gets rid of the glare. Apply carefully to avoid air bubbles between display surface and tape.

Cheers, Peter.


#51

Hello,

> Scott Magic tape

>

good idea.

> (the one which smells a bit like a new HP calculator)

>

Cool thing! Didn't know that they are available sorted by flavour;-)

Raymond

#52

Quote:
I taped my HP35S display with Scott Magic tape (the one which smells a bit like a new HP calculator).

You may also want to consider using a screen protector for a PDA. The protectors are nearly transparent, easily trimmed to fit before removing the backing, and have almost no tackiness (easy to remove with no residue).


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Prime screen scratches - Use a screen protector Eelco Rouw 11 899 11-19-2013, 10:16 PM
Last Post: Eddie W. Shore
  Stylus for Prime screen steindid 6 603 10-22-2013, 02:06 AM
Last Post: Alberto Candel
  Sending from graph to home or CAS screen Richard Berler 6 635 10-06-2013, 03:29 PM
Last Post: Tim Wessman
  HP48GX screen replacement Francisco Quiles 9 831 10-03-2013, 09:17 PM
Last Post: Francisco Quiles
  33s, 35s & 42s--The Timex(R) Factor Matt Agajanian 7 598 09-13-2013, 12:28 AM
Last Post: Matt Agajanian
  hp50g screen weird line Sok-khieng Chum Hun 2 363 09-10-2013, 08:11 AM
Last Post: Sok-khieng Chum Hun
  New screen on pictures of new Sharp EL-9950 Mic 4 517 06-10-2013, 10:40 AM
Last Post: Mic
  HP Prime should have higher resolution screen LHH 5 486 04-25-2013, 10:00 AM
Last Post: bhtooefr
  Creeping black pattern on HP-11C screen Larry Gagnon 6 556 04-12-2013, 10:09 AM
Last Post: Peter Murphy (Livermore)
  HP-42S with Electroluminescent screen and simple I/O port Jose Poyan 8 728 03-27-2013, 07:11 PM
Last Post: Jose Poyan

Forum Jump: