Why the HP 41 instead of an RPL / 50g style machine?



#46

I've often been asked these questions:

"Why are people still developing applications / hardware for the 41c when the 50g and RPL machines are so much more capable? Why would someone work with the 1-line display on the 41c and a machine so much slower than a 50g?"

I have my ideas, but would like to see ideas from those of you / us who still use the 41c and want things like Christoph's HP-41 EXT IL PLUS Module, or the NoVRAM, etc.

So, why the 41c instead of an RPL machine / 50g? How about some numbered bullet point reasons? :-)


#47

For me, it's simple:

RPL is to convoluted and involved. I find it hard to be fully on top of all commands without carting the AUR around (and that would make a 50g much heavier than the 41).

RPN is simple, elegant, easy to remember and be on top of, and it packs more punch per byte. And MCODE is so very accessible to extend the function set.

And the geek-factor of the 41 is greater :-)

#48

Hello!

Quote:
So, why the 41c instead of an RPL machine / 50g? How about some numbered bullet point reasons? :-)

Only one reason:
1. RPL (life is too short to waste it like that)

Greetings, Max

#49

Hi Gene, what time is it?

I find that for me, it is the familiarity of it. I have owned and operated one for 28 years. I also have the 48's and as you know many others.

I have programed the HP 71B, the 48's the 65 and 67 to mention a few and I find the 41 the easiest (I pretty well have the machine memorized).

I do not feel like learning a new system whilst the old one works perfectly. Speed is not a requirement, if it was the 41 would be in storage.

Having said that I am having fun with the 42S for obvious reasons although it requires a quartz crystal and dynamic time functions and the soon to be 32K option, for it to compete seriously with the 41.

Cheers, Geoff


#50

In a word, RPL. A sledgehammer to crack a walnut, for most jobs. And if the job is that complicated, I'll use a computer.

--- Les

[http://www.lesbell.com.au]


#51

Fully agree. While RPL may make complicated things simple (as some gurus say), I never reach this state, because RPL makes simple things complicated. And a 50G or 48 is no *pocket* calculator anymore. And you can always show up in a real-life meeting with a decent device like a 42S, but not with a hammer like the RPL-machines. Enough reasons IMO.

Ceterum censeo: HP, launch a 43s (therefore, for example!).

Walter


#52

My favorite HP calculators are the HP42S (RPN) and the HP50g (RPL). I find the capability of the HP50g to be amazing, but it would be much more useful to me if there were a way to program it according to the RPN model, in addition to its RPL model.

My first HP programmable was the HP-67 (1977), followed by the HP-41C (1979). I find RPN to be extremely straightforward, compared to RPL. RPL forces use of structured programming techniques, which is theoretically great. But for quickly programming a simple task, RPL requires a lot more work than RPN and it is usually not worth the effort. I've never had time or motivation to translate my 30-year-old RPN Runge-Kutta ODE numerical solver to RPL.

Mike


#53

It is easy to program the 50 like a 41: just run the emulator from Hrastprogrammer. Very nifty!


#54

Except the usage of alarms, HP-IL...


#55

Quote:
Except the usage of alarms, HP-IL...

http://www.hrastprogrammer.com/hp41x/index.htm

Both alarms and HP-IL are emulated to some extent.


#56

Quote:
Both alarms and HP-IL are emulated to some extent.
"to some extent" is the key phrase here. I looked at the web page and the one it links for the HPIL portion, and it hardly touches what a few of us have done with HPIL, and it apparently needs a PC and Windows to do what it can do, which to me is not acceptable. His sentence, "Honestly, I am not too much interested in supporting 20-year-old equipment bought on eBay" shows a lack of understanding of the world of IEEE-488 lab equipment. Perhaps there aren't many of us who have a use for it in our work, but I want to keep pressing this issue that HPIL was useful for far more than a little human I/O, mass storage, and a DMM, and that in spite of the greater speed and graphics and memory of newer hand-held devices, the usefulness of HPIL for a hand-held controller has not been matched yet.

To add to some of the other comments I fully agree with, I would say that one value that seems to be forgotten in newer devices is power through simplicity, something the 50g definitely lacks, according to my limited exposure to it.


#57

"Honestly, I am not too much interested in supporting 20-year-old equipment bought on eBay" shows a lack of understanding of the world of IEEE-488 lab equipment.

Why would this sentence show a lack of understanding for anything?!? How do you know what I understand and what I don't understand? Do you know anything about me and about my knowledge?

I just stated that I am not interested in supporting 20-year-old equipment bought on eBay, simply as that. And I really am not interested in supporting 20-year-old equipment bought on eBay. What is wrong with this?

I modelled all my emulators according to MY NEEDS and what I need in regard to HP-IL is to print from my emulators to Windows printers and to load/save programs/data from/to files on Windows machines. I don't use Linux/Unix, I don't like Linux/Unix, I don't have or use any real HP-IL equipment, I don't use any lab equipment, ...

I just wanted to use my PC running Windows to perform a few tasks I need using RS-232 cable only, without a need for a specialized hardware. HP-IL simulation/emulation/whatever seemed perfect for this and I have done just that with some additional functionality which was not present in my initial specification like console, serial/parallel port and input/output devices. I emulated most of HP-IL functionality via RS-232, lefting out just a few things, like parallel polling, which would consume too much CPU resources (Saturn is not a Core2Quad 3.33GHz and its performance is very limited).

So, I believe I understand HP-IL well enough ... I read every available paper on this subject, I analyzed most of the HP-IL ROMs listings for HP-41 and HP-71, I rewrote large parts of those ROMs to make them compatible with HP-41X/71X, etc, etc.

The similar situation is with timer emulation. Both HP-41X and HP-71X provide extraordinary timer and alarms functionality, with some limitations mentioned on my page. These limitations (3 day limit of hibernation mode and that stopwatch can wake up the emulator from hibernation) are not of any concern to me, but can be of a great concern to someone else, of course.

But I really developed all my emulators because I enjoyed it in the first place, not to make them appealing to everyone. I tried to make them as good as possible under limitations of the hardware I have available.

Best regards.

HrastProgrammer


Edited: 7 Nov 2008, 2:31 a.m.


#58

You obviously understand a lot of things that I don't; but IEEE-488 lab equipment should not be devalued just because IEEE-488 has been around over 20 years. There are a lot of IEEE-488 RF network analyzers, power supplies, signal generators, relay boxes, frequency counters, and all kinds of instruments that are just as useful today as they were when they were new 20 years ago. I like to be able to take the 41 or 71 with me in a package much smaller than a laptop, then come back in and pull up to the workbench and plug it in and take a couple of minutes to carry out some more measurements that would take an hour or two to do by hand (plus be more prone to human error). It is not a fast-moving market like the here-today-gone-tomorrow consumer PC market that is partly propelled by the "cool" factor. What you did is commendable for your uses and many others'. I should have congratulated you on your work, because you deserve it. The fact that you did it because you enjoyed it in the first place is also commendable. I hope however that HP is reading all this, and that they wake up and realize the height from which they have fallen. I want them to realize that neither they nor anyone else has made a true replacement for what they had in the mid-80's. Even USB cannot replace HPIL. I think it was foolish of them to drop HPIL instead of advancing it. And what their marketing department did to the HP71 was an absolute disgrace. Now I'm letting the subject drift though.


#59

I haven't devalued anything, I just stated that I am not interested in something.

And if I would be interested, I don't think it would be possible to support a full scale of HP-IL devices via 9600 bps RS-232 present on HP-48GX. Even with USB on HP-50G some additional hardware is needed, for what I don't have necessary skills ...

#60

From the link:

Quote:
Regular alarms are working as usual. In order to use alarms when the emulator is in the power-off state, hibernation mode must be activated. This is because in the usual deep-sleep state the emulator doesn't respond to alarm interrupts (alarm cannot wake up the emulator) but in the hibernation mode waking up the emulator by alarm is possible. Hibernation state should not be active for more than 3 days otherwise HP-48/49 date/time will be corrupted (this is the limitation of HP-48/49, not HP-41X).

Which is a real turn-off for me (I use my 41CX as a time manager).

#61

Quote:
While RPL may make complicated things simple . . . RPL makes simple things complicated.

Very nicely stated, Walter, and exactly what I was struggling to say.

--- Les

[http://www.lesbell.com.au]

#62

Ha Geoff! It's the most "wonderful time of the year". :-)

#63

Quote:
How about some numbered bullet point reasons? :-)

  1. It's fun.
That's all I have. I like the challenges the older machines offer. And HP-IL is just too cool not to play with.

But, its the 50g that I reach for when I need to help my kid with school work. It is clearly the more powerful machine, so much so, that it can emulate the 41 and all of its warez. That all said, the 50g is a boring machine, about as exciting as a computer.


#64

As far as programming goes, I recognize the simplicity and strengths of both the RPL and RPN models. In that regard, the 48 and 42 represented the height of quality and development in each series.

While I respect the strengths of the extensible NUT series over all the Pioneers and many of the Charlemagne, I find that the drastic change in key arrangements between the two series (specifically the /,*,-,+ and the ALPHA keyboard) have prevented me from easily migrating back a decade to adopt a 41cx for everyday use.

On an environmental note, barely over a decade passed between the 41c and the 48G, but that was an important decade: the internet changed almost everything.


#65

Quote:
On an environmental note, barely over a decade passed between the 41c and the 48G, but that was an important decade: the internet changed almost everything.

That period, 1979-1993, for me defines the "golden era" of H-P's calculator product line. 1979 saw both the HP-41C and the HP-34C, each pioneering in its own way. 1993 saw the HP-48G series and, two years prior, the final additions to H-P's legacy RPN line: the HP-32SII and HP-17BII.

In between were the introductions of the other two HP-41 models, the entire Voyager line, and the entire Pioneer line. This is quite an impressive list of mature, capable, convenient, and affordable products. In addition, this period saw the inctroduction of the specialized HP-71B/75D and the "new paradigm" HP-28C/S.

-- KS


#66

Quote:
Quote:
On an environmental note, barely over a decade passed between the 41c and the 48G, but that was an important decade: the internet changed almost everything.

That period, 1979-1993, for me defines the "golden era" of H-P's calculator product line. 1979 saw both the HP-41C and the HP-34C, each pioneering in its own way. 1993 saw the HP-48G series and, two years prior, the final additions to H-P's legacy RPN line: the HP-32SII and HP-17BII.

In between were the introductions of the other two HP-41 models, the entire Voyager line, and the entire Pioneer line. This is quite an impressive list of mature, capable, convenient, and affordable products. In addition, this period saw the inctroduction of the specialized HP-71B/75D and the "new paradigm" HP-28C/S.


I'd cut that down to 1979-1990. I agree with the start time, and let it end with the introduction of the 48SX, fully unfolding the Charlemagne design concept.

1991-1993, however, no fundamental news were seen, but color scheme deteriorated, and 32s became 32sii. The speed and function set of the 48G exceeded those of the 48S, of course, but this is not sufficient to extend the golden era IMHO.

Ceterum censeo: HP, launch a 43s (blue-gold forever!).

Walter

Edited: 5 Nov 2008, 6:36 a.m.


#67

Quote:


I'd cut that down to 1979-1990. I agree with the start time, and let it end with the introduction of the 48SX, fully unfolding the Charlemagne design concept.

1991-1993, however, no fundamental news were seen, but color scheme deteriorated, and 32s became 32sii. The speed and function set of the 48G exceeded those of the 48S, of course, but this is not sufficient to extend the golden era IMHO.

Ceterum censeo: HP, launch a 43s (blue-gold forever!).

Walter


Interesting how opinions vary. I would have to include the 48G in the "golden era" because the G refined the S with significant software enhancements that transformed the usability of the calc. Once you have used a G series machine, you can't go back to the S series because the G is so much better.

Regarding the 32sII, this is arguably the best of the Pioneers and a machine that packs a tremendous punch. It should have had more memory of course but in terms of functionality and operation, it is probably the ultimate of the small RPN machines which didn't have I/O.

I would also want to nominate the early desktops (9100 and 98x0 series) as a golden era. They are almost unique and took aspects of design to areas where pocket machines couldn't go. They were even more products of their time than the pocket LED calculator and typified the engeering-led HP approach. I just wish there were more of them on the second hand market!

Mark


#68

Quote:
Interesting how opinions vary. I would have to include the 48G in the "golden era" because the G refined the S with significant software enhancements that transformed the usability of the calc. Once you have used a G series machine, you can't go back to the S series because the G is so much better.

I have to disagree, Mark. I own and USE a 48sx, 48gx, and a 48g. All get used, a lot. Some things the sx did BETTER than the gx - look at the time menu for instance. You can actually tweak the sx's tick counting to adjust the clock for running fast or slow - i can't see any way to do that with the gx - at least not easily. Granted, there are many things the gx does better, but not all! As far as i'm concerned, the 48g is a crippled gx - should never have been produced. It IS interesting how opinions vary, though, isn't it!

polarbear Mike


#69

48SX max RAM (before system takes some): 288KB
Try that with 48GX, 49G, 48GII, 49g+, 50g, etc

#70

Quote:
Regarding the 32sII, this is arguably the best of the Pioneers and a machine that packs a tremendous punch. It should have had more memory of course but in terms of functionality and operation, it is probably the ultimate of the small RPN machines which didn't have I/O.

I agree, and I think the 32Sii was a significant improvement over the 32S (fractions, and having functions on the keyboard instead of buried in menus).

- Britt

#71

If you want a supercalculator that can quickly do the operations on huge matrices and arrays, sure, use the 50G. I seldom need that though. In fact, most of what I do on a calculator doesn't particularly need a lot of speed. I have a 71B as well as the 41cx, and although the 71 is far faster and more powerful, I seldom use it. The 41 is more practical as a calculator.

Although changes in my work mean I don't do this nearly as much as I used to, I also want the machine to be able to interface to other equipment-- and I don't mean just a printer or mass-storage device, or even a PC. I want to connect it to programmable signal generators, signal-routing boxes, power supplies, power meters, multimeters, analyzers, etc.; and the 41, using the HPIL and Extended I/O modules could easily do that. Using the HP82169A HPIL-to-HPIB interface converter, there have been literally thousands of models of lab instruments that can be interfaced to an HP-41, 15 at a time. A man I work with is working on making his 50G able to do that, apparently by building up something he saw in a publication to turn the 50G's serial port into real RS-232 so that he could connect an RS232-to-HPIB (IEEE-488) interface, then write the software to control it, starting at the low-level commands. He has worked on it off and on for many months. What a mess, to do something the 41 did with ease! In my early years with the 41, the small company I was working for started making an audio product that was going to require automated testing. I set up some instruments and used the 41 as the controller, which was much easier to take home at night than a laptop. If I took a commuter train home, it would have been easy to work on things on the train. I didn't realize how quickly this was going to spiral out of control, and it soon got to where test operators were using my 41 most of the day to test product. I got a bigger HP controller with a 68000 processor and coverted things over, but the speed only increased about 70%, because both computers spent a lot of time waiting for filters to settle and readings to come back from the equipment. IOW, the 41 was not slowing things down much. The first two million dollars of that product however were tested with my 41 and a program that was about a dozen pages.

I'm not fond of menus. I do want a well-written paper manual like the 41cx's two volume one, and like the 71B's Owner's Manual and Reference Manual. Someone gave me a 50G and I've gone through the User's Manual, and I have to say the manual is absolutely terrible (to put it mildly!) compared to my 41's and 71's manuals. I have not started on the online manual yet.

I don't need a bigger display. The biggest projects I've done with the 41 required minimal human I/O. I have the 24-line, 80-column HPIL video interface, and I haven't used it in years. What I have been doing in recent years when I write a program is to do it on the PC so I can use the hi-res monitor, have lots of comments, and put more than one instruction on a line, then when I'm happy with it, key it into the 41. Most of my 41 programs these days are only a couple hundred bytes, so it doesn't take long to key them in.

I also don't need graphics, although it would be nice if the 41 had a dot-matrix display so it could do all the lower-case and special characters better.

Are there improvements I would like in the 41? Sure. But the exposure I've had to the 50G so far makes it much harder for me to cozy up to.


#72

Quote:
I'm not fond of menus. I do want a well-written paper manual like the 41cx's two volume one, and like the 71B's Owner's Manual and Reference Manual. Someone gave me a 50G and I've gone through the User's Manual, and I have to say the manual is absolutely terrible (to put it mildly!) compared to my 41's and 71's manuals. I have not started on the online manual yet.

I never had a 42, so in my mind the 41's was the last of the really elegant manuals from HP. In fact, a large part of the pleasure of owning the older HP calcs was reading the manual, learning the capabilities of the machine (and laughing at some of the absurd example scenarios!).

The 48GX manual was a huge disappointment to me: single-colour, devoid of good illustrations, very dry, and set in a typeface that was reminiscent of 1950's school maths textbooks. Mostly unreadable and unrewarding. Part of the problem, of course, is that the capabilities of the 48 series were too great to be documented in the same style as the earlier calcs, and nobody would read all of it if they were.

Still, the manual was part of the reason why I never "bonded" with the 48.

--- Les

[http://www.lesbell.com.au]


#73

I agree wholeheartedly about the manuals. My first HP calc was a 32sII about 15 years ago. Didn't read the manual much, because it was fairly easy to pick up basic calculations. Never learned to program it. However, over the next number of years, I really grew to like using RPN, and so decided to get a graphing calculator. At the time bought a new 48G+. What a mistake! The manual was incomprehensible. I couldn't figure out how to do even slightly complex calculations. I ended up selling the thing a few years later in frustration.

Several years later after discovering the museum web site and getting hooked on other (older) calculators I bought a 48SX. Not a bad start for learning from the manual, but I found that buying a 28s with manual was what it took to really learn what was going on in RPL. Seems to me like HP manuals have had two major faults in the past 15 years. First they generally have gotten worse in terms of writing as has been mentioned. But second, they seem to assume knowledge from previous versions of their calculators and so don't feel the need to teach the user basic operations. So, I suggest to anyone starting in the RPL line, get a 28c first (very cheap on e-bay) with manuals. Read those to learn what is going on. Then it will be easier to move up to a 48SX/S, then 48GX/G etc. That has worked for me.

However, I've now concluded after reading this thread there is no point to going further in learning how to use my HP 48GX. Just got a 42s and will now focus all my time on learning that rather than the GX. I will likely keep my 28c in case I want to go back and learn more about RPL.

The discussion of the 41 vs 50 has been great to read and has confirmed my experience with the 42s vs 48GX so far.

Anyone looking to buy a like new 48GX? :)

#74

Yes, the 50g manual needs work:

1. A printed version should have come with the calculator, or at least a function reference.

2. There were some errors in the 50g manual, especially in the small User's Guide. The shift keys colors are orange and white instead of red and green.

I like the way HP wrote the 40gs and 12c manuals, and maybe should use that as a guide.

#75

RPL is a funny mix of FORTH, LISP and RPN. And I don't mean "interesting funny", I mean "haha-funny". It's the lowest common denominater of the three. I'd prefer FORTH over RPL, LISP over RPL and certainly RPN over RPL.

Just had to get that out of the system :-)


#76

Good question. I have often wondered why people go nuts over the 42s. Whilst it is a highly talented machine, from using the emulator, I find the menu structure to be a PITA and accessing commands slow. It is more of a technical curiosity but still very interesting.

I have a 41CV but I've never really got into it and part of that is down to the key layout. Maybe its time will come.

However, to answer the question... I actually do all my main programming for a 48G which is my main workhorse. Yes, RPL can be very slow and tedious, constantly needs the manual to hand and editing on the calculator is a nightmare so you need a PDL or equivalent. But, the 48G can go into areas where other machines can't, enables some neat programming methods and is far easier to manage a large number of programs on.

Is RPL fun though? No, not really. More of a burden at times and it never really gives you that buzz you get from writing a well optimised piece of RPN code.

So that is why I specifically enjoy programming RPN machines because they are more typical programmers with limited steps and resources that provide a more direct low-level experience that programming a calculator should be about. Still, anything I write in RPN that I want to keep for future use, it ends up on the 48G!

Mark


#77

Just remembered another reason why the 41 didn't really click with me - everything is so expensive! Popularity leads to high prices with everything 41-related that in a way, makes me close off the 41 because I can't justify spending high sums on readers and such when I've got so many other holes in my collection. That is a poor excuse of course!

Mark

#78

I suspect the reasons why people still use the HP 41 today to be the same as the ones that made the HP 41 such a successful product for a decade. For me they are:

  • Nice design: form factor (not too big), keyboard (slanted keys, tactile touch)
  • Simplicity: easy to use RPN calculator with an easy to learn (and remember...) RPN keystroke programming model
  • Alphanumeric support: full alpha labels, string manipulations... (not supported on any other RPN calc, excepted the 42S)
  • Expandability: a bunch of modules and peripherals are available, you can "control the world" with the HP 41
  • Geek factor: synthetic programming and even MCODE programming extend the capability far away from the initial instruction set
  • All above points allow you to do quite all you would expect from a programmable calculator, and even more ... (No symbolics or CAS but how many people need them out of the classroom?)

All these reasons make today the HP-41 a very fun system to play with, as the technology evolution allows hobbyists to design peripherals that in the 80's required an high-tech company lab and funding.


I also suspect that the nostalgia effect is playing a significant role: people used to the 41C and RPN may find it much more appealing that the 50g and RPL.


My first programming experience was with the HP-25, then I got an HP-34C (unfortunately it was stolen a few months after ...) and finally I got an HP-41C which was at that time (1980) the top for a science student. I quite stop using my HP-41C in the late-80's when personal computers became more common and because I had no more use for it in my job and used a 32s for occasional calculations. Last year with the HP-35s launch my interest for HP calculators was revived. When I took the HP-41C out of its box it was not working anymore due to battery leakage but I got another one from eBay where I was surprised to see the amount of activity around old HP calculators. I was at home with this new HP-41C as soon as I got it, I found that after 20 years I still remember how to write RPN programs and enjoy optimizing RPN code. I also found this site and the forum with so many great people and interesting discussions...

So, I'm hooked again on HP calculators: I've now got a few other ones (HP-11C, 12C, 16C, 17BII, 35s), some modules for my 41C and I've even got a 48GX but I'm still learning how to use it. Moving from RPN to RPL is quite challenging and require to learn a new programming paradigm. So far I found the HP-41C much more easier (and fun...) to use for simple tasks than the HP-48GX, and for more complex problems I use my PC and Excel ... I'm not considering right now getting a 50g. May be when I'll master the 48GX I'll reconsider this but there is still an "irrational" factor going against the 50g, at least for me: I don't see any big Enter key ... :-)

#79

Quote:
I've often been asked these questions:

"Why are people still developing applications / hardware for the 41c when the 50g and RPL machines are so much more capable? Why would someone work with the 1-line display on the 41c and a machine so much slower than a 50g?"

I have my ideas, but would like to see ideas from those of you / us who still use the 41c and want things like Christoph's HP-41 EXT IL PLUS Module, or the NoVRAM, etc.

So, why the 41c instead of an RPL machine / 50g? How about some numbered bullet point reasons? :-)


Well one reason: You can GET a 50. Just where do you go to get a functioning 41, as nice as they were? I have a 41C but it died and I have no idea how to glom on to another. Do you?

#80

Perhaps that famous auction site with a four-letter name? They seem to run anywhere from $75-150 or so. Usually a dozen or two for sale at any given time.

Edited: 5 Nov 2008, 4:40 p.m.


#81

Quote:
Perhaps that famous auction site with a four-letter name? They seem to run anywhere from $75-150 or so. Usually a dozen or two for sale at any given time.


I looked on that four letter word site and the ones I see they want 250 bucks for a 41CX and prices like that, I did not see a single one for under 250. That is carrying nostalgia a bit far. At that price, I will have to dig up my old dead one and have it repaired, it shouldn't cost anywhere near that stupid price!

#82

Probably Gene thought you may buy a C or CV?

#83

RPN was truly my first programming language with the HP97, so I'm unabashedly nostalgic about it. If RPL had been my first exposure to programming, I'm not sure I would have stuck with it quite as long as I did with RPN. I'm almost certain RPL wouldn't have had the same level of fun to it that RPN had. Also, RPN translated more easily to assembly language and then BASIC and beyond. Fundamental programming concepts such as flags, subroutines, labels, I/O, conditional jumps, etc., were stripped to their bare essentials and it was truly possible to learn programming directly from the excellent manual.

RPL is obviously more powerful, but it is very dense and I think that it really requires a much more extensive help system in order to be productive. There's just no easy way to quickly write programs when you have to reference 880 page PDF manual for obscure command names such as DROIT and RISCH. With the ability to plug in SDRAM chips, there's really no good reason not to at least have a comprehensive help program for RPL that could be carried onboard the calculator.

Also calculation speed isn't as important as calculation *entry* speed when it comes to calculators. If the calculator takes 3 seconds fewer to come up with an answer, but I have to take a full 30 seconds longer to enter a calculation, it's pretty obvious there's no advantage to CPU speed over a clumsy data entry method.

So, the 41, and other RPN classics still have a lot of utility. I'm finding myself carrying around the 35s more often lately. As much as I admire the 50g for its power, the 35s is more convenient on the job - just wish it had matrices and complex numbers fully supported!

Edited: 5 Nov 2008, 6:06 p.m.

#84

* all i usually want is one number. the 41 is a calculator. i/o is necessary with any programmable though.

* ease of programming. i'd rather have an answer than a graphics object.

* lots of existing solutions. i can just customize some other, brighter person's algorithm to do what i want.

* an 8 line screen is more than most applications need. still; 3 or 4 would be great.

* tradition. i think in 41.


#85

Quote:
i'd rather have an answer than a graphics object.

Great statement, db!
Quote:
an 8 line screen is more than most applications need. still; 3 or 4 would be great.

Shall I show the 43s again? No, I won't -- you know where to find it ;)

Ceterum censeo: HP, launch a 43s.

Walter


#86

Thanks for the great response about HP-41. I want to confirm the statements of several authors above, describing the long list of advantages of HP-41 handheld computer.

But remember, this nice machine is much more – “Extend your HP-41” (Wlodek Mier-Jedrzejowicz) – means that HP-41 includes really different and powerfully plug in module solutions. Refer to “HP-Collection” (Matthias Wehrli) and you will detect more than 250 different plug in module versions – any of them supports great applications. Advanced plug in module solutions from different non HP parties like PPC, PANAME, CCD, ZENROM, EXT-IL-PLUS expand the feature list or the operating system for HP-41 system.

Beside this add on solutions, HP-41users have the possibility to work with RAM-Box (ERAMCO, W&W), ZEPROM (Zengrange) or the easy to get modern solutions MLDL2000 (Meindert Kuipers) or Clonix and NoVRAM (Diego Diaz) for creating own personal and outstanding voluminously plug in module solutions – never seen before…

Furthermore the HP-41 includes HP-IL Interface Loop. This allows anyone to “Control the World with HP-IL” (Gary Friedman). By operating IL devices like IL-Plotter, IL-Digitalvoltmeter (measurement) IL-Datalogger (measurement) IL-Masstorage (Cass-Drive, Disk-Drive and my favourite the CMT-RAM-Disk) IL-IEEE Interface, IL-RS232 and other devices you get outstanding performance – you can do this with HP-71 too – but not with any of the later HP handheld computer generations.

With HP-41 & HP-IL you reaches the freedom of creating own IL hardware devices by using the IL-Converter. I describe this in detail in my actual book editon “HP-41 Input / Output Board” & “IL2000 Interface System” (Christoph Klug) ISBN 978-3-88120-853-6 / Franzbecker Verlag, Hildesheim, Berlin. Yes - it make sense to publish a traditional 708 page reference book (during the new age of e-book and web) 28 years after the release of the HP-41. With individual measurement- interface- data logger- and control applications you follow my own slogan “Connect HP-41 & HP-IL to future…”

Last not least we are supported with some interesting PC emulator solutions for HP-41. For example beside “V41” (Warren Furlow) my favourite is “EMU41” (Jean-Francois Garnier). Last includes full (real) HP-IL support in combination with the HP-IL/PC Interface Card. This technology mirrors HP-41 & HP-IL completely to the virtual world, and includes some different gateway solutions for HP-41 / PC interfacing.

To sum it up, the HP-41 & HP-IL system – it is nostalgia & its modern – it is easy to use & it is high tech – it is nice for education & daily use at work - it is a world standard & a never ending story for collectors – it is a challenge for mcode / usercode programmers & hardware designers / application engineers – it is expandable & allows complex system applications. Therefore connect HP-41 & HP-IL to future…

Regards - Christoph Klug


Edited: 6 Nov 2008, 9:39 a.m.

#87

Quote:
So, why the 41c instead of an RPL machine / 50g? How about some numbered bullet point reasons? :-)

Numbered bullet points eh? That sounds a bit like having RPN and ALG modes. :-)

In response to your question, I think you are wrong. It's true that 41 hardware is still being produced but it is only being sold to enthusiasts. And that doesn't count.

In the 50g world there is Tim is selling his surveying package: real software and real hardware being sold to real people with real jobs to do. ;-)


#88

Actually, I meant why are so many enthusiasts here still working with the HP 41? :-)


#89

Not all...

#90

AFAIC one word - Nostalgy :)

Cheers,
Reth


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  HP-41(CL): The easiest way to transfer FOCAL programs from a Linux PC to the HP-41 Geir Isene 13 704 12-05-2013, 02:40 AM
Last Post: Hans Brueggemann
  Writing RPL programs on OS X Sean Freeman 18 767 11-30-2013, 03:59 PM
Last Post: Sean Freeman
  48G vs 49G+ User RPL Speed Comparison John Colvin 7 290 11-16-2013, 10:07 PM
Last Post: Han
  HP Prime : Galton's machine Mic 0 125 11-15-2013, 04:23 AM
Last Post: Mic
  RPL 32 David Hayden 4 248 11-11-2013, 11:34 AM
Last Post: David Hayden
  HHC / HP Museum Programming Contest for RPN and RPL machines Gene Wright 18 738 09-22-2013, 09:39 AM
Last Post: Miguel Toro
  Convergence Dream Machine anetzer 11 445 04-12-2013, 07:16 AM
Last Post: David Hayden
  RPL long vs. short names peacecalc 5 264 10-30-2012, 01:25 PM
Last Post: peacecalc
  Mini-challenge: HHC2012 RPL programming contest with larger input David Hayden 14 584 10-05-2012, 10:36 PM
Last Post: David Hayden
  HHC 2012 RPL Programming Contest Gene Wright 33 1,100 09-27-2012, 01:57 AM
Last Post: Werner

Forum Jump: