My units are "on the FedEx Truck" for delivery today. Will report what is in the box as soon as I can.
If you get the units today, let's report here...
|
Thread for 15c LE delivery reports
|
|
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
▼ ▼
Post: #107
09-09-2011, 11:28 AM
 I think I'm obsessing too much about the HP 15c LE. I had a dream last night that my package arrived from buy.com. Inside was what appeared to be a shelf-worn NOS HP 15c box. I opened the box and it was empty.
▼
Post: #108
09-09-2011, 11:32 AM
Quote: If this was Facebook, I would 'like' your post. I once dreamed they found a pallet load of NOS 29C's and I got one. Best dream ever... Don ▼
Post: #109
09-09-2011, 11:34 AM
I once dreamed that I was using a slide rule at work, because calculators were deemed by management to be unreliable.
Post: #110
09-09-2011, 12:36 PM
Buy.com has delivered the 15c LE. My wife opened it up and told me what it was...and that was BEFORE she had her fresh Pizza that was waiting.
and
Edited: 9 Sept 2011, 12:50 p.m. after one or more responses were posted ▼
Post: #111
09-09-2011, 12:40 PM
So, confirmed! It is the real thing! Now I *REALLY* can't wait. Sounds like Gene is the first person to get one through normal channels! Congrats! -Marwan
Now one has to wonder -- where the heck did they get them from? Edited: 9 Sept 2011, 12:42 p.m. ▼
Post: #112
09-09-2011, 12:45 PM
Maybe they're counterfeits. Gene, have your wife check if it has an "=" key. :-)
Post: #114
09-09-2011, 01:34 PM
Yes! These pictures have reassured me that the rest of ours will actually come, too! After all these years, I can have one! The last and only time I touched a decent looking one was all too many years ago when a friend got a new one and wanted me to inscribe his initials on the back. In recent years, colleagues have mistakenly left theirs behind, and I got to return their 15Cs to them. (Each time I asked if I could buy it from them and each time the answer was an unequivocal, "No".)
Post: #115
09-09-2011, 02:44 PM
Quote: Evidently the logistics flow has worked a lot faster on these. I checked with the front end and they have confirmed that these are legit.
Post: #116
09-09-2011, 01:16 PM
I want mine! First time in a *LOOONG* time that I will be looking forward to Monday! I wonder how many they have left in stock <g>.
Post: #117
09-09-2011, 01:23 PM
I love the "Good Housekeeping" book in the frame! Any hidden message there ?
Post: #118
09-09-2011, 01:27 PM
So, who's going to buy one and list it on TAS for cost + shipping? That should shoot down some of the crazy prices we see on these machines. ▼
Post: #120
09-09-2011, 01:56 PM
Oh please don't!
Co-bubba would be the first in line to buy it. He would then spend the rest of eternity relisting the unfortunate 15c LE trying to resell it for $489. Edited: 9 Sept 2011, 2:00 p.m. after one or more responses were posted ▼
Post: #121
09-09-2011, 01:59 PM
Can't you block people from bidding on your TAS auctions? It might actually be useful for people like us to compile a list of known TAS scalpers and block them from bidding on any HP-related stuff we sell. ▼
Post: #122
09-09-2011, 02:02 PM
Then we can start selling HP15C LE's and make his worthless. I like the idea! ▼
▼
Post: #125
09-09-2011, 06:05 PM
I don't think so. Before I blocked him, the user name that appeared was "coburlin". Sellers still get to see the names of bidders, not the aliases now being shown to other bidders.
Post: #126
09-09-2011, 03:25 PM
Quote: Why would anyone do that? Don't you wanna make as much money as you can on your auctions? ▼
Post: #127
09-09-2011, 06:51 PM
Not if one's stated purpose is to flood the TAS market with 15Cs to drive prices down. In that case it would be a bad thing for one of the people who buys HPs for cheap and resells them at prices exceeding the present value of my car to gobble them up. Also, it's common practice to block bidders who have personally caused you grief (not paying for items, etc.)
Post: #128
09-09-2011, 04:38 PM
Back when I was selling on eBay a lot, I blocked Coburlin from bidding on my stuff. He used to show up all the time with low-ball bids. He was always quickly outbid, but I shuddered to think I would ever sell anything to that vampire. Coburlin was useful though. Back then you could get a list of auctions a particular bidder was pursuing. I used to routinely bid a little more than I thought he was willing to pay. I got some good bargains that way too. Now you can't track a particular buyer's activity. I'm in general agreement with that policy, but it's a pity in his case. ▼
Post: #129
09-09-2011, 05:03 PM
He sells most of his stuff to non-USA bidders, who are often times locked out of auctions limited to USA bidders only. This is getting worse now with TAS policy to include shipping costs in the final sale fee, such that even fewer US sellers are willing to ship worldwide. I shipped some calcs in private sales to customers in New Zealand and Singapore, and the shipping costs were over $50 in each case. Had I sold them on TAS, I would have taken a $5 hit on the shipping cost. Nevertheless, his greed has greatly reduced his sales, and some items have languished on TAS for many years. ▼
Post: #132
09-09-2011, 02:02 PM
The unit is at home and I am not. That said, Tim Wessman stated it came with a printed manual. His word is good enough for me. Not sure I'm going to open this. I might change my ebay ID to CoGene and list it on e*ay. :-) $399 starting bid? I bet someone would buy it. ▼
Post: #133
09-09-2011, 02:06 PM
People are *ALWAYS* buying stuff on TAS for more than they could buy in a regular retail store.
Post: #134
09-09-2011, 02:15 PM
Speaking of Tim: I would still *LOVE* to know where buy.com got them. Sounds like even HP has no idea. Based on the posts yesterday I was all set to have to return my 12C 30th, or my plain vanilla 12C, or my ink cartridge... Cheers, -Marwan ▼
▼
Post: #136
09-09-2011, 02:39 PM
Yup; I ordered about the same time as others on this board but mine still shows "processing". Dunno if that's a sign or what...
Edited: 9 Sept 2011, 2:43 p.m. after one or more responses were posted
Post: #138
09-09-2011, 02:43 PM
Yeah, I'm incredibly curious as to how Buy.com got their hands on 1,000 pieces of a production run that was supposedly only 10,000, and furthermore how they got them before Samson Cables or HP's own web store. They're not someone I would typically think of buying an HP calculator from. ▼
Post: #140
09-09-2011, 05:51 PM
HP store *still* says coming soon. Maybe they are all going to 3rd party sellers, which would really piss me off if I were a customer that was checking HP itself daily (which I was, with the fortunate exception of also checking here).
Post: #141
09-09-2011, 05:51 PM
Now that there is an HP-15C re-release, we need a re-release of those nice leather slip cases with the foldover flap. No sense keeping a nice calculator like that in the crappy stock sleeve...
Never happy,
Post: #143
09-09-2011, 05:24 PM
There is a printed manual and a CD with a PDF manual and an emulator.
Post: #146
09-11-2011, 10:49 PM
Could someone that has received a 15C LE please confirm box dimensions and weight? The ones given to me originally for the 12C 30th were incorrect so I don't trust what I have for the 15C. This will be helpful to me in accurately pre-generating all my shipping labels in order to expedite the orders for all the good folks out there waiting for their 15C's from Samson. thanks
Post: #147
09-09-2011, 05:16 PM
I ordered two with great trepidation late yesterday afternoon. After all the discussion and confusion about buy.com, I admit I was concerned. But they say that they have shipped, and it sounds like people are actually getting them! I should have mine on Monday.
EDIT: I won't have them for a few days. They're shipping from Missouri and coming FedEx ground, so I suspect I won't see them until Wednesday. But I'm patient. I've waited 22 years, I can wait a few more days :) Edited: 9 Sept 2011, 5:19 p.m.
Post: #148
09-09-2011, 05:38 PM
I have it! Printed manual & CD with emulator included ... Limited Edition Number 00158 ... unboxing pics below:
Edited: 9 Sept 2011, 6:15 p.m. ▼
Post: #149
09-09-2011, 06:21 PM
Jandro, ▼
Post: #150
09-09-2011, 06:52 PM
Build quality is not bad; I've only the 12 Platinum to compare it to, as I don't have an original 15C to compare it to although it seems to be as nice as my former coworker's 11C ... So I did a couple of tests for comparisons sake. First thing I tried was the "flat surface test"; my 12CP is not flat, it rocks slightly on the diagonal when placed on a flat surface, which was obviously a great disappointment. This 15C is nice and level. A low bar to pass to be sure but that makes me happy anyway. Key feel is better as well; not quite as "clicky" as the 12CP yet quite firm. Also I tried gently torque-ing the 15C LE back and forth and it is quite solid. Again, doing this on my 12CP produces unsettling creaks -- as also happens with my 35S. So I can say for sure that the 15C LE is built better than the 12CP and the 35S. Perhaps it approaches the quality of the original 15C but we will have to wait for someone else who can do a direct comparison. ▼
Post: #151
09-09-2011, 07:05 PM
The original Voyagers had certain expensive quality features such as gold plated circuit keyboard contacts, that I doubt the new ones have. They also featured metal snap dome actuators, which I don't know if they are still used on the new ones. The key action on the original Voyagers is IMO the best and most refined of any HP calc ever made. Edited: 9 Sept 2011, 8:14 p.m. after one or more responses were posted ▼
Post: #152
09-09-2011, 08:02 PM
Quote:
I agree. But at least the 12c+ PCB has an overall nickel
The 4-legged domes to my sense also seem less preferable
Post: #153
09-09-2011, 07:33 PM
The [ f ] and [ g ] keys are a bit sloppy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF5-e-ZY1Rw . ▼
Post: #154
09-09-2011, 07:42 PM
Since all keys but the f and g are the same color plastic, I wonder if all of those keys are attached together in some way. Perhaps they have a plastic frame that is part of the molded key assembly? ▼
Post: #155
09-09-2011, 08:10 PM
Quote:
Most likely. IIRC the 35s is of similar construction which is
From the youtube video it seems the 15c le as well has
Post: #156
09-10-2011, 02:03 AM
They are of different color and cannot be put in the same grid as the other keys which most probably are all connected somehow.
Post: #158
09-09-2011, 09:03 PM
my eagle eyes see that the yellow and gold shift keys are a bit off aligned, yes? ▼
Post: #159
09-09-2011, 11:41 PM
Darn it! You're right. But it's actually because the two shift keys, esp. the blue one, are a bit loose, as Ryan observes :( Edited: 9 Sept 2011, 11:42 p.m. ▼
▼
Post: #161
09-10-2011, 12:27 AM
The original HP-15C sold for $135.00 when it was released in 1982. That's equivalent to about 300 today's dollars. Since now it is cheaper and runs 120+ times faster than before, I will overlook these minor details. If it looks as nice as my 12C+ then it will be ok for me! ▼
Post: #162
09-10-2011, 12:51 PM
Quote:
The cost of consumer electronics in general followed that
Quote:
I see your practical point. But nostalgia aside the HP legacy is in large
HP has adapted to the best of its ability to the modern market in ▼
Post: #163
09-10-2011, 01:48 PM
I think it was a reasonable compromise to bring back a legendary product at an affordable price for the sake of collectors and fans. Perhaps they could have commissioned a military products company to make them to the same standards as the originals, and charge $10K each.
Post: #164
09-11-2011, 12:56 AM
Just found this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF5-e-ZY1Rw I don't think the keys are as loose as they appear to be in the video. At least on my 12C+ they are firm enough.
Post: #166
09-09-2011, 07:06 PM
Quote: OK, I'm copying and modifying my post from another thread. I got two units today from buy.com less than 24 hours after order placement! The quality of construction, of course, does not match the original. That would be unreasonable to expect...the 15C LE is far less expensive than was the 15C. But it is serviceable.
I was initially influenced negatively by self test performance failures. In this area:
In other areas: Performance of a 2500-iteration Savage benchmark takes 48 seconds on the 15C LE, and 5840 seconds on the 15C. That shows a runtime improvement by a factor of 122. By comparison, the HP 50g performs this benchmark in 65 seconds, and the HP 30b performs it in 6.5 seconds. Both the 50g and 30b have identical numerical results with an error that is smaller by a factor of 55, compared to the error in the results from the 15C and 15C LE.
Edited: 9 Sept 2011, 7:40 p.m. ▼
Post: #167
09-10-2011, 04:46 AM
Can you post the benchmarks here. I'd like to see WP 34S results (accuracy and speed.) I assume the 34S will be faster because it does not have an emulation layer but runs native code on the same hardware as the 15C LE. ▼
Post: #168
09-10-2011, 05:30 AM
Check the 34S library in subversion. 334.6 seconds. So not all that fast :-( My initial guess is LN being very slow. Replacing the LN & ex steps with NOPs reduces the run time to 160.8 seconds. All internal calculations being carried out to 39 digits instead of the 15 on the 15c will also hurt performance. Anyway, my goal in the numerical code has always been accuracy before fast. So how does that aspect pan out. The article about this benchmark I found mentioned relative error. The absolute error is 1.578 x 10-9 on the true result of 2500, so the relative error is 6.312 x 10-13. Does anyone know what the correctly rounded result should be for 16 digit decimal arithmetic? This would be a more interesting to me.
▼
Post: #169
09-10-2011, 04:04 PM
Using IEEE-754 math, the version quoted by Gilles yields a relative error of 7.77 x 10-14, the version quoted by Mike 8.37 x 10-14.
Post: #171
09-10-2011, 05:58 AM
Hi Marcus
Here is an interesting tip that i found on the net : I confirm the 65s in UserRpl on my 50G with this code :
«
Accurary is the same that 48/49 user Rpl in the previous link
EDIT : In exact mode, the 50G give the 2500 perfect result but much slower. In fact e^(2.Ln(2))+2496 NUM-> 2500.
Edited: 10 Sept 2011, 8:45 a.m. after one or more responses were posted ▼
Post: #172
09-10-2011, 07:01 AM
There is no emulation layer in the 30b. The libs were reimplemented in C(++).
Post: #173
09-10-2011, 02:56 PM
Quote:
The simple Savage Benchmark has been around for decades. For the 15C and 15C-LE:
001 LBL B
Put the desired number of iterations in the X register. (2500 has always been the most commonly used value.) If X holds the traditional 2500, the result 2499.969898 will show in about 48 seconds. A "perfect" machine would show 2500. The original 15C takes 5840 seconds for the same result. There is an earlier "buggy" version of the Savage Benchmark that actually only looped 2499 times, then added 1 to produce the final result. But the benchmarks shown here actually loop 2500 times if 2500 was in X.
For RPL machines, I define program SB: It's important to use those decimal points...integer calculations take much longer on the 49/50g series! Executing SB on a 50g will produce 2499.99946106 in about 65 seconds. The program above displays the result and the exact loop execution time on completion. The fastest handheld I've ever used is the HP 30b. It's about ten times faster than the 50g. It produces 2499.9946106 in about 6.5 seconds. Fast!!
My HP 42S version: If 2500 is in X when SB is executed, it produces 2499.9946106 in about 600 seconds. It would be interesting to see the WP-34S results.
Edited: 10 Sept 2011, 3:03 p.m. ▼
Post: #174
09-10-2011, 04:17 PM
Pauli has done it. Here is his email:
Quote: BTW, the power down problem is solved in the latest SVN release.
Post: #175
09-10-2011, 04:18 PM
I would like to add two remarks: Quote:That's true only if that machine worked with infinite precision. Which no calculator I know of does. ;-) For any calculator with a finite number of significant digits the result most probably will not be 2500. Simply because the sequence of a function and its inverse will not return the original argument. Not because of the lack of precision, but because this may be the correct result: We all remember the results we got from our first calculator. Press 2 [sqrt] and [x^2], and you'll get 1,999999999. Is this because the device is inaccurate? No, it's because it's more accurate than we could think of: the calculator does not square the root of two, it squares 1,414213562 - which is 1,9999 99998 94472 78440. Or ...999 when rounded to ten digits.
Here's an example for the Savage Benchmark sequence on a 10-digit machine and a = 200 resp. 500: operation perfect 10-digit resultThis shows that the perfect result in this example is not 200 or 500. A perfect 10-digit calculator here must return a result slightly less. So does, for example, the 41-series - it returns exactly the values of this example. Especially the final arctan-tan-sequence is crucial. With a little calculus it can be shown that the result of the final tan evaluation may vary by approx. a^2 times 5E-10 possible error even with a perfect arctan result. So, if a is 500 and the arctan result is perfect to ten digits (which it actually is, the result in the table is the true 10-digit value of arctan 500), the final result after the tan-evaluation may be anywhere between 499,999875 and 500,000125. And it is. A plain 500 would require at least 13-digit precision, and for a = 2500 even 14...15 digits. In a 10-digit calculator, that is. In other words: even if calculator A returns a result closer to 2500 than that from calculator B, still A may be less accurate than B. Second remark: your implementation of the Savage benchmark is different from that in the PDF on technicalc.org mentioned in this thread. According to that source the sequence is first square, then square root. You do it the other way round. Which version is correct? Dieter ▼
Post: #176
09-10-2011, 05:12 PM
Quote: Hence, my use of the word "perfect" in quote marks. Perhaps "ideal" would be better.
Quote: There have been minor variations over the decades. With respect to the order of operations, it seems best to perform the operation that produces a lower value, then perform the inverse operation that restores it. That's what happens in the three stages of every version that I've ever seen. I've never seen one that SQUARED before SQUARE-ROOTing. I doubt it has any significant effect, one way or another, except that by squaring first, then square rooting, you tend to keep close to whole numbers throughout this stage. But by square-rooting first, you immediately start dealing with the effects of numerical precision and accuracy in floating point calculations. The other variation that is IMHO "buggy" is one that, when n is specified for the number of iterations, the calculation sequence loop is actually executed only n-1 times. If 1 is added after the function sequence rather than before, the loop will generally be exited without having performed the function sequence for that final iteration. The construction of the versions I prefer result in n executions of the loop if n iterations are specified for the benchmark, not the n-1 executions of earlier Savage versions. But this also has little significant effect, one way or another. The first Savage Benchmark tests I ever saw were used on early PC machines, and were often written in interpreted GW-BASIC or compiled QuickBASIC or TurboBASIC.
Edited: 10 Sept 2011, 5:21 p.m. ▼
Post: #177
09-11-2011, 09:30 AM
Mike - Quote:Fine. ;-) My point is: the precision of a particular calculator cannot be judged by the amount the final results deviates from 2500. For every number of significant digits n there is a characteristic result rn the actual result must be compared with. This value most certainly is not 2500. By the way, the same is also true for the well known "calculator forensics" test where the perfect result is not 9. Dieter
Post: #179
09-12-2011, 10:43 AM
1 delivered <5 minutes ago. 2 more to be delivered tomorrow (total 3 for me). Cheers, -Marwan
*NOT* well packed. Box came broken :(. Edited: 12 Sept 2011, 10:46 a.m. ▼ ▼
Post: #181
09-12-2011, 11:17 AM
LOL. I would have been a whole lot more irate. The calculator is fine. Cheers, -Marwan ▼
Post: #182
09-12-2011, 01:34 PM
My 15c LE has landed in Fort Worth! More news soon, condition etcetera plus two more coming from samson.
Post: #183
09-12-2011, 03:14 PM
What is the odd for those who buy 2 or more to receive theirs with consecutive Limited Edition Number? ▼
▼
Post: #185
09-13-2011, 04:45 AM
Quote:That would be the "blind eye" solution. However, it would depend on
Edited: 13 Sept 2011, 4:48 a.m. ▼
Post: #186
09-13-2011, 09:31 PM
What are your odds to receive a prime number, assuming you order only one unit? I guess this doesn't depend on other factors :-) ▼
Post: #187
09-13-2011, 09:34 PM
With lots of assumptions: pi(10000) is 1229 so I'd make the odds 1229 / 10,000. I.e fractionally over 12%.
▼
Post: #188
09-13-2011, 09:59 PM
Yes. Using an approximation:
(10000/(ln(10000)-1))/10000 = 1/(4*ln(10)-1) = 0.1218 http://primes.utm.edu/howmany.shtml Interestingly, no prime number reported so far (unless I've overlooked them).
Gerson. Edited: 13 Sept 2011, 10:05 p.m.
Post: #189
09-12-2011, 03:42 PM
The 4 that I ordered from buy.com last Thursday for $79 each and economy shipping arrived this morning (2 business days later). ▼
Post: #190
09-12-2011, 04:35 PM
My hp15c LE arrived with no damage and everything intact. Happy customer here!
Post: #191
09-12-2011, 05:00 PM
My buy.com order arrived via FedEx ground in a filthy envelope, contents just fine. ▼
Post: #192
09-12-2011, 05:07 PM
The plastic slipcover smell like it was made last week, and needs another week or two to dry. ▼
Post: #193
09-12-2011, 07:17 PM
Mine arrived this afternoon from Buy.com. The thinly padded plastic shipping envelope offers little protection, so I can understand how some may have been damaged, although fortunately mine was not. The display box is pretty useless for regular storage, as the plastic insert must be removed and flexed to remove the calc and gain access to the manual and slip case. The slip case is very thin and cheap, even more so than the original. I would gladly trade the fancy hard box for a nicer slip case. The manual is nicer than the ones supplied with the other current models, but nothing like the spiral bound manual that came with the original. The calc overall quality is very good and it has the solid feel of the original. The biggest disappointment is the keyboard, nothing like the feel of the original, more like a 35s, just a bit firmer. The display is pretty close to the crispness and contrast of the original, not bad. I ran a ISG loop benchmark that I wrote, and it's faster by a factor of 80+ than the original. (ln e^x 100x). S/N 01640.
Edited: 12 Sept 2011, 7:18 p.m. ▼
Post: #194
09-13-2011, 07:43 PM
Quote: Mine arrived Tuesday afternoon. The 12c 30th slip case is the same as the ultra-cheap ones they typically send these days (not well formed, wide seam waste, very thin almost plastic material). I was disappointed. The 15c LE case is only slightly cheaper than the original. (embossing now on both sides but not as clear. The material is similar to the original and significantly heavier and glossier than the 12c 30th case.) The 15c LE slipcase is much better, IMHO, than the current 12c slipcase shipped with the 30th anniv edition. However both seem much more usable than the monstrosity that came with the 12c 25th AE. ▼
Post: #195
09-13-2011, 08:38 PM
The slip case on my 15c LE is very thin, poorly made with a wide seam, and a bad tight fit on the calc. I just bought a nice looking leather slip case on TAS for $10.49 shipped. ▼ ▼
Post: #199
09-15-2011, 10:47 PM
Those appear to be 3rd-party imitations of the leather cases made for the (non-25th Anniversary edition) 12c Platinum calculators. CalcPro used to sell them individually a few years ago, and I bought a four-pack to accommodate my Voyager collection. Speaking of which (and to keep the thread on-topic), I got my 15c LE from SC today. The factory box was in a padded envelope (boo!), although received no damage in shipment (whew!).
Post: #200
09-14-2011, 12:30 AM
Mine came today, but when I got home, I had errands to run. I didn't get to open it until a few hours ago. My teenager asked, "What is it, Dad?" "A calculator." "..." (and probably rolled his eyes, too.) "Hey! I always wanted this calculator, but it had been discontinued for about twenty years!" "Oh." "I didn't get it because I still a working older calculator and really couldn't afford another one then. And now, I have another chance to have one!" "..." (probably shrugged before he turned and left.) And later on, my wife: "Another one!??" Oh, and it came with no problems in a plastic padded envelope. The plastic outer transparent box that bears the lettering and logo came with one flap bent slightly so that the cover flap will not completely close... BUT WHO CARES ABOUT THAT!! The 15C LE itself was in fine condition and as others have said, feels solid. Yeah, maybe there was a slight rattle or movement in the f and g shift keys, but that's really to me a nonissue. It feels nice in my hands as I use it. I already typed in my quickie, short program to convert between eV and wavelength; and, I found it is no longer all that short. I forgot that keystroke programming for the 15C, 34C, etc. employed not the name/function of the keys as steps, but their position on the keyboard matrix! Now, it all comes back to me, the feeling I had when I used to program the 34C all those many years ago. (Okay, okay, so the keys don't QUITE feel as solid and snappy as the Spice and original Voyager ones did, it's still rather satisfactory to me.) Oh, and for those who may be interested, the serial number on the bottom of the metal plate on the back reads, 01526 and on the little white sticker on top, CNA13207Q9. As I was keying in my little program, it had been so many years that I forgot which key opened programming mode and had to look it up in the included manual, which is quite nice, except that today, I had gotten very little sleep and my eyes worse than they even are normally, and so I found the print a bit on the light side. For those who might miss the old spiral bound versions, my HP-34C manual, which is the original spiral bound one, after so many years shows signs of the cover beginning to wear off the spiral spine, if not any of the pages. I also need a few physical constants, and I instinctively scanned the keyboard for an entryway to the constants or equation library, forgetting that in those days of mucho expensive memory chips, you had to write your own libraries, as programs. (So I cheated; I turned on the 50g and looked up the numbers to key into the 15C LE.) But these are attributable to my aging habits rather than anything having to do with the calculator itself. I'd love to pop this in my briefcase and use it as my work scientific calc, except I'd need a sturdier, more robust case. Unfortunately for me, at the price of this rather nice calculator, I can't get another one to leave there or carry around. Still, to have a 15C after all these years, after missing out on the opportunity back then...
... sweet!! Edited: 14 Sept 2011, 12:52 a.m.
Post: #201
09-15-2011, 12:04 PM
Ordered Sept 10 (Sunday)
Single Piece Order, packaged in cardboard box. Limited Ed NO: 02157 ▼
Post: #202
09-15-2011, 05:38 PM
I got mine today, from Sampson cables, ordered way back when I first heard of it. Limited edition number in the 2000's. ▼ ▼
Post: #204
09-15-2011, 10:03 PM
Received my unit from Buy.com yesterday (9/14), and my two units from Samson Cables today (9/15), LE S/N #1611, #407 and #1455, respectively. All three packaged properly in a cardboard box. Samson Cables also added an extra plastic wrapping around the unit packagings prior to stuff them in the outer cardboard box. ▼
Post: #205
09-15-2011, 10:12 PM
No they didn't. They come in that plastic packaging from the distributor. ▼
Post: #206
09-15-2011, 11:38 PM
Received 2 15C LE's today (9/14). One from Samson Cables SN 1770 arrived in bubble pack envelope via US mail. The other from BUY.com SN 2355 came FEDEX in cardboard box. Both had no shipping damages and look well made from my quick inspection. I was surprised to get them both about 3 days from my placement of the orders. In fact, BUY.com only charged $89.99 with free shipping while SC charged $99.99 plus $8.00 US for US Priority mail. I'm very pleased with both situations nonetheless. I may order one more soon. ▼ ▼
Post: #208
09-16-2011, 05:50 PM
Just received one in a box from "Distribution Center, Olive Branch, MS", no mention of CostCentral on the packing list. LE #02953. No rattling, crooked or bad keys. Passed self-tests 1 & 2 (LCD & checksum). ▼
Post: #209
09-16-2011, 06:39 PM
I got mine today from buy.com (ordered it on 9/13). Edition number 02103. Passed all three checksums, and all of the keys seem to be fine. Edited: 16 Sept 2011, 6:39 p.m. ▼
Post: #210
09-17-2011, 04:15 AM
Received my two 15c le's from samson on friday. The brown truck doesn't come to my house till after i start work in the afternoon. Anyway they are both in good shape. They are le# 00812 & 02852. passed self tests and no funky keys. That means i have one from each of the first 3000 le numbers. My buy dot com was 01623. |
