▼
Posts: 1
Threads: 1
Joined: Jan 1970
What with the much hailed re-entry of HP back into the calculator scene - eg all the hype about new models such as 12CP, 33S, 49G+ etc - I would forego all these new models for a resurrection/remanufacture of the original HP35 exactly as it was made in 1972. HP could have made trillions of dollars by re-manufacturing this world famous model - I would have bought 35 to celebrate!!!! The quality and the feel have never been surpassed - and besides retro is all the rage right now. Come on HP - celebrate 30 years plus in the RPN calculator scene by re-introducing this model and see how us HP drug-addicts respond - you would never regret it!!!!
▼
Posts: 312
Threads: 25
Joined: Jan 1970
Quote: I would forego all these new models for a resurrection/remanufacture of the original HP35 exactly as it was made in 1972.
I'd rather see the HP-45 resurrected. It has always seemed (to me) like the first _useful_ scientific calculator. I always think of the HP-45 as "version 1.0"; the HP-35 seems like a beta release.
But of course the HP-35 could be resurrected as well. Not _exactly_ the way it was in '72, though. The [CHS] function needed work, [x^y] is guaranteed to trip modern calculator users, and the rechargeable batteries... phooey.
Hmmm. HP-35C?
-Ernie
▼
Posts: 10
Threads: 3
Joined: Jan 1970
What about HP-35CX? Or maybe better HP-35GX?
▼
Posts: 540
Threads: 22
Joined: Jan 2005
Yeah, now there's an idea! It would only have one memory, but it would be a BIG one. . .
Best,
--- Les [http://www.lesbell.com.au]
▼
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 1970
I think the real point here is that HP have to keep the new generations interested in their calculators and more importantly interested and hooked on RPN. If I were a young school student with limited money and not familiar with RPN, then I wouldn't even consider HP/RPN because their entry scientific calculator with RPN is now the HP48 and too expensive to consider. Even the HP32SII was on the steepish side of expenive and kids will buy cheap algebraic models because they are cheaper eg Canon, Casio etc. A new simple RPN calculator is needed - like the original HP35 (without any of the bugs and limitations, of course) - modernise it a bit for current technology - but keep the essence of the HP35 calculator there. Could be sold for a relatively affordable price and the young ones would buy it - and once that occurs - they're permanently hooked on the RPN breed and become a lifetime repeat customer. This is what happened to me - my first HP was a HP21 - sweet and simple and still a classic - once hooked many other more complex models followed in my inventory - I would never go back to algebraic format. We've nearly witnessed the death nell of RPN and HP calculators - only us HP enthusiasts have redeemed the RPN breed with our pestering of HP. The fact that they brought out too many expensive highly advanced models and neglected the main stream bottom end models like a simple HP35 was probably what caused the recent near-death crisis of HP calculators in the first place. A huge hole has existed for about 2 years because the dropping of the HP32sII - only now is this appalling situation about to be rectified with the HP33S. But still a much cheaper more basic entry level RPN model like the original HP35(modernised)is still needed to encourage the take-up rate by the young ones.
▼
Posts: 12
Threads: 3
Joined: Jan 1970
HP are basically in the calculator business as a profit making venture. Although this may come as a shock to HP enthusiasts, HP don't build calculators because they like to keep you guys happy with an endless supply of loss making RPN calculators - shock, horror. The big killer to bringing out new models is the development and design costs these days, so it might be attractive to HP to save costs in bringing out new models by returning to extremely successful and popular past models, and dig out the design blue prints of the HP35 and HP45 - certainly has got to be a hundred fold improvement on the abysmal design exercise we see in the HP49 rubber toadfish, and which they now appear to be carrying over into the HP49G+ which is about to be released (because they're stuck with the HP49 case design and can't afford to change too much because of retooling costs).
Posts: 540
Threads: 22
Joined: Jan 2005
I think that's a reasonable point, but . . .
While schoolkids needs could *mostly* be served by a simple RPN scientific, those who are doing maths are influenced by teachers who want to use a more advanced - especially graphing - calculator as a pedagogical tool. The ones who would most appreciated the orthogonality of an RPN calc are the ones who will be directed by their maths teachers to buy a TI or Casio graphing calc.
These are the ideas that HP flirted with in the 38G ('aplets') and in the Xpander, but which never really got the momentum to knock TI and Casio out of poll position.
An HP45-level machine would be ideal for most schoolwork outside the maths classroom: reducing experimental results in the physics and chemistry classes, figuring out material requirements in the woodwork shop, and so on.
It's those damn mathematicians that have done the damage!
I've tinkered with the Casio calc my son was told to buy for maths classes at his new secondary school, and it's a counter-intuitive mess of arbitrary key combinations when compared with, say, my 41CX. I'm *sure* that a lot of teaching overhead must go into explaining the peculiar keystroke sequences required to get results out of this illogical little nightmare.
Something like the 11C or 32SII would be just about right for the schools market, IMHO.
Best,
--- Les [http://www.lesbell.com.au]
▼
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 1970
Don't agree here because most kids buy a calculator based on what they're allowed to take into exams!!! Anything above a simple HP11C class calculator is banned in exams because of the cheat potential of the more powerful machines - there's still some attempt to still try to get kids/students to use their brains a bit.
In some cases, schools take no chances and even ban any programmable calculators from exam rooms. I know that was the case in exams I've done. Pointless for students to buy a complex HP48 or HP49 when all you need (and are permitted) is a reliable HP35 or HP45 class calculator for exams - hence the forced potential huge market for this type of simple machine. People keep hyping the requirement for more powerful, more complex HP's. Well, once you get to the level of the HP49, you might as well not beat around the bush and just buy a pocket PC and put a HP41 or graphing emulator on it (like I've done). But notwithstanding this, I still have a requirement for a run-of-the-mill basic cheap calculator like the HP45 for everyday use as well.
▼
Posts: 312
Threads: 25
Joined: Jan 1970
J.J.:
Quote: Pointless for students to buy a complex HP48 or HP49 when all you need (and are permitted) is a reliable HP35 or HP45 class calculator for exams - hence the forced potential huge market for this type of simple machine.
Or a simple slide rule. When I was in college in 1973 (Lima, Peru), that's the only thing allowed in exams. I still have mine somewhere. They considered calculators "unfair advantage" because so few students could afford them back then -- an HP-45, for example, was $400 or thereabouts.
-Ernie
Posts: 540
Threads: 22
Joined: Jan 2005
Don't agree? But that's what I said!
There seems to be a double standard among teachers with respect to calcs in exams v what they want in the classroom. Companies like HP and TI are producing increasingly sophisticated calcs aimed at the school/college market, but you're saying kids won't buy those calcs because they won't be allowed in exams?
Best,
--- Les [http://www.lesbell.com.au]
Posts: 17
Threads: 4
Joined: Jan 1970
Yea , but I'd rather see the cuddly Woodstocks ..
George
▼
Posts: 266
Threads: 32
Joined: Jan 1970
Imagine a much flatter but still contoured Woodstock-like calculator. With an LCD display (sorry, Norm), it wouldn't need to be so thick to accommodate the huge batteries of that era. If it was about a quarter to a half inch thick but about the same size as the old Woodstocks, with a contoured edge to fit the hand nicely, and the power of an 11C, that would be quite a little device.
Of course, I would prefer 15C like capability, but I think that might violate school rules. I think it is important in a small machine to not clutter the keyboard too much. The 10C would be a nice machine had it had a few extras, such as way more memory and some extra programming capabilities.
Just my 2 cents (Canadian -- about 1.4 cents in real money).
▼
Posts: 776
Threads: 25
Joined: Jun 2007
I, too, would buy several HP-35 knock-offs - put one everywhere I was likely to need to reach for a calculator - if the price was right.
The price and feature target could well be deemed to be the TI-30xxxx line. TI makes half a dozen versions of this, with just about the capability of the original HP-35 (plus some simple statistics - broadens the appeal), for around $10. Thus, TI sucks in the youngens for their TI-8x line when they need/want to upgrade.
If I could buy HP-35 RPN functionality for $10, I'd go wild. HP would then have an entry-level (RPN!) calc, too. I agree that they've ignored the entry-level market.
Posts: 172
Threads: 5
Joined: Jan 1970
Hi Patrick!
Quote: Imagine a much flatter but still contoured Woodstock-like calculator. ... If it was about a quarter to a half inch thick but about the same size as the old Woodstocks, with a contoured edge to fit the hand nicely, and the power of an 11C, that would be quite a little device.
Maybe. But I really like the shape of the Woodstocks and the way they fit into the hand. I'd hate to give that up for a thinner machine.
And nowadays we could do a very powerful machine in that style case. After all, the 34C had 30 keys, just like the Woodstocks.
Quote: The 10C would be a nice machine had it had a few extras, such as way more memory and some extra programming capabilities.
It's called the HP-11C. Sorry, no modern equivalent.
- Michael
Posts: 1,153
Threads: 94
Joined: Mar 2006
O.K., then how 'bout this: Make a basic, ~10-memory RPN model with a two-line LCD display in a solid package with the legendary feel . . .
Incorporate a slot at the top for some kind of standard photo memory stick -- so that the memory "sticks" out about a quarter inch when inserted. (Maybe the memory compartment door hangs open and has a yellow-and-black-striped indusrial warning sticker affixed inside.)
With memory: programmable. Without memory: basic scientific/statistical/financial/numerological/biorhythms/whatever.
Pay the Teacher's Unions (or whatever standards bodies may exist) to certify the thing "Exam Safe".
Or, adopt a philosophy whereby gettting the right answer, by whatever means, is considered adequate performance. And take some time to devise questions that can't be answered without some understanding of the nature of the problem, despite the ready availablity of a Cray supercomputer . . .
(Too bad they don't bother to ask us!)
|