HP Should Really Bring Back The 15C - To Make Money!


I'm really not passionate about scientific calculators, but many ( including most who post here ) obviously are. Look at this eBay auction ( current bid $300 ) for a 15C in apparently decent condition:


If people are willing to shell out $300 up for a years old, used machine, HP should bring back an improved version of the 15C if for any reason to just make money. HP could easily ask $100 up per unit and I'd bet they sell like hot cakes. Good sales would go a long way to help finance the entire calculator division, resulting in hopefully better calculator quality all round.


According to a recent auction, Hewlett Packard should bring back the HP67! Did you see that last auction go for just over $400! In all seriousness, I'd love to see some sort of "special" edition (anniversary or not) for a 15C Platinum to go with the 12C Platinum. Imagine, 32k and lots of go-fast parts inside!


I've seen this argument before but it doesn't hold much water, IMO. Something selling for $300 on ebay in small quantity doesn't mean that it can be marketed for anywhere near that nor does it indicate a demand anywhere near large enough to support selling the product in significant quantities. It comes down to basic supply and demand (one of the few things I learned in my non-Engineering classes that has been of immesurable value). In any given week there are, for the sake of example, 10 people selling 15C calculators. There may be 20 people looking to buy said calculators. The price is driven up because there are more willing buyers than sellers. The demand is high. The number of available units for sale is low. The price reflects this ratio.

If HP mass produces the HP-15C (or equiv.) then the market gets saturated quickly - those few that want them can easily get them, demand goes down, supply goes (way!) up and nobody is willing to pay the high price anymore. HP isn't going to sell enough at the ebay-price or by keeping the demand high because they can't survive on handfulls of $300 sales per week. If the HP-15C were to be re-released, a few hundred (or thousand) of us would be happy, and would buy one (or two!). Then the rest would have to compete on the open market with a $15 calculator (admittedly inferior) hat could do everything but clean the kitchen sink. It just doesn't seem viable.

This is a big misconception when people see the prices out of print items fetch. I see this with 'rare' video games as well (my other hobby). In a few cases, companies have been persuaded to re-release a product which often sells well for a couple weeks for those that have been wanting a copy until the supply/demand ratio changes. Then they are stuck with lots of product that ends up competing poorly.


I see your point about supply and demand. When I was at HHC 2005 in Chicago this year I gave a presentation on bringing back the HP 15C (in an updated version). I used my current HP 12C as an example of the basic layout/mold needed. Lee Kuan-Goh and Cyrille DeB. of HP who were there said that HP would have to do their own marketting survey to see if they could recoup their investment costs and sell enough new version HP 15Cs to bring it back. Lee said they have gotten a lot of hot response on bringing back the HP 15C. The only way of knowing for sure how many new HP 15Cs would sell is for HP to do the marketting survey. In the 1970s the Nissan "Z" sports car was very popular. It is now being re-issued. The Ford Mustang car from the 1960s was re-introduced (with modifications) in the 1970s as Mustang II, and more recently in a newer version. I also made a point at HHC 2005 about the documentation for the original HP 15C already being available (the CD/DVD documentation on www.hpmuseum.org ) and whole book form manuals on www.ebay.com HP would not have to redo the who manuals, just make necessary modifications.


Cars like the Mustang II would be bought by people whether or not they ever liked the Mustang I.

there just are not enough people to buy 15c calculators to ever make this worth doing to HP.

I find it humorous that so many people waste their time like this rather than moving on with their lives.

The 15c will not be brough back.


If you check eBay or Sphere Research, you will find that collectors routinely pay $100 to $500 for good slide rules. Does that mean that there is a place for new K&Es or Picketts on the shelves at Office Depot or Staples? Realistically no, not even at a fraction of those prices.

There is an informal association of slide rule enthusiasts, the International Slide Rule Group, that occasionally does commission new slide rules from a Japanese manufacturer. They can round up a few hundred people worldwide for each order. So the community, while passionate, is very small. HP calculator enthusiasts are probably a larger group, but not large enough to represent a significant market, especially for a big company like HP.

Edited: 10 Nov 2005, 12:56 p.m.


I have a collection of slide rules and treasure them but I would not dare take any of them to work to solve a problem. But I would a 15C as it is still a viable instrument for doing calculation. With respect to the Pontiac GTO mentioned in an earlier response haven't Ford recently recommissioned the old style Mustang?

Edited: 10 Nov 2005, 3:20 p.m.


The new 'stang is as much an old pony as der neue beetle is the old bug.

Why would anyone seriously wnat to re-create the 15-c? It's ludicrous.

The only reasdon you like it is beacause it is "beautiful" and "pwerful" within the context of its era.

What's wrong with it.

1-line dsplay?

No alpha?

the matrix stuff is great, except it is old-fashioned and anyone is going to say, "what't the point" when you can go to a "graphing" and get much more effective matrix interfaces and manipulation.

can you say slooooow?

RPN? OK, so let's all throw out our windose machines and go LINUX. Never mind that none of the programs we *need* to be productive will *work * on linux. RPN is nice, but it is not viable as a stand-alone approach anymore. It's like apple and linux--great for the "informed" but useless if you actually do something useful in the broader context.

Keycodes? You must be joking if you thing that is a way to program today.

In short, it is just not Worth it to think about bringing it back. Let it live on a a piece of history.


I will refrain from contributing to an off-topic flame war by limiting myself to the observation that your attitude toward Linux may not have been refreshed in the last couple of years. http://www.ibm.com/linux is one place you can go to get a more recent take on its value in the "broader context."


or check out Linspire Linux at www.linspire.com . All the Microsoft stuff is mimicked (without the bugs, virus susceptibility, lousy MS support, etc.) in Linux. For a single, small yearly fee (something like $40), they offer unlimited access to 2000+ software titles, plus Win-to-Lin which allows things that were designed to run under Windows to run under Linspire Linux instead, without Windows. In a few days I expect to be MS-free here.

Edited: 10 Nov 2005, 5:29 p.m.


Don't get me wrong--I love UNIX and I like Linux. And it makes a great server--so far much more secure than windose.

But when it comes to the "front end" no small to medium business can afford to be using equipment that simply will not run the software they need.

I used macintosh back in the day. Much better than early windows.

But I had to buy a DOS machine. I needed the software that was writen for ms-DOS shell, so the hardware and shell had to be DOS.

Some of the IT geeks like to make alot of hay about how Linux is catching up etc.

I won't believe it until I see the programs that I *use* being offered to run native in Linux. At that point, Linux will be the "standard". But it is not there yet. Not even on the radar yet.


What do you use, Bill?


Aerohydro surfaceworks

Those are the show-stoppers

Micro$oft Access
('m sure I could port my database--would not miss Access for sure!)

The following are used but I don't care who's, as long as they write/read formats perfectly:
Wordperfect (current release--a client uses it)
Word,Excel,Powerpoint all that sh**
Paint, Photoeditor


Codeweavers has a program going until the end of the year in which they will work with you to get any Windows app to install on Linux with CrossOver Office. Now, just installing is one thing, and running well is another. But the first has to happen before the last can be acheived. And some Win32 apps will run great under the existing WINE, which is at the heart of CrossOver Office. AutoCAD will, for example, although I don't recognize the others on your list. Microsoft Office, at least through Office XP, runs great. Including Access in the newer releases, I believe. Visio runs well too.

So for basic Office productivity on Linux, you have a choice betweem M$ Office (Or WordPerfect) and some pretty substantial office software from Sun and others. In most cases, it's not the widely deployed apps that stand in the way of Linux desktop deployments. It's the vertical apps, like the ones you mentioned. But I hope I've given you at least a glimmer of an idea that Linux may be "on the radar" after all.


Sorry, getting a wee bit of-topic here, but I couldn't resist...

RPN? OK, so let's all throw out our windose machines and go LINUX.

Why throw anything out? I've been running Windows AND Linux on all my PCs for the last 10 years. Good ol' dual boot.

Never mind that none of the programs we *need* to be productive will *work * on linux.

Speak for yourself! All the programs *I* need to be productive are available on Linux, and usually they work better than the Windows equivalents... One thing that's keeping me from ditching Microsoft altogether is that Windows is still the premier *gaming* platform! Not much of a productivity booster, that, but hard to ignore. ;-)

Incidentally, the Windows version of Free42 was developed almost entirely under Linux -- using Win4Lin with Windows 98SE and Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0. No getting around using M$ products if you want to develop software that runs on M$ platforms, but at least I could do it while still having access to all my cool Linux goodies and no need to reboot.


I have a collection of slide rules and treasure them but I would not dare take any of them to work to solve a problem.

I'm curious: Why wouldn't you use a slide rule at work? I keep a few of mine at the office and enjoy using one now and then just to surprise my colleagues.


I suspect I could take one in and use it during a 'maintenance period'. This I suspect would surprise my work mates!


Slide rules are still used by Flight engineers of Lockheed C-130H/E model cargo aircraft in some Air Forces, the batteries seem to last forever (joke) and are totally reliable. They are also unaffected by EMP.

Cheers Paul


One of the axioms of economics:

Price is set by buyers and sellers. For any class of items for which a large body of items exist, the price is set nty by any "intrinsic" value, but rather by the small percentage of that class that is actually for sale, and the buyers who are buying. This is as true for calculators as it is for real estate.

The great fallacy of your reasoning is caused by you confusing what is actually happening, as compared with the concept of "supply and demand" *as applied to consumables*. Calculators are *durable goods* more akin to real estate, at least over medium time spans. (Obviously over time, they will become scarce--as any collectible will, whereas real estate is fixed).

Note that Pontiac does not go and re-produce the 1969 GTO. Sure, you can spend 50 grand on one, but there aren't that many people out there willing to spend it!


And the reason why: Anything more complex than the Hp33s would then start to rob sales from the Hp49G line. Hp has the history of the Hp42s to refer to for this (falacy maybe, but they should still have the sales data, which I would certainly interpret differently from their brilliant marketing bunch).

The Hp42s was designed to support 32K RAM and a serial I/O had been in the works. As it was, it was priced above the Hp48G AND it STILL SOLD. Every sale was a no SALE for the higher powered Hp48G. "Man, are those DIMWIT ENGINEERS STUPID!" is all Hp marketing could think of. So as to not produce a competing line (as anyone who bought an Hp42s, wouldn't buy anything but Hp, why not reduce their choices ie buy either an Hp32s or an Hp48G). Most would step up to the Hp48G and those that needed less would buy an Hp32s (with units conversions, and still some programming).

The Hp42s (larger number than 41) was supposed to supercede the 41. Only near the end was it then marketed to replace the Hp15c (after abandoning the serial I/O development, the RAM support was already there).

I could RANT and gripe all day, but at least there is still the Hp33s now available. That it is distinctive is another BIG PLUS (ugly to some, maybe most).

I also feel that is why the Hp20s was NEVER offered as an RPN/algebraic option calculator. That would have ROBBED sales from the Hp32s (retail $70 vs $30 for the Hp20s).

Sometimes Hp marketing stratagies backfire, but hey, they have degrees in these areas, so who are we to argue with their brilliant decisions?


Alas, this is also true.

Marketing picks strange colors for machines they don't even know how to use.

"Let's try a blue and pink model. How do I turn it on again?"


To comment on the intra-product line competition of a beefed up 33/42s style machine and the 49 line-

My university carried a slew of the 49g+ in 2003. They also carried the 48gII. I haven't seen a 49g+ since early 2004, but they do have several stacks of 33s' (the new ones- larger dot,spacing between numbers).

In fact, I can't seem to locate the 49g+ in any store here. I have one of the earlier models with a stiffer keyboard and latest ROM (I'm not looking for one, in other words). Whatever HP may have in the works, I suspect that I will still react with "is THAT the new HP?" They never really live up to the nostalgia-fueled expectations on first impression, although, YES, the 33s is pocketable-RPN for under US50.00, and it works quite well.

My engineering dept is fairly small (300 students), and of the few people I know, 4 people use RPN. We all seem to do very well, too :) Of note is that no one using a Ti grapher seems to have written code, or really used the graph capability. But, what is garbage to me is...

Also, there is a bit of a 'sleeper' component to the 33s (or any non-graphing RPN). And if I sit and program at a cafe, the ladies don't suspect that I'm playing video games :) Lay people at worst assume you are doing math, which is fine, and often the case.



The Hp42s was designed to support 32K RAM and a serial I/O had been in the works. As it was, it was priced above the Hp48G AND it STILL SOLD. Every sale was a no SALE for the higher powered Hp48G. "

I'm afaraid that some of this is revisionist history. If you check Craig Finseth's hpdatabase at http://www.finseth.com/hpdata/hp42s.html, it shows that the HP42S was introduced in October of 1988 at a price of $120. and was discontinued in March of 1996. The HP48G was introduced in June of 1993 at a price of $165. and discontinued in mid 1999. From this, it was to be five years after the 42S came out before the 48G was introduced. Did you possibly mean the 48S? It was introduced in April of 1991 (still a year and a half after the 42S) at $250. and was discontinued in June of 1993, right as the 48G came out. Either way, it looks like the price of the 42S was never higher than either the 48G or 48S. I distinctly remember when the 42S was introduced, because I had a 28S at the time and saw no need to revert back to traditional FOCAL language a la hp41 after having just obtained my second (28C, then 28S) RPL machine.

Jake Schwartz


I purchased my first Hp42s for $90 (Hp discount) and an Hp48s for $140 (again, an Hp discount). However, shortly there after the Hp48G was introduced at $160 and within a year was down to $100 while the Hp42s was then available for list at $120.

This was now around 93-94 and I had just given my Brother in law my Hp48s and was looking to replace. I was surprised that the Hp42s was priced higher than the newer Hp48G. I then forked out a $100 for a new Hp48G from Educalc. I remember thinking, "Why hasn't Hp reduced the price of the Hp42s? They will never sell any if they are priced more than an Hp48G." Shortly afterwards, the 42s was discontinued. Don't have to be to bright to realize why, it didn't sell. But then it couldn't be expected to sell well in its market niche except to die hard Hp calculator nerds. The typical engineer buys the most he can for what he wants. The Hp48G blows an Hp42s away for features and I/O.

But a 48G aint a pocket calculator either. As a student, I would use a 48G for much of my work, but if I just needed a customizable calculator, I would vote (and buy) an Hp42s. That it was marketed poorly is another matter.

Now I use the newer Hp's because they are fast, fairly reliable and replacable. However, they aren't nearly as well made as the older line.


Since HP still makes one of the voyagers (12c), why not do a calculator that has the functionality of the 33s (with some improvments) but is in the form of the 12c?


That's the whole point of this "Bring back the 15c" stuff.

Problem is that developing a calculator takes a lot more than just a case and keys.

And, these days, corporations won't come out with something that just breaks even. It must compete for scarce capital against other projects with high rates of return.

If you can't show a high net present value, forget it.

Bringing back the 15c would not make HP money. Therefore, they won't do it.

It is simple economics. 10 units a week at ebay may bring $300-500 each.

Making 10,000 units a month of a new 15c and they'd be lucky to command $100 each. Probably more like $60-80 each.

For what? A calculator without alpha capabilities? With programs showing keycodes? Competing against graphing models selling for the same price? competing against casio and sharp models with pretty much the same capabilities selling for $20?

The only reason the 12c survives is that enough people buy them to make it nuts to discontinue it.

If the 15c had sold like the 12c did and still sells, it would still be made.

Not enough people bought it when it was on sale the first time to make it financially smart to keep selling it.

It certainly wouldn't be any different today.


It won't fly! We all know how much the 42S, 32SII, 48GX go for these days on ebay. Remember HP couldn't sell the 42S at $80, the 32SII at $58 and the 48GX at $100. They only command a high price when they are not available from HP. The 42S was never priced higher than any version of the 48.


Then what is the perceived future for the 33s, or a 33s class machine? For a 33s class of calculator, are we then forever going to have the current case and buttons of the 33s? If HP stays in the market, then presumably at some point they will have to change or update the styling of the 33s, as well as add some features, even if only incrementally in nature.


i'd like to turn this discussion on its head and ask, what people think a viable market price today would be for a calculator, in the spirit of the 15c, but nevertheless totally new.


  • high quality buttons & case.
  • pocket sized/landscape design,
  • fast/large memory (eg 400Mhz/2MB).
  • installable software libraries (eg into flash).
  • pc interface (eg usb).
  • alpha (and indeed greek and other letters).
  • bitmap display.
  • programmable
  • rpn/aos/formula operational modes.
  • advanced features (complex, matrices, solve, quadrature etc.)
  • financial functions of the 12c.


  • expandibility.
  • graphing (takes too much actual size).
  • decades of battery life.
  • exempt from exams/not for education market.

would you pay $200?


Yes. I'd pay $200.

Only becase such a product is way superior to any other current or previous product in it's *size*.

If it didn't have the small size, I'd stick with buying a 49G+ or something.

Note that what you are suggensting is *not* a 15c. It is not a 42S. It is way better!


IMHO that's exactly what at least some people in this forum mean when talking about a "new hp15c" or a "new hp42s". So, to avoid ongoing confusion and further wars, let's baptize the baby hugh steers outlined:

Let's call it the IQ43s

(for the older audience: remember 2001)


Wouldn't that be the 'IQ53t' then?


You are almost right! But "s" stands for "scientific". 8)


Yeah, but "t" could stand for "terrific!" 8)


OK, this point is yours! d:^D

Anyway, I like scientific calcs more. The world is full of terrific calcs. You will agree that's reflected in this nice forum quite well.

Hugh, I apologize for having written your name with small letters. The time I realized it, it was too late to correct it.

Edited: 11 Nov 2005, 3:15 p.m.


Hi Hugh,

I really LOVE HP stuff. I bought a HP-67 when it first was introduced in the 70's and today I have HP-67's, HP-97's, a HP-12C, HP-15C, a HP-41CX and HP-75C. I especially love working using RPN. BUT, most of the time when I need to work out some calculus or statistics problem, or even an EE problem -- I hate to say this, but I just turn on my TI Voyage 200. It's available all over the place for $150 or less, brand new. Gosh, I wish HP had something equivalent to that Voyage 200 in RPN. That's the competition HP is up against.

This is honest input from tried and true HP lover,

Mike, W4XN


Hmm, I've been thinking about getting one of those..


That sounds somewhat familiar. How about 200MHz, USB/RS232/IrDA, and room for a single flash card inside?


Yawn. CAD images are one thing, a working product is another.

Let me know when OpenRPN actually produces something.


Yepp, this roboust and sympathic "golden-rationed" sides are looks very good! I think in this case too many dust collector corner, but very impressive! And what do you think about a "virtual machine", with changeable looks lcd-key-faceplate?



My compliments on 3D CAD rendition.

Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire power user.


Pro Engineer?! That name is like a profanity to my ears. It's perhaps one of the worst programs in user interface I've seen, overpriced, and the attitude of tech support was surly. Everyone on my team gave up on trying to use it, but I stuck with it. After literally several hundred hours of trial and error, I got to where I could use it. But, the final straw was when it came to transferring the docs to CAM, where it failed miserably. So we started using SolidWorks, which is the industry standard for very good reasons.

Edited: 13 Nov 2005, 7:31 a.m.


Your Opinion is well noted. I have used AutoCAD (Crayons), ClarisCAD (paint program) and Pro/E since rel 10 (1991) when it was ported for the MAC QUADRA. And also CATIA Ver10. I have also used Solid Words. Created by people who worked for PTC. I have worked in Aerospace since 1990. Main CAD systems being Pro/E, CATIA, UNIGRAPHICS. I thought Ashlar Vellum 3D for the MAC was a most elegant CAD system. Then again just an Opinion.


i wasn’t envisaging the same thing as you have here. for one thing, there’s no need for all of usb, rs232 and irda simply because it adds cost (and power consumption). a lot of ideas for a new calculator suffer from creeping featuritis and this is a bad thing.

also, copying the form factor of the voyagers is wrong. the display needs to have more lines but not be grossly big as to make the unit large. i completely agree with people that pocket size is crucial. in today’s world of pdas & laptops, the biggest reason to buy and carry the machine is convenience.

also the design needs to be smart. if i’m asking people to hand over $200 rather than $20, i don’t make the fixings visible. i also make it look cool. think ipod. it needs wow factor rather than nerd factor. the market is small, but bigger than techies. i would aim to include consultants, accountants and business people as well who would currently buy the 12cp, 17bii etc which are both lacklustre in appeal.

there's one other major difference. i'm thinking of a calculator that is in, no way, compatible with hp. although it should have a selectable RPN input mode, it does not have a compatible programming model nor rpl. afaik, this was one of the primary goals for the openrpn design.

Edited: 11 Nov 2005, 9:25 a.m.


i also make it look cool. think ipod. it needs wow factor rather than nerd

That alone would keep me from buying it, no matter how wonderful it was in other respects.

Can you say "themeable face plates?"

A perfect design should look great to most people, and evoke many wows, without sacrificing any functionality. I think that's what hughsteers meant. In other words you *would* buy it and would appreciate it for both its' function and form.

I certainly haven't been trying to make my designs ugly or for "nerd factor." The exterior shell, for example, is seamless and made from rubber. Why? It helps to create a water barrier, gives it extra grip on surfaces, makes it easier to hold, lends some degree of cushioning when dropped, and it looks cool. Hiding the screws would be easy, but I chose to make them prominent because it makes servicing more convenient and I think it gives the machines a slightly more utilitarian/technical appeal (this is a common feature in aircraft control panels). For every feature of the external design I can explain exactly how it arrived at its' current form.

I find critisism extremely helpful. The fact that my designs have received so little leaves me with a big pile of ambiguity. Tearing them limb for limb on every feature you don't like (especially if you can suggest an alternative) is a big help.

I check my email regularly and anyone can feel free to send me their comments and ideas. Attachments such as CAD files and sketches are no problem.

Best Regards,

Well, I strongly dislike any technical instrument that looks as though some designer spent time on it trying to make it look less intimidating or more "friendly" or more appealing to the average person's "fashion sense." Dark, somber color scheme, chunky, heavy construction, insanely-complicated control panel that looks like you'd need an engineering degree or a mathematics Ph.D. to use it -- that's what I find appealing. If it would have looked out of place in a NASA Mission Control Room in the 1960s then I'm not interested.

Having said that, I actually *do* like the design in the drawings you posted in this thread (provided the color scheme matches that of the 15C).

The color scheme is similar but not identical. I produced an optimized set of available colors. Yellow/orange and blue are the standard shift colors, green is set for alpha. The purple was made to cover anything else resulting from custom orders. An interesting note is that the purple and green found on HPs would technically work as well as yellow and blue if they had paid attention to luminance!

I agree with those who say that the 15c won't make it on its own. But what about a 12c with expanded switchable microcode that can be switched between 12c, 15c, and 16c modes and changeable faceplates?

The market droids would love the idea (consider the 30s), and they could get away with charging more than a 12c Platinum (even though it would only do the 12c operations); the 12c Platinum is undoubtably cheaper to make. The only real engineering would be to make the changeable faceplates (which would also have to change key tops).

Would you pay $125 for a "three-in-one" calculator?

Yes, the 15C AND the 42S! :)

Two collector items I'm after. Also, I will probably be in line for the future 50g+.

No need to bring back the 15C, just revise a 12C by adding Scientific functions (ala HP27). Perhaps an overlay. I would pay $200. Also the gold Bezel is more attractive on 12C (non Titanium). Oh leave the Algegraic choice functions for the newer generation.


What made the 15C so special are teh following features:

1. Matrix operations
2. Solve
3. Integration

The 15C programming model uses labels and not line numbers to direct jumps and execution subroutines. Speaking of subroutines, the 12C does not support them!

The 15C seem to become more popular now. Back then, the HP41C/CV/CX wereking because of the alphanumeric capabilities. Also th HP41 hd the Advantage ROM that implemented the features of the 15C that were missig in the 41C. HP used microcode to support the 15C-like features.



I must agree. I purchased an HP 41CV in 1989 from the Hewlitt Packard employee store for $87.50 (Cost to HP to mfr) when someone lifeted my HP15C from my drafing table, then returned a day later to steal the manual. The 15C was a beautiful design, highly functional for fast computation and would not slide off the drafting table when tilted at a 20 deg angle. I thought perhaps the 12C could be revised for Scientific application without losing much of the programming of the 15C



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  HP Prime: Converting number to Sci notation and back BruceTTT 1 243 11-12-2013, 02:11 AM
Last Post: Phil Wipf
  Getting back to the CL Geir Isene 6 431 03-20-2013, 07:02 PM
Last Post: Geir Isene
  Still a new colour calc ! When you'll make it HP ? Mic 10 625 01-13-2013, 09:17 AM
Last Post: Marcus von Cube, Germany
  HP-11C Back Screws John Swisher 0 199 09-12-2012, 10:52 AM
Last Post: John Swisher
  Make PIL-Box ILPer program run on OS X Juergen Keller 6 474 09-07-2012, 04:38 PM
Last Post: Hans Holzach
  I am back ;) with a problem on HP 41 ;( wildpig 7 482 07-09-2012, 11:30 AM
Last Post: Mike Morrow
  Back with my DEG<->DMS formulas ! PGILLET 5 401 05-03-2012, 07:44 PM
Last Post: Bart (UK)
  HP-51G: Back to the honorable roots! Martin Paech 24 1,243 04-08-2012, 01:39 AM
Last Post: db (martinez, ca.)
  15c LE back at HP Neil Carlson 4 325 03-27-2012, 04:56 PM
Last Post: Harald
  2nd version HP-35 with Finnish manual and back label matti 8 498 03-10-2012, 05:34 PM
Last Post: Gerson W. Barbosa

Forum Jump: