HP 33s vs HP 32sii



So what's with "180+" built-in functions for the 32SII and "100+" for the 33S?


Appendix G in the 33s Manual list 209 built in functions.



So the "100+" is a typo. Should be "200+" no doubt.

Did you count those by hand, or use a calculator? 8)


Hey! No fair!

They read our forum posts!!



Now that they have the bugs worked out, maybe ads like that one won't be wasted.

So they are trying to get 32SII users to upgrade, which makes all the sense in the world from a marketing point of view. But what about the rest of the gadget-happy world? I want my whiz-bang updated RPN machine! If they do read this forum, there are lots of suggestions about what such a machine might look like in other threads. 8)

Edited: 22 Nov 2005, 12:58 p.m.


Ah, actually if I never used a 32SII (or 34C for that matter) I think I would actually get fairly attached to using the 33S. Aside from that rather funky keyboard, it IS RPN after all and has all the functionality that a proper scientific calculator should have, including decent programming space.


Is there any particular reason for the sky-high 32SII prices on ebay, versus models like the 41-C, and 28-S?


Short term run up by unscrupulous traders?

I bought mine last month for $140.00. It wasn't new, but in excellent shape. There seems to be a cadre of sellers asking the $300+ price. Search completed auctions for a more realistic idea of eBay values.


Simple. Some people really like that machine and are willing to pay for it.

There is nothing unscrupulous about asking for a lot of money. The buyer is free to look elsewhere.

That people pay that much is simply a reflection of what some feel it is worth to *them*.

(Enough with the "unscrupulous" crap. :)


There is a limitation of 26 labels, all global, that can be onerous. If you want more than one substantial program to reside in the calculator, you have to worry about that resoource long before the memory. It all stems from the fact that the 33S is nearly identical to the 32SII in most important respects. The memory is increased, but can't be used effectively. The keyboard is bizarre, but only in the shapes of the keys, and the downgrading of the enter key. But it adds an improvement in the large buttons at the top for menus and cursor control. The two-line display is better in all respects now that they have fixed the tiny decimal point. The calculator is faster, no doubt. The manual is increased in size, but is mostly a copy of the original.

Bottom line: this is not a new RPN machine. It is a (slight) evolution from the 32SII. Calling it the 33S was misleading in my opinion. It's more of a 32SII+.

But I have got to admit I like this machine quite a bit. It does indeed have all the functions a daily-use scientific calculator needs. The fact that it is sorely lacking in the programming department (my HP97 code ports with only minor changes!) can be looked on as a challenge. Since I'm using it for fun only, I find this acceptable. But I still want my brand new RPN machine! And I want it on the high-end, too, with modern I/O and everything. Christmas is coming. Will I be disappointed? Well, yes. But I've learned to live with disappointment from HP.



I agree, the 33s has some flaws, but if one requires RPN, and is not willing to take a chance on high-priced (and often second-hand) 32sii & 42s machines...then the 33s is attractive.

Last week during a numerical methods exam, I was able to leave nearly 20 min early due to some basic matrix row-manipulation routines I had in my 33s. Its these small things that make it shine, to me.

Here's a thought- I am among a small handfull of RPN users at my university. All else use either a Ti-XX or Casio model. Perhaps this reflects on the declining difficulty in obtaining an engineering degree. Most people are closed-minded and the classic line "I don't like those, they're backward" prevails.

Some fundamental flaws in the Ti-89 Plat/Titanium as I see it:

These apply regardless of RPN entry, and assume practical/daily engineering student needs.

1. ALL trig (reg and inverse) are shifted.
2. There are two or three keys that have a variable (ie. X, Y, Z) as the primary function. One should suffice. Why not make one key LS=X, Primary=Y, RS=Z ??
3. Text contrast on KBD is sub-HP49g (Big-Blue) in terms of eye-strain.

Well, just some thoughts.


I guess it's a little bit heartening to hear the competition has vulnerabilities that don't relate to something (i.e. lack of RPN) that most of the world sees as a strength. I only find it a "little bit" heartening, because I'm pretty sure HP won't try to exploit those weaknesses.

But I agree that the 33S is a pleasant machine in many ways. Ergonomic design, in terms of how the machines were used by the technical customers, used to be one hallmark of HP quality. Oddly enough, I find the 33S to have the same kind of usability some of my favorite old machines do. I can find things quickly on that weird looking keyboard. If this is due more to the layout of the 32SII, which the 33S did change a bit, then at least the changes haven't screwed things up too badly. And in at least one respect, the large menu and motion keys at the top, the 33S layout is an improvement on the 32SII. I've written elsewhere that the chevron design and the enter key relocation and shrinking became non-issues quicker than I might have guessed, although the latter change took more time to get used to than the former.

But I'm still interested in what a newly minted RPN machine would look like. Thinking about this appeals to me on several levels. First, it's a fun intellectual exercise to see what people in this community think is good about RPN, and what could be improved. It helps me examine and modify my own thinking on the subject. I'm particularly delighted to have engaged an RPL head or two in the discussion. Cross-pollination of ideas always yields interesting hybrids, and sometimes even unique insights. Second, the ideas developed could help me develop calculator software, which I intend to do at some point, after I make the "YATZ grand tour" through my collection. And finally, and most speculatively, maybe HP is reading this forum, and maybe one or two of the ideas kicked around here will make it into a real machine someday. That last is unlikely, but the first two points also makes the possibility unnecessary for me to count the activity as worthwhile.



1. ALL trig (reg and inverse) are shifted.
2. There are two or three keys that have a variable (ie. X, Y, Z) as the primary function. One should suffice. Why not make one key LS=X, Primary=Y, RS=Z ??
3. Text contrast on KBD is sub-HP49g (Big-Blue) in terms of eye-strain.

Well, just some thoughts.

Believe it or not, I've been using the X Y and Z buttons more than the trig functions. I'm still looking into a 49G+, though. What I don't like about the Ti89Ti is the difficulty of getting to some functions of the "math" menu, and having only 5 F buttons, when in the main screen, there are 6 tabs. Also, the keyboard is really starting to stick.



1. ALL trig (reg and inverse) are shifted.

2. There are two or three keys that have a variable (ie. X, Y, Z) as the primary function. One should suffice. Why not make one key LS=X, Primary=Y, RS=Z ??

3. Text contrast on KBD is sub-HP49g (Big-Blue) in terms of eye-strain.

The Voyage 200 fixes most these issues. The only drawback are the relativly small keys. (Keep your fingernails short!) I really like the keybord of my TI-92 Plus.



While all that extra RAM is a somewhat dubious improvement and its styling is autrocious to the typical customer, it is less cost than the Hp32s as well. I never saw an Hp32s sell retail for less than $70 (69.95 +tax).
And it is also an AOS algebraic (which is probably a marketing mistake, but I personally, like AOS better than EOS). But I am an older calc user who migrated to Hp when AOS was the Algebraic OS of the day. My High Schooler only likes EOS (as of yet).

So it is a big marketing improvement in that area. It provides a market for both the Hp32s and Hp20s for future replacements. There are older calculator users that will certainly detest EOS (I have heard several complaints, and I don't blame them). And it has a fairly decent feeling keyboard. I do wish they would dump the chevron style, but production wouldn't want to expend the $$$$ now and marketing probably cannot afford to admit it wasn't a brilliant idea.


I bought 32sii calculators on three separat eoccasions from a store near Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia, back in the 90's, for $58 retail.


But I'm sure that by the time the 33S reaches the length of a sales run your $58 32SIIs did, it might be cheaper than the 32SII, since the 33S began retailing around at least $10 USD less than the 32SII, if I recall when it was first sold. And note I haven't adjusted for inflation or buying power, etc., so the 33S is effectively cheaper for a calculator that is somewhat more powerful than a 32SII.

From this standpoint, it's not a bad deal at all for such a nice calculator.

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Is the HP 33s the next hot HP collectible ? Michael de Estrada 12 2,750 10-29-2013, 10:23 AM
Last Post: Thomas Radtke
  HP 32sii Fault Carlos Estinos 9 2,054 09-26-2013, 01:06 PM
Last Post: Csaba Tizedes (Hungary)
  Joys of eBay: HP-32S, HP-32SII, HP-42S, HP-16C, ... Sasu Mattila 7 1,852 09-23-2013, 04:39 PM
Last Post: Julián Miranda (Spain)
  Maximum number of program steps in HP-42S, 33S, and 35S? Walter B 3 1,262 12-18-2012, 03:44 PM
Last Post: Eric Smith
  Another technique of HP-33S label saving x34 6 1,572 10-11-2012, 11:09 AM
Last Post: Luiz C. Vieira (Brazil)
  HP 32sII with faulty keypad aurelio 6 2,030 09-21-2012, 05:08 PM
Last Post: aurelio
  HP-33S Display Quirk Matt Agajanian 4 1,288 05-15-2012, 08:31 AM
Last Post: Michael de Estrada
  Sudoku Solver for HP-33s Marcel Samek 3 1,057 05-11-2012, 03:01 PM
Last Post: Lode
  Complex results acceptance 32sII/33s/35s Matt Agajanian 9 1,879 03-24-2012, 09:30 AM
Last Post: Dieter
  HP 32sII Integration Error of Standard Normal Curve Anthony (USA) 4 1,180 03-14-2012, 03:18 AM
Last Post: Nick_S

Forum Jump: