Rated 1 out of 5
by ThunderfromDownunder HP Calculators New verses Old
Have attached a image with an example of some different HP calculators (RPN) which I have used over the years and a brief summary below.
Attached image from left to right
HP 35s - Lasted about 10 months before a key failed. This calculator have never been out in the field. Brought this to replace the previous 35s.
HP 35s - Lasted about 12 months before the keys failed. This Calculator have never been out in the field. Brought this to replace the 48Gii.
HP 48 Gii - Lasted about 8 months before the keys failed. This calculator has never been out in the field. I brought this to replace my 32Sii and at the time thought it would be a worth while investment. (Big $$ mistake)
HP 32sii - Lasted about 10 Years before the calculator eventually failed. All keys work up until then. This calculator spent 60% of its time out in the field in most conditions. Was also run over by a vehicle once and still worked. I brought this to replace my previous 32s.
HP 32s - Lasted about 8 Years before the calculator eventually failed. All keys work up until then. This calculator spent 80% of its time out in the field in most conditions including extreme. (sorry no image attached as it's not on me at the moment.)
As my last 35s has now just lost functionality with one of its keys today, I find myself at a crossroads now with HP calculators after 25 years plus.
January 6, 2016
Rated 3 out of 5 by hppayattention Best of the Worst
I really think this calculator could have been amazing but its greatly limited to:
1. Allow on engineering exams
2. Please old timers.
Just please do this..
Invent a new version of the hp28s with QUALITY ROBUST KEYS. make it able to connect to a computer so you can write programs on the computer and check lines. Stay away from this hp prime app gimmicky nonsense. Make sure functions and their inverses are on the same keys (10^x and log..etc.) make it black. Make STO and RCL primary keys. Keep units off of the keyboard and listed in a menu. Allow for multilettered variables. Matrix mathematics.
Act fast. I hear some engineers are working on a wp 43s that will be a 42s upgrade. Fight back with the 28s.
November 29, 2015
Rated 3 out of 5 by Tesla101 Scientific Calculators: past, present and future.
HP calculators have always been the best. From the start they were meant for the world’s best and brightest physicists, programmers, engineers, chemists, astronomers, financiers, teachers and students. HP’s team did their best: they eat, slept and dreamt their work and we have all appreciated it. No detail was too small and everything was considered. That spirit has since been lost at HP and needs to be regained.
The HP35s has a functional layout, and it looks impressive. That’s important. Its programming features are well rounded. It has enough memory for most small programs – more would be better. It’s programs and data can’t be saved off calculator. The keys are not durable and will not last a life time, and they don’t have the same quality feel that the HP 42s had. The frame can be contorted if twisted a bit unlike the HP 67 which was sturdy. It, like all of HP’s calculators, can only give 12 digits. For years now I’ve had to use Mathematica to get thousands or even millions of digits or more. The face of one key is devoted to i, the square root of negative one, but only some of its’ functions can handle complex numbers. For instance, if you try to take the square root of i, the HP 35s will say Invalid Data. However, if you raise i to 0.5 using the y^x key it gives the answer. Similarly, you can’t take the square root of negative one, nor can you raise -1 to the 0.5 power using the y^x key. The HP 35s implements complex numbers in a half hearted manner. In fact, that’s how I’d describe the HP35s: half hearted. HP’s original calculator team would not be proud of the HP 35s. Still, it’s better than nothing, and I own two of them: one to use and one to keep on hand in case HP decides to discontinue its’ calculator line altogether. I still have all the other calculators, and I still use them with great care.
I was first introduced to the HP 65 back around 1974, and by 1976, I was programming the HP 67. I saw the HP 25, HP 29C and the HP 34C come and go. The layout of the HP 34C might be one of HP’s best. The HP 15C is great too. I never used the HP 41. The HP 32s and 32sii are still great and my HP 42s is probably the best that HP ever achieved – although the simplicity of its’ layout came at the cost of an increased number of keystrokes. The HP 42s used complex numbers best of all, and all the calculators still work. Some of them allowed their programs to be saved off calculator and some didn’t.
The HP 48 series and graphing calculators are of a different type of calculator. I’ve used my HP 48sx and HP 48gx as much as any of the others, and their use of complex numbers is as good as the HP 42s. However, the 48 series no longer used single step programming.
I’m concerned that a skill is being lost. Single step programming, assembly language, is very important. No other language is faster, and no processor understands anything else. Perhaps its’ last great application is a compiler, although compilers are best written today in higher level languages – as long as you still have a working precompiled compiler on hand.
Single step programming, like the HP 35s uses, is a great way to start learning how to program, and as long as the program isn’t too long, it’s still useful. It’s much faster and easier to implement an equation or two with single step programming than it is with C++ on a hand held device.
I expect Computer Algebra Systems (CAS) implemented in Mathematica or Maple are far superior to anything a Hewlett Packard graphing calculator will ever offer. That’s why I expect hand held tablets by HP or iPads by Apple running Mathematica or Maple, with new front ends designed to be like graphing calculators, to take over the market soon. That’s fine. I’m all for that, and I can’t wait to get my hands on them. They will be far more powerful than any calculator HP ever made. However, they won’t offer single step programming.
The scientific calculator, like the HP 35s, will always be useful and serve a market that no graphing calculator can because it will always be easier and faster to implement a small program with a single step language.
Long live the HP scientific calculator!
November 14, 2015
Rated 1 out of 5 by SpacemannSpiff Dead Keyboard
The keyboard died after af few month light use - why don't they build it like the good old HP15C ?????
October 28, 2015
Rated 1 out of 5 by Braveheart2 Skip this calculator
For those of us that grew up on the greatness of the HP48 family, this calculator is nothing short of disappointing. One of the first and biggest issues is the display. None of the display modes provide intelligent justification of fractional numbers. The designers of this calculator tried to outsmart simplicity and ended up with a useless product.
October 9, 2015
Rated 4 out of 5 by FrozenInNH Good, but could be better
My experience with HP calculators includes using an original HP-35 some forty years ago when the model was new. It was an amazing encounter as up until that time one had to employ slide rules and books filled with tables of function values.
Learning RPN was easy. My only discomfort was the disappointment that I didn't think of it first.
My first HP calculator I bought for myself was an HP-25. Following that were an HP-67, an HP-41C, an HP-15C, an HP-16C, an HP-28C, and maybe one or two I can't remember. Now I have a new HP-35s.
In brief: I like it and I'll be buying another as a spare.
For criticisms of the HP-35s, I agree with some of the other reviews in that the handling of complex values is not what it should be. Why can't I take the square root of a negative value to produce a complex value? Why do so many operations not work on complex values?
Many older models had the simple and quite useful rectangular/polar conversion operators which are sorely missed in the HP-35s. Also, native HMS value addition and subtraction have been left out.
Vector arithmetic is incomplete. There is a dot product, but where is the cross product?
The metric/Imperial units conversion functions should have been implemented as a menu instead of eating valuable keyboard space.
Operand indirection, quite similar to that of the HP-67, is incomplete when compared to the HP-41C.
The 30 KB of RAM is nice. It would be much nicer if there were a way to transfer contents via USB connectivity.
That big old ENTER key is exactly the right size and has the right placement. But only time will tell if it and the other keys hold up to the standard set by the classic double injected hinged keys of the Old Days.
I have no criticism of the algebraic entry system as I don't use it.
March 18, 2014