18 Oct
2011
18 Oct
'11
9:14 p.m.
I'm about to get something to replace my old TI85 I had from high school.
Lots of you here rave about the HP's offerings. Indeed, I wanted to get,
but couldn't afford an HP48g when they were new. I don't have much need
for graphing now, but I do need scientific calculation. The HP35s seems
good for that. Or should I just jump in and get the HP50g?
--
David Griffith
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
18 Oct
18 Oct
9:27 p.m.
On Oct 18, 2011, at 9:14 PM, David Griffith <dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu> wrote:
I'm about to get something to replace my old TI85
I had from high school. Lots of you here rave about the HP's offerings. Indeed, I
wanted to get, but couldn't afford an HP48g when they were new. I don't have much
need for graphing now, but I do need scientific calculation. The HP35s seems good for
that. Or should I just jump in and get the HP50g?
If you'd be ok with a used calculator, I tell ya, I just couldn't love a
calculator more than my HP28S. I use it pretty much all the time.
If you'd prefer a one-piece design, the 48SX and successors are a pleasure to use,
even if the keys are a bit too overloaded with alternate functions.
Honestly I'd recommend going for one of those models.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
10:08 p.m.
On 10/18/2011 6:27 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
On Oct 18, 2011, at 9:14 PM, David Griffith<dgriffi
at cs.csubak.edu> wrote:
I love the 28 series (it's a great form factor sadly abandoned), but the
lack of I/O options for backup/restore of programs is kind of annoying.
And N-cells are more expensive than AAA's :).
I do have a 50G, and I find it to be pretty nice. The build quality is
good (not as good as the good old days) and the key-click is *almost*
right.
But then again, a used HP 48-SX/GX shouldn't run you too much either --
probably about the same as a new 50G. And if you want a nice used calc
of the non-graphing variety, the HP-41 series are lovely calculators
and you can find a nice used one for about the same price. (I'm basing
this on current eBay prices, your mileage may vary.)
- Josh
I'm about to get something to replace my old
TI85 I had from high school. Lots of you here rave about the HP's offerings. Indeed,
I wanted to get, but couldn't afford an HP48g when they were new. I don't have
much need for graphing now, but I do need scientific calculation. The HP35s seems good
for that. Or should I just jump in and get the HP50g?
If you'd be ok with a
used calculator, I tell ya, I just couldn't love a calculator more than my HP28S. I
use it pretty much all the time.
If you'd prefer a one-piece design, the 48SX and successors are a pleasure to use,
even if the keys are a bit too overloaded with alternate functions.
Honestly I'd recommend going for one of those models.
10:24 p.m.
On 10/18/2011 10:08 PM, Josh Dersch wrote:
I love the 28 series (it's a great form factor
sadly abandoned), but the
lack of I/O options for backup/restore of programs is kind of annoying.
And N-cells are more expensive than AAA's :).
Agreed on all points. Yeah I wish they hadn't gone with N cells,
sometimes it's even a pain just to find them. Were AAAs around when the
original 28C came out?
The kermit protocol in the 48 family sure is handy, even if you do
need a weird cable to make use of it.
I do have a 50G, and I find it to be pretty nice. The
build quality is
good (not as good as the good old days) and the key-click is *almost*
right.
When did the build quality start to drop? I have a 35S, which is
great but the build quality isn't even close to real HP. It also chews
through batteries like there's no tomorrow. (2x CR2032) The next most
recent one I have is a 48SX, which is very nicely built, so it seems to
me the decline happened somewhere in between.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
11:29 p.m.
On 10/18/2011 7:24 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 10/18/2011 10:08 PM, Josh Dersch wrote:
That's a good question. My dad teaches Math at a local community
college and the Math department at said college always seemed to get
ahold of at least one example of most of the graphing calculators that
came out in the late 80s through the mid 90s, from the Casio FX-7000G
on. As a result I got to play with most of them :). The build quality
of the HP-48SX was great, as was the GX (used that one through college
and it still works, though alas the LCD has started to "leak"). I
recall the 38G (1995) as being well built physically but a poorly
executed idea software-wise (it was HP trying to take on TI in the high
school-level education department and failing miserably). The HP 49G
(1999) was a real dog and I don't think things have been the same since,
though the HP50 is a marked improvement (and the 35S is pretty nice in
comparison as well.)
- Josh
I do have a 50G, and I find it to be pretty nice.
The build quality is
good (not as good as the good old days) and the key-click is *almost*
right.
When did the build quality start to drop? I have a 35S, which is
great but the build quality isn't even close to real HP. It also
chews through batteries like there's no tomorrow. (2x CR2032) The
next most recent one I have is a 48SX, which is very nicely built, so
it seems to me the decline happened somewhere in between.
-Dave
19 Oct
19 Oct
12:21 a.m.
On 10/18/2011 11:29 PM, Josh Dersch wrote:
Oh man, I'm jealous!!
When did the
build quality start to drop? I have a 35S, which is great
but the build quality isn't even close to real HP. It also chews
through batteries like there's no tomorrow. (2x CR2032) The next most
recent one I have is a 48SX, which is very nicely built, so it seems
to me the decline happened somewhere in between.
That's a good question. My dad teaches Math at a local community college
and the Math department at said college always seemed to get ahold of at
least one example of most of the graphing calculators that came out in
the late 80s through the mid 90s, from the Casio FX-7000G on. As a
result I got to play with most of them :). The build quality of the
HP-48SX was great, as was the GX (used that one through college and it
still works, though alas the LCD has started to "leak"). I recall the
38G (1995) as being well built physically but a poorly executed idea
software-wise (it was HP trying to take on TI in the high school-level
education department and failing miserably).
Was the 38G the algebraic-notation one with the menus and stuff in
the firmware?
The HP 49G (1999) was a
real dog and I don't think things have been the same since, though the
HP50 is a marked improvement (and the 35S is pretty nice in comparison
as well.)
Oh, that's a shame.
So based on your experience, knowing that I have a 48SX and that I
like that build quality, it seems the latest model I should mess with
would probably be the 48GX?
There's nothing wrong with my current "fleet" of calculators, but now
being recently gainfully employed once again (good riddance, Florida!)
I've been thinking of treating myself to something new.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
12:35 a.m.
I use a 35s for my day to day work and can definately recommend it. Okay
it's no HP classic but build quality is okay, it supports my loved RPN and
isn't too complicated. It's in use dayly. In my experience the batteries
last quite long.
For the sometimes needed classic experience I have my old HP 67 readily
available in my office desks drawer ;)
Regards,
Wolfgang
--
Wolfgang Eichberger - OE5EWL
Operating System Collector
Blog: 5ewl.blogspot.com
Homepage: www.eichberger.org
2011/10/19 Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com>
On 10/18/2011 11:29 PM, Josh Dersch wrote:
When did the build quality start to drop? I have
a 35S, which is great
Oh man, I'm jealous!!
The build quality of the
but the build quality isn't even close to
real HP. It also chews
through batteries like there's no tomorrow. (2x CR2032) The next most
recent one I have is a 48SX, which is very nicely built, so it seems
to me the decline happened somewhere in between.
That's a good question. My dad teaches Math at a local community college
and the Math department at said college always seemed to get ahold of at
least one example of most of the graphing calculators that came out in
the late 80s through the mid 90s, from the Casio FX-7000G on. As a
result I got to play with most of them :).
HP-48SX was great, as was the GX (used that one
through college and it
still works, though alas the LCD has started to "leak"). I recall the
38G (1995) as being well built physically but a poorly executed idea
software-wise (it was HP trying to take on TI in the high school-level
education department and failing miserably).
Was the 38G the algebraic-notation one with the menus and stuff in the
firmware?
The HP 49G (1999) was a
real dog and I don't think things have been
the same since, though the
HP50 is a marked improvement (and the 35S is pretty nice in comparison
as well.)
Oh, that's a shame.
So based on your experience, knowing that I have a 48SX and that I like
that build quality, it seems the latest model I should mess with would
probably be the 48GX?
There's nothing wrong with my current "fleet" of calculators, but now
being recently gainfully employed once again (good riddance, Florida!) I've
been thinking of treating myself to something new.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
1:07 a.m.
On Oct 19, 2011, at 12:35 AM, Wolfgang Eichberger <oe5ewl at gmail.com> wrote:
I use a 35s for my day to day work and can definately
recommend it. Okay
it's no HP classic but build quality is okay, it supports my loved RPN and
isn't too complicated. It's in use dayly. In my experience the batteries
last quite long.
Wow, really? I wonder if there's a hardware or firmware revision that affects the
battery life. Do you have any idea of how to get the 35S to tell it's firmware
revision level?
For the sometimes needed classic experience I have my
old HP 67 readily
available in my office desks drawer ;)
Nice!
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
1:52 a.m.
Hm. I have no idea about the firmware or hardware rev. level. Could be
realistic that this affects battery life.
By the way: Someone's got a spare battery pack for my HP 67? Even with dead
NICDs that I could replace. The pack in my calculator was lost years ago so
I have to run it from the original wall-wart all the time; thats a bit
annoying.
--
Wolfgang Eichberger - OE5EWL
Operating System Collector
Blog: 5ewl.blogspot.com
Homepage: www.eichberger.org
2011/10/19 Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com>
On Oct 19, 2011, at 12:35 AM, Wolfgang Eichberger
<oe5ewl at gmail.com>
wrote:
I use a 35s for my day to day work and can
definately recommend it. Okay
it's no HP classic but build quality is okay, it supports my loved RPN
and
isn't too complicated. It's in use dayly.
In my experience the batteries
last quite long.
Wow, really? I wonder if there's a hardware or firmware revision that
affects the battery life. Do you have any idea of how to get the 35S to
tell it's firmware revision level?
For the sometimes needed classic experience I
have my old HP 67 readily
available in my office desks drawer ;)
Nice!
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
5:11 p.m.
Hm. I have no idea about the firmware or hardware rev. level. Could be
realistic that this affects battery life.
By the way: Someone's got a spare battery pack for my HP 67? Even with dead
NICDs that I could replace. The pack in my calculator was lost years ago so
I have to run it from the original wall-wart all the time; thats a bit
annoying.
ARGH! Do not do that!
The AC adapter for the 67 ahs 2 outputs. One is a constant voltage output
(about 4.2V I thinK) the other is a constant-current ouptut (55mA) with a
maximum voltage of 15V or so.
In the machines without card readers that use this adapter
(35,45,55,70,80), the battery is disconencted from the machine when you
plug the adapter in,. The constnat current charges the NiCd, the constant
voltage runs the logic. These are safe to use without a battery pack fitted
In the machiens with card readers (65, 67), the card reader
amplidier/motor driver chip is conencted directly across the battery
pack. If theree's no battery fitted (or the battery is opne-circuit),
this chip gets 15V across it. The user manual for the HP65 warns that
this can do damage. The chip was redesgned for the 67, and the new
version is supposed ot stand up to this, but I am not going to risk it.
Incidentally, if you have a 20 series, 30 series or 90 series with
continuous memory (19C, 25C, 29C, 33C, 34C, 38C, 95C), you _will_ do
damage if you conenct the AC adpater without a good battery installed.
The battery acts as a shunt regualtor in these machines, and the RAM is
powered by the battery at all times (that's how the ocntinuos memory is
maintained). Without the battery, the RAM sees abotu 12V when the charger
is plugged in and it doens't much like it,
The safest way to charge the batteries is outside the calculator. HP sold
'reserve power packs' -- battery charger units -- for the classic (35, 67
etc), Woodstock (20 series), Spice (30 series) and Topcat (90 seires)
amchines. I've never seen one for the Sting (10, 19C) machines, though.
The classic-seires one is not too hard to find, the Topcat one a little
harder, The Woodstock one is quite rare, the Spice one rare enough that
some people claim it never existed (I can assure you it does).
Incidentally, if ytou can't find one closer, I should be able ot find you
a dead NiCd pack for your 67.
-tony
8:46 p.m.
On 10/19/2011 01:52 AM, Wolfgang Eichberger wrote:
Hm. I have no idea about the firmware or hardware rev.
level. Could be
realistic that this affects battery life.
By the way: Someone's got a spare battery pack for my HP 67? Even with dead
NICDs that I could replace. The pack in my calculator was lost years ago so
I have to run it from the original wall-wart all the time; thats a bit
annoying.
Tony already spoke to how this can damage a '67...I don't think I
have any spare packs; I think I have just one for each of mine, but if I
can find any spares when I finish moving I'll stick your name on them.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
8:48 p.m.
On 10/19/2011 01:52 AM, Wolfgang Eichberger wrote:
Hm. I have no idea about the firmware or hardware rev.
level. Could be
realistic that this affects battery life.
It's got to be something to do with HW or FW revisions. Note to the
OP: it appears that not all HP-35S machines have the battery life
problem that mine does!
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
2:10 a.m.
On 10/18/2011 10:07 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
On Oct 19, 2011, at 12:35 AM, Wolfgang
Eichberger<oe5ewl at gmail.com> wrote:
A few years ago before Boeing Surplus went away I lucked out and found
an HP-67 sitting in a shopping cart behind the checkout counter. I
assumed it was something that'd already been sold, but I asked the
cashier and she said that it wasn't. I asked how much, and she said
"How's $5 sound?". Sold! I scrounged around in the cart and found the
A/C adapter as well. I don't often get that lucky :).
Card reader needs to be rebuilt but I'm hesitant to open it up since it
involves removing the rear label. This one's in such good cosmetic
shape I worry about damaging it. (And honestly these days I don't know
if I'd use the card reader that much anyway...)
I also have an HP-65 which appears to be broken beyond repair, alas...
- Josh
For the sometimes needed classic experience I
have my old HP 67 readily
available in my office desks drawer ;)
Nice!
-Dave
5:21 p.m.
Card reader needs to be rebuilt but I'm hesitant
to open it up since it
involves removing the rear label. This one's in such good cosmetic
I like my machines to work (I am more interested in what they do than
what htey look like), so I rebuilt the rollers in my 65, all 4 67s (!),
both my 97s and both my 41 card readers... One of my 67s was a disaster.
It had been fiddled with before, One of the nylon bllas to sense the card
was missing, and more seriously so was the tiny nylon pressure roller.
The ball is a stnadard part so I could buy some but the roller isn't.
That 67 now has a brass roller in it . But making somethign that small
was not easy.
shape I worry about damaging it. (And honestly these
days I don't know
if I'd use the card reader that much anyway...)
Rememebr the 67 doens't have continous msmory so it is useful to eb able
ot save your programs. Also there were some application Pacs avialable
(which do turn up from time to time), I use programs from the Mechancial
Engineer Pac quite often. The Games Pac is fun too (adn to me a lot more
interesting than modern computer games).
I also have an HP-65 which appears to be broken beyond repair, alas...
You;'ll be able to get an unoffocial schematic from HPCC, but unless it's
a PSU problem or you have a donor machine you are probably right about it
being beyond repair. The logic board contains 3 ROM chips and a 44-pin
metal can which cotnaisn 5 silicon dice (Control&Timing,
Arithmetic&Registers, 2 RAMs, card reader interface and clock buffer).
Enough signals are brought out to be able ot tell which has fialed in
most cases, but that's not a lot of use -)
-tony
10:05 p.m.
New subject: HP-65 repair (was Re: hp calculators)
On 10/19/2011 2:21 PM, Tony Duell wrote:
Yeah, it's been awhile since I went over it (using the unofficial
schematic on HPCC) but I recall that the power looked fine but I was
getting no clock signal at all. The 65 powers up and a few segments on
the right hand side light up, but that's it. I seem to recall that the
custom chips on the display PCB generate the clock signals, but I don't
have any spares so I have no idea if replacing them would fix the problem...
- Josh
I also have an HP-65 which appears to be broken
beyond repair, alas...
You;'ll be able to get an unoffocial schematic from
HPCC, but unless it's
a PSU problem or you have a donor machine you are probably right about it
being beyond repair. The logic board contains 3 ROM chips and a 44-pin
metal can which cotnaisn 5 silicon dice (Control&Timing,
Arithmetic&Registers, 2 RAMs, card reader interface and clock buffer).
Enough signals are brought out to be able ot tell which has fialed in
most cases, but that's not a lot of use -)
-tony
20 Oct
20 Oct
3:58 p.m.
New subject: HP-65 repair (was Re: hp calculators)
Yeah, it's been awhile since I went over it (using
the unofficial
schematic on HPCC) but I recall that the power looked fine but I was
THere are of course several power lines, I assume you checked the lot.
getting no clock signal at all. The 65 powers up and
a few segments on
the right hand side light up, but that's it. I seem to recall that the
custom chips on the display PCB generate the clock signals, but I don't
have any spares so I have no idea if replacing them would fix the problem...
The master clock oscilaltor is part of the anode driver IC on the
keyboard/display PCB. The 2-pahse clock signals from that are sent to the
CPU hybrid circuit whey're the're converted to different votlage levels
and then sent out to the other chips i nthe hybrid and the ROMs.
If you're gettign nothing out of the anode driver chip clock pins, it's
most likely this chip has failed. But do checl the LC 'tank' circuit
connected to this chip. That's for the clock oscilator, of course.
AFAIK you cna use an anode driver IC from any of the classic-series HPs
(35,45,55,65,70,80 -- note that the HP67 is not really a classic series).
Not that htat helps much.
-tony
19 Oct
19 Oct
8:49 p.m.
On 10/19/2011 02:10 AM, Josh Dersch wrote:
A few years ago before Boeing Surplus went away I
lucked out and found
an HP-67 sitting in a shopping cart behind the checkout counter. I
assumed it was something that'd already been sold, but I asked the
cashier and she said that it wasn't. I asked how much, and she said
"How's $5 sound?". Sold! I scrounged around in the cart and found the
A/C adapter as well. I don't often get that lucky :).
WOW!!
Card reader needs to be rebuilt but I'm hesitant
to open it up since it
involves removing the rear label. This one's in such good cosmetic shape
I worry about damaging it. (And honestly these days I don't know if I'd
use the card reader that much anyway...)
I wonder if there's any possibility of the gooey roller oozing onto
something else and causing more internal damage.
I also have an HP-65 which appears to be broken beyond
repair, alas...
That's sad. I may have a parts '65 in FL; when I finish moving I'll
look through and put it in the box marked "Josh".
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
10:07 p.m.
On 10/19/2011 5:49 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
That would be awesome :). Thanks!
- Josh
On 10/19/2011 02:10 AM, Josh Dersch wrote:
If it's anything like the layout of the 65 inside, it'll probably be OK
unless it goes completely liquid :).
A few years ago before Boeing Surplus went away I
lucked out and found
an HP-67 sitting in a shopping cart behind the checkout counter. I
assumed it was something that'd already been sold, but I asked the
cashier and she said that it wasn't. I asked how much, and she said
"How's $5 sound?". Sold! I scrounged around in the cart and found the
A/C adapter as well. I don't often get that lucky :).
WOW!!
Card reader needs to be rebuilt but I'm
hesitant to open it up since it
involves removing the rear label. This one's in such good cosmetic shape
I worry about damaging it. (And honestly these days I don't know if I'd
use the card reader that much anyway...)
I wonder if there's any possibility of the gooey roller oozing onto
something else and causing more internal damage. I also have an HP-65 which appears to be broken
beyond repair, alas...
That's sad. I may have a parts '65 in FL; when I finish moving I'll
look through and put it in the box marked "Josh".
-Dave
2:05 a.m.
On 10/18/2011 9:21 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
Yeah, probably, but I don't know if there's a good reason to upgrade
On 10/18/2011 11:29 PM, Josh Dersch wrote:
Yeah. It had some odd quasi-BASIC-like programming language as well
and the ability to run downloaded "aplets." Same hardware as the 48.
The build quality of the
HP-48SX was great, as was the GX (used that one through college and it
still works, though alas the LCD has started to "leak"). I recall the
38G (1995) as being well built physically but a poorly executed idea
software-wise (it was HP trying to take on TI in the high school-level
education department and failing miserably).
Was the 38G the algebraic-notation one with the menus and stuff in
the firmware? The HP 49G (1999) was a
real dog and I don't think things have been the same since, though the
HP50 is a marked improvement (and the 35S is pretty nice in comparison
as well.)
Oh, that's a shame.
So based on your experience, knowing that I have a 48SX and that I
like that build quality, it seems the latest model I should mess with
would probably be the 48GX? from an SX to a GX. The GX is a great calculator but
there's not a huge
difference between it and the SX. It has a slightly faster
CPU, an LCD
with better contrast, more memory built in (128K) and the ability to
take larger expansion cards (I think it was theoretically possible to
make a 4MB card, though I don't know if any were actually made and if
they were I bet a used one'd fetch a princely sum today). Oh, and a
slightly uglier color scheme (teal/purple vs. blue/orange). A few
cosmetic improvements to the software such as "forms" based input menus
to make certain operations (graphing, solving, configuration) more
user-friendly (though you can still do it the old fashioned way just
like on the SX) and a set of built in libraries for chemistry and physics.
There are certainly other differences, but nothing fundamental.
Honestly, I like the 50G. It's way overkill for my needs these days (I
can't recall the last time I really needed to graph something, or even
do basic calculus) but it's a nice advancement of the series (though
perhaps a little late). It actually has an ARM CPU running an emulation
of the old Saturn architecture, and as a result it's several times
faster than the 48. It's possible to run programs directly on the ARM
CPU (outside of the emulation sandbox) as well. It has a nice CAS, an
SD card slot (I think even a 16mb card would provide more storage for a
calculator than anyone would ever need, but I may be wrong), and a very
nice LCD with some extra vertical resolution over the 48. It also
speaks USB (which I know will draw the ire of some here) and has some
manner of serial port (I've never tried to interface with it, but
there's a third party cable here:
http://commerce.hpcalc.org/serialcable.php). Alas, no IR port.
It does commit the cardinal sin of moving the "ENTER" key to the
lower-left, though. That could be a deal-breaker :).
So either upgrade to the 50G, or stick with the 48SX, I don't see a huge
reason to upgrade to the GX. Other than the new toy factor, which has
always worked for me :).
- Josh
There's nothing wrong with my current "fleet" of calculators, but
now being recently gainfully employed once again (good riddance,
Florida!) I've been thinking of treating myself to something new.
-Dave
4:59 p.m.
So based on your experience, knowing that I have a
48SX and that I
like that build quality, it seems the latest model I should mess with
would probably be the 48GX?
THe HP49G certainly has a lower build quality than the 48 series (the
keyboard o nthe 49G os a rubber thing, a slight improvement on the
origianl Sinclair Spectrum...) but the firmware is much improced. The 49G
does a lot more symbolically, it has 'big integers' (it'll calculate 100!
and display al lthe digits), it has symbolic vectors and matrices and so on.
I don't own a 50G. It should do all the above and more, though, and the
keyboard (from the one's I've used at HPCC is a lot nicer than the 49G
keyboard.
Does the 50G allow you to transfer ojects using kermit over the
asynchronous serial port? I've never managed to get an answer to that
question...
-tony
12:05 a.m.
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Dave McGuire wrote:
When did the build quality start to drop? I have a
35S, which is great but
the build quality isn't even close to real HP. It also chews through
batteries like there's no tomorrow. (2x CR2032) The next most recent one I
have is a 48SX, which is very nicely built, so it seems to me the decline
happened somewhere in between.
How long do you go between battery changes on the 35s?
--
David Griffith
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
12:14 a.m.
On 10/19/2011 12:05 AM, David Griffith wrote:
How long do you go between battery changes on the 35s?
Let's see. I received it as a birthday gift in March of 2009. I use
it occasionally, perhaps once or twice per week. (I usually use my 28S,
41CX, or 48SX) I've changed the batteries four times, I think.
The last battery change was just before an extended period away from
home, so it basically sat unused for about eight months, and when I got
back to it the batteries were dead.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
4:52 p.m.
On 10/18/2011 10:08 PM, Josh Dersch wrote:
I rmemeebr using AAA cells (using zinc/carbon Leclanche' technology) when
I was very young. Some torches (flashlights) used them. We called the
'U16's I think. I als rememebr the N sized cell from about the same time,
it was nuch less common. I think that was called a 'D23'
WHile I don;t know which was available first, both were available in the
UK many years before the HP28C. Heck, years before the HP35 (the original
one).
I love the 28 series (it's a great form
factor sadly abandoned), but the
lack of I/O options for backup/restore of programs is kind of annoying.
And N-cells are more expensive than AAA's :).
Agreed on all points. Yeah I wish they hadn't gone with N cells,
sometimes it's even a pain just to find them. Were AAAs around when the
original 28C came out? When did the build quality start to drop? I have a
35S, which is
My view is that hte 'glory years' of HP were mid 1960s to mid 1980s. The
build qualtiy started to decline iwth the 18C/28C models (which were
heat-staked togetheter and thus not repariable. The rot really set in in
1997 though.
-tony
20 Oct
20 Oct
2:11 p.m.
From: Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com>
When did the build quality start to drop? I have a
35S, which is
great but the build quality isn't even close to real HP. It also chews
through batteries like there's no tomorrow. (2x CR2032) The next most
recent one I have is a 48SX, which is very nicely built, so it seems to
me the decline happened somewhere in between.
I haven't seen a "new" HP in a long time but I can tell you as somebody who
bought a new HP-67 around 1981 that quality started dropping with the LCD
models. I remember the HP-41 had come out just as I decided on my 67. I
saw both at the Princeton U store and the 41 was nowhere as nice and felt
very cheap by comparison. I realize saying that about a 41 today sounds odd
because of how good they are compared to newer stuff, but that should tell
you how much things have changed. I had some old TIs (TI Programmer, other
misc. models) which were all very functional but *their* build quality made
the HP-41 look like a Cadillac.
4:11 p.m.
I haven't seen a "new" HP in a long time
but I can tell you as somebody who
bought a new HP-67 around 1981 that quality started dropping with the LCD
models. I remember the HP-41 had come out just as I decided on my 67. I
The HP9810 (1972) is not as well made IMHO as the HP9100 (1967). The
latte has a cse made from 2 aluminium alloy castings, the former is 2
side castings riveted to a sheet matal base, etc. It's not as solid.
On the other hand, the 9800s iare an order of magnitude better made than
suff made today.
-tony
19 Oct
19 Oct
12:14 a.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-
bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Josh Dersch
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 7:09 PM
To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: hp calculators
On 10/18/2011 6:27 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
I love my 48-SX, which I bought shortly after I started my Masters program, in 2003. I
haven't changed the batteries yet. One thing I like about it is that it has the blue
and gold keys and legends. One thing that's a bit frustrating is that it sometimes
requires a keystroke sequence to do what I'd like to do in one, but on the other hand
it handles symbolic calculation very nicely and I just have to get used to the idea that I
have to collapse the symbolic representation to a numeric one at some point. :-) I
recently picked up a 41-CV and, while I think it's very cool, I like the
'tall' display of the 48-SX that lets me see four registers at a time. -- Ian
On Oct 18, 2011, at 9:14 PM, David
Griffith<dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu> wrote:
> I'm about to get something to replace my old TI85 I had from high school.
Lots of you here rave about the HP's offerings. Indeed, I wanted to get, but
couldn't afford an HP48g when they were new. I don't have much need for
graphing now, but I do need scientific calculation. The HP35s seems good for
that. Or should I just jump in and get the HP50g?
If you'd be ok with a used calculator, I
tell ya, I just couldn't love a
calculator more than my HP28S. I use it pretty
much all the time.
If you'd prefer a one-piece design, the 48SX and successors are a pleasure
to use, even if the keys are a bit too overloaded with alternate functions.
Honestly I'd recommend going for one of those models.
I love the 28 series (it's a great form factor sadly abandoned), but the
lack of I/O options for backup/restore of programs is kind of annoying.
And N-cells are more expensive than AAA's :).
I do have a 50G, and I find it to be pretty nice. The build quality is
good (not as good as the good old days) and the key-click is *almost*
right.
But then again, a used HP 48-SX/GX shouldn't run you too much either --
probably about the same as a new 50G. And if you want a nice used calc
of the non-graphing variety, the HP-41 series are lovely calculators
and you can find a nice used one for about the same price. (I'm basing
this on current eBay prices, your mileage may vary.)
2:21 a.m.
Ian King wrote:
I recently picked up a 41-CV and, while I think
it's very cool,
I like the 'tall' display of the 48-SX that lets me see four registers
at a time.
You'd probably like the DIY4 that I showed at the HHC conference last
month. It's the latest in a series of prototype calculators Richard
Ottosen and I have developed. The DIY4 is fully compatible with the
HP-41CX (including synthetic programming, microcode, etc.), but has a
few extensions. It has a high-resolution LCD display (400x240, 173dpi),
so I expanded the flags available to the user, adding flags 56 though
255 (though of course 100-255 are only accessible indirectly). Turning
on flag 56 causes the calculator to display all four stack levels at any
time that the calculator would normally display the X register. In
other words, not in program or alpha mode, or when a VIEW, AVIEW,
PROMPT, etc. is in effect.
The calculator electronics and firmware are nearing completion. The part
that is problematic is figuring out how to get it into production. In
low volume the retail price would have to be well over $200. In high
volume it could be much lower, but I'm not convinced that it would sell
in high volume at any price.
In another thread, Ian wrote:
You must reverse yourself, grasshopper.
Oops, you're right. I think the context of Jerome's comparison to the
CDC Star confused me.
Eric
1:32 p.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-
bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Eric Smith
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 11:22 PM
To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: hp calculators
Ian King wrote:
[snip]
Indeed, "serious" calculators just don't seem to be a market, when everyone
has a laptop, smart phone, etc. For instance, I have a very cool emulation of a HP 16C on
my Android phone - the form factor is just a bit smaller, but nearly correct! Although I
really like playing with my 48SX, I do so seldom enough that I have to go back to the
manuals for anything beyond simple math functions. And I'm always carrying my
phone....
But your project does sound very cool. -- Ian
I recently picked up a 41-CV and, while I think
it's very cool,
I like the 'tall' display of the 48-SX that lets me see four registers
at a time.
You'd probably like the DIY4 that I showed at the HHC conference last
month. It's the latest in a series of prototype calculators Richard
Ottosen and I have developed. The DIY4 is fully compatible with the
HP-41CX (including synthetic programming, microcode, etc.), but has a
few extensions. It has a high-resolution LCD display (400x240, 173dpi),
so I expanded the flags available to the user, adding flags 56 though
255 (though of course 100-255 are only accessible indirectly). Turning
on flag 56 causes the calculator to display all four stack levels at any
time that the calculator would normally display the X register. In
other words, not in program or alpha mode, or when a VIEW, AVIEW,
PROMPT, etc. is in effect.
The calculator electronics and firmware are nearing completion. The part
that is problematic is figuring out how to get it into production. In
low volume the retail price would have to be well over $200. In high
volume it could be much lower, but I'm not convinced that it would sell
in high volume at any price.
4:47 p.m.
But then again, a used HP 48-SX/GX shouldn't run
you too much either --
probably about the same as a new 50G. And if you want a nice used calc
of the non-graphing variety, the HP-41 series are lovely calculators
and you can find a nice used one for about the same price. (I'm basing
this on current eBay prices, your mileage may vary.)
THe problem with the 41 seires is tht the calculator was designed as part
of a 'system' and it's a pretty limited calcualtor on its own. It's a lot
nicer when you've added a card reader, HPIL module, a couple of ROMs,
maybe an MLDL unit, printer, HPIL mass storage, HPIL to HPIB or RS232
interfaces, etc. And that gets expensive fast. I'm lucky enough to have
most of the bits for the HP41, but I wouldn't recoemnd goign that route
unless you want to start building up a collection.
Hh,and the hP41 runs on N cells too.
-tony
20 Oct
20 Oct
2:47 p.m.
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:47:32 +0100 (BST)
ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) wrote:
Hh,and the hP41 runs on N cells too.
Is this a
problem? I got my 41 about 10 years ago and it is still on
its first set of batteries. OK, I don't use any peripherals, especially
the card reader and I use it only a once or twice a week for a few
minutes. But still, a N / LR1 cell is 0,81 EUR at a well knowen german
electronics supplier. That's not that bad.
On the original question: If you don't need the special featurs of the
HP49 / HP50 I would go for a HP48S/SX/G/GX. I bought a new HP48SX in
1992 for 550,-DM. A lot of money for me at that time. But I _never_
regreted it. This HP48SX got me through my A levels and accompanied my
EE / CS studies. It is on my desk in front of me right now. It still
works like on its first day. The HP48S/SX/G/GX are the last calculators
build in true HP quality tradition.
The HP49 is POS. It is made like a cheap remote control. The keybord is
an insult and it will not last very long. A shame for HP. The HP50
seems to be better, but is still far behind "HP quality".
The HP35s seems to be OK if you don't need graphing. Or a used HP28s or
HP16c, ... The HP16c has a nice formfactor. This is my one and only
problem with the HP48: It is quite big.
I also own a HP45. Its batteries are dead, I just use it on occation
with the wall wart. It is about as old as I am (38) and modulo the dead
bateries it still works well. (Somthing that I can't say for
myself. ;-( )
--
\end{Jochen}
\ref{http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/}
19 Oct
19 Oct
4:37 p.m.
If you'd be ok with a used calculator, I tell
ya, I just couldn't
love a calculator more than my HP28S. I use it pretty much all the time.
If you'd prefer a one-piece design, the 48SX and successors are a
pleasure to use, even if the keys are a bit too overloaded with
alternate functions.
I agree thast the keyboard of the 48 and 49 seires is 'cluttered', but
there are 2 reasons why I'd prefer those machines to a 28 (I used a 28C
for several years and bought the first 48SX I could)...
1) The 48SX has a seiral port, you can load/save stuff to a larger
machine. It even uses a standard protocol -- kermit (I think the G-series
adds Xmodem).
2) Unit management. One the 48 and later machines you can attach a unit
to a real number so you ahve something like 2.5V or 7.8_mm or whatever.
The amchine will stop you doing dimensionally incorrect things like
adding currents to voltages. It will also keep track of the units and
handle the converstions, so you can subract mm from inches and have the
result in lightyears (or more sensibly in inches, if you're using
imperial machine tools). That's saved me a lot of time over the years.
-tony
4:31 p.m.
I'm about to get something to replace my old TI85 I had from high school.
Lots of you here rave about the HP's offerings. Indeed, I wanted to get,
but couldn't afford an HP48g when they were new. I don't have much need
for graphing now, but I do need scientific calculation. The HP35s seems
good for that. Or should I just jump in and get the HP50g?
I'd get the 50g.
I assume you want an RPN machine, that's the most common reason for
wantign an HP clacualtor (the other reason -- fnatasitc build quality --
doesn't really apply any more :-().
The original HP handheld models used a 4-level RPN stack. It's a stack of
real numbers only. 4 levels is snough for most calculations, but, perhaps
becuase I don;'t use such machines all that mcuh I find I have to keep
thinking 'do I have enoguh space on the stack' when I am using one.
The 28/48/49/50 series use RPL. Now some claim that RPL is not RPN. IMHO
they are wrong. RPL is actually a very pure RPN language. The stack can
be as big as you like (limited only by memory). and it's a stack of any
objects. Not just real numbers, but also complex numbers, algebraic
expressions, strings, vectors, matricies, even programs.
I use complex numbers a lot (for AC circuit analysis) and find that the
RPL machines make it easy. I used a 15C at the last HPCC meeting and
found it very clumsy by comparison -- and that's about the best
4-level-stack machien for complex number support.
The other issue is I/O . The 48/49 series have RS232 serial ports, albeit
on an odd conenctor. The 50G has a USB interface and a serial port (I
think at 3.3V levels). You can tranfer things to/from a larger computer.
This to me is essential, both to keep backups of my programs and to be
able to distribute them easiy. I would not want a machine with a
significant amout of memory that i could not back up in this way.
SO perhaps I should tell you what I use :
16C : On my electronics bench, because the bit operations are better
than those of any other machine
12C : YEs, it's financial, but it's also common and relatively
inexpensive -- a '4 banger' for simple calculations
48GX and 49G : For jsut about everything... As I said, the complex number
support is very useful to me.
71B : As a controller/tester for HPIL and HPIB stuff. OK, it programs in
BASIC (but I have the Forth/Assember ROM in it) but it's easy to use
tosend/receive strigns to instruments when I'm working on them
41CX : No real use other than it's a nice calculator with interesting
peripherals. It does get usef for running some of the programs that were
written for it, for general programming and for soem of the interesting
hacks you can do on it.
I have many others that get used from time to time when I feel like it.
-tony
8:11 p.m.
get a 50g. It has some sort of ARM processor and emulates the 48/49 series. It's a
little flimsy compared to the 49g (which is bit flimsier compared to the 48's, and the
49g has rubber keys, which doesn't bother me really). The 50g is similar in feel to
the TI 86 (probably intended, I think the key layout even mirrors the 86 closely).
what, you don't have an HP calc yet? Do you have a pulse?
Personally I don't use them as rpn calcs. I did 10 years ago when I had a 48? for a
while. What I can't stand is the flushing of the stack or whatever happens that locks
up my 49g for 2-3 seconds. It's a real hemorrhoid. The 50g does it too I imagine,
haven't had it out in a while.
TI has that new color calc though. I am tempted...
Although I like my 49g and 50g a lot, a 48g/g+/gx is a calculator you can really
appreciate. You have to hold one in your hand. Honestly I do not believe any TI graphing
calc was built like that series (and I used to have a HP 20s also that was comparable in
"feel". Still got my TI 86 too). You just feel so powerful w/it in your hands,
like you could throw it at someone like an oriental weapon. They're outdated, the
routines are slow by comparison. You'd be proud to own one though, as I'm sure the
guy who bought a new-still-sealed 48gx for about 650$ is. Used units on eBay have come
down somewhat recently though. I should have kept my old one. I am tempted to buy another
48...away Satan LOL.
20 Oct
20 Oct
3:48 p.m.
what, you don't have an HP calc yet? Do you have a
pulse?
:-)
Personally I don't use them as rpn calcs. I did 10 years ago when I
You use an HP calcuator in infix mode? THat's perverse...
had a 48? for a while. What I can't stand is the
flushing of the stack
or whatever happens that locks up my 49g for 2-3 seconds. It's a real
It's garbage-collecting. The system is forever creating temporary
objects, and when memory gets tight it searches for those that are no
longer referenced anywhere and deletes them. This takes a bit of time.
You can force a garbage colelction by MEM DROP. MEM returns the amount
of free memory, so it has to d oa garbage collection first, so as to know
what memeory really is free. Since you don't want this value, you DROP
it.
Doing this doesn't prevent the pause, but it means you can get it to
happen at a convenient time. I did this a lot when I was writing soem
time-critical code to send/receive stuff over the serial port.
hemorrhoid. The 50g does it too I imagine, haven't
had it out in a while.
It doens, but I suspect the faster ARM processor means it takes less time.
-tony
19 Oct
19 Oct
8:36 p.m.
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Tony Duell wrote:
I'm gravitating towards the 50g. Though I like the return to the old
keyboard layout in the 35s, the list of bugs in that calculator has me
annoyed. It's not clear to me how or even if the 35s firmware can be
updated. The 50g's layout looks a lot like a TI, but I can deal with
that.
--
David Griffith
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
I'm about
to get something to replace my old TI85 I had from high school.
Lots of you here rave about the HP's offerings. Indeed, I wanted to get,
but couldn't afford an HP48g when they were new. I don't have much need
for graphing now, but I do need scientific calculation. The HP35s seems
good for that. Or should I just jump in and get the HP50g?
I'd get the 50g.
I assume you want an RPN machine, that's the most common reason for
wantign an HP clacualtor (the other reason -- fnatasitc build quality --
doesn't really apply any more :-().
8:55 p.m.
On 10/19/2011 08:36 PM, David Griffith wrote:
I'm gravitating towards the 50g. Though I like the
return to the old
keyboard layout in the 35s, the list of bugs in that calculator has me
annoyed. It's not clear to me how or even if the 35s firmware can be
updated. The 50g's layout looks a lot like a TI, but I can deal with that.
A friend (not on this list) told me many months ago about people
hacking the 35S. I suspect there's info out there. I seem to recall
that the CPU in there is actually based on the 6502!
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
9:16 p.m.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote:
?A friend (not on this list) told me many months ago about people hacking
the 35S. ?I suspect there's info out there. ?I seem to recall that the CPU
in there is actually based on the 6502!
Hope this link works...
http://www.eetimes.com/design/embedded/4007500/Tear-Down-Scientific-calcula…
20 Oct
20 Oct
6:45 p.m.
I haven't read every single post on this topic, but has anyone mentioned
the HP15C-LE (Limited Edition) that HP just released? I bought one and
it is quite true to its name. It actually runs the original microcode
on an emulator, so the same bugs the original had are still there.
Oh yeah, and it is about 100x faster! We'll see if the battery life is
anywhere near the original.
6:57 p.m.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Dave Mabry <dmabry at mich.com> wrote:
I haven't read every single post on this topic,
but has anyone mentioned the
HP15C-LE (Limited Edition) that HP just released? ?I bought one and it is
quite true to its name. ?It actually runs the original microcode on an
emulator, so the same bugs the original had are still there.
Oh yeah, and it is about 100x faster! ?We'll see if the battery life is
anywhere near the original.
I had no idea such a thing existed until now. Time to buy one!
7:08 p.m.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Dave Mabry <dmabry at mich.com> wrote:
I haven't read every single post on this topic,
but has anyone mentioned the
HP15C-LE (Limited Edition) that HP just released? ?I bought one and it is
quite true to its name. ?It actually runs the original microcode on an
emulator, so the same bugs the original had are still there.
Oh, they only made 10,000 of the 15C Limited Edition and HP sold all
of them already? So if you want one you now need to pay ***rare***
eBay prices? Guess I won't get one after all.
8:06 p.m.
Glen Slick said the following on 10/20/2011 7:08 PM:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Dave Mabry<dmabry
at mich.com> wrote:
They have been "sold out" and then a week or so later came available
again. That batch also sold out. I'm keeping my eyes open and will
grab one more if I can. I think they are coming from the actual
manufacturer (in China, no doubt) in batches.
It is getting rave reviews from even the curmudgeons on the hpmuseum forum.
I haven't read every single post on this
topic, but has anyone mentioned the
HP15C-LE (Limited Edition) that HP just released? I bought one and it is
quite true to its name. It actually runs the original microcode on an
emulator, so the same bugs the original had are still there.
Oh, they only made 10,000 of the 15C Limited Edition and HP sold all
of them already? So if you want one you now need to pay ***rare***
eBay prices? Guess I won't get one after all.
8:22 p.m.
On 20 Oct 2011 at 20:06, Dave Mabry wrote:
They have been "sold out" and then a week or
so later came available
again. That batch also sold out. I'm keeping my eyes open and will
grab one more if I can. I think they are coming from the actual
manufacturer (in China, no doubt) in batches.
It is getting rave reviews from even the curmudgeons on the hpmuseum
forum.
Is there a "Limited Edition" HP16C available?
I'd certainly buy one.
--Chuck
8:39 p.m.
Chuck Guzis said the following on 10/20/2011 8:22 PM:
On 20 Oct 2011 at 20:06, Dave Mabry wrote:
No. But there are quite a few others, me included, who would also buy
one. The 15C-LE is based on the architecture of HP's current 12C. So
it was not much of an engineering job to create the 15C-LE.
Electronically all they had to do was plug in the microcode from the old
15C. It would be the same for the 16C. So HP would have to decide to
have it tooled up. Perhaps if the 15C-LE keeps selling out they will
consider the 16C. It has been bantered about on the hpmuseum forum.
There was a "grass roots" (I HATE that phrase! So overused.) push to
get the 15C reissued. Someone created a web page where people basically
"signed a petition" that was sent to HP. Don't know if that made the
difference.
HP actually prototyped it and gave the members of club each a 16C-LE to
beta test. The HPCC. And they kept it quiet until it was released!
Quite an interesting story.
They have been "sold out" and then a
week or so later came available
again. That batch also sold out. I'm keeping my eyes open and will
grab one more if I can. I think they are coming from the actual
manufacturer (in China, no doubt) in batches.
It is getting rave reviews from even the curmudgeons on the hpmuseum
forum.
Is there a "Limited Edition" HP16C available?
I'd certainly buy one.
--Chuck
21 Oct
21 Oct
10:23 a.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
I'd probably buy *at least* one.
Peace... Sridhar
They have been
"sold out" and then a week or so later came available
again. That batch also sold out. I'm keeping my eyes open and will
grab one more if I can. I think they are coming from the actual
manufacturer (in China, no doubt) in batches.
It is getting rave reviews from even the curmudgeons on the hpmuseum
forum.
Is there a "Limited Edition" HP16C available?
I'd certainly buy one.
1:15 p.m.
On 10/21/11 10:23 AM, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Chuck Guzis wrote:
I'd probably buy *at least* one.
You and me both! I'd pre-order two RIGHT NOW if they were going to
be available.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
They have
been "sold out" and then a week or so later came available
again. That batch also sold out. I'm keeping my eyes open and will
grab one more if I can. I think they are coming from the actual
manufacturer (in China, no doubt) in batches.
It is getting rave reviews from even the curmudgeons on the hpmuseum
forum.
Is there a "Limited Edition" HP16C available?
I'd certainly buy one.
20 Oct
20 Oct
11:34 p.m.
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011, Glen Slick wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Dave Mabry <dmabry
at mich.com> wrote:
I hope this means they're bringing back the 15C as a regular edition since
they noticed that they'll sell well.
--
David Griffith
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
I haven't read every single post on this
topic, but has anyone mentioned the
HP15C-LE (Limited Edition) that HP just released? ?I bought one and it is
quite true to its name. ?It actually runs the original microcode on an
emulator, so the same bugs the original had are still there.
Oh, they only made 10,000 of the 15C Limited Edition and HP sold all
of them already? So if you want one you now need to pay ***rare***
eBay prices? Guess I won't get one after all. 
7:41 p.m.
On 21/10/2011, at 9:45 AM, Dave Mabry wrote:
I haven't read every single post on this topic,
but has anyone mentioned the HP15C-LE (Limited Edition) that HP just released? I bought
one and it is quite true to its name. It actually runs the original microcode on an
emulator, so the same bugs the original had are still there.
I run the HP-15C app on my iPhone. It too is an emulator running the original microcode.
It means that I always have access to an RPN calculator as I'm rarely more than a few
metres away from my phone.
The app wasn't cheap but it's good!
Huw Davies | e-mail: Huw.Davies at kerberos.davies.net.au
Melbourne | "If soccer was meant to be played in the
Australia | air, the sky would be painted green"
9:08 p.m.
Dave Mabry wrote about the HP-15C LE:
It actually runs the original microcode on an
emulator, so the
same bugs the original had are still there.
It seems that there weren't many bugs in the original. On the
other hand, it has introduced new bugs not present in the
original. But probably not as many new bugs as would have been
present if the new firmware was written entirely from scratch.
21 Oct
21 Oct
4:38 p.m.
I haven't read every single post on this topic, but has anyone mentioned
the HP15C-LE (Limited Edition) that HP just released? I bought one and
I tried one out at an HPCC meeting and I was very disapointed. After
eveyone telling me how great the 15C was, I was not impressed.
Yes, it was a great machine for its time, and as such I regards the
origianl 15C as being a very interesting machine. But if you're going to
buy a calcualtor now (and thus put up with modern build quality, etc)
there are better choics (the 15C LE is about the same price as the 50G,
for exmaple).
it is quite true to its name. It actually runs the
original microcode
on an emulator, so the same bugs the original had are still there.
Along with some others that weren't in the original. The PSE bug, for
example (I've alredy been contcated by a fellow HPCC member to ask what
he was doing wrong when he hit that bug).
The keyboard feel is not as good as the original either. And it's not as
well made from what I've seen.
-tony
9:07 p.m.
Tony Duell said the following on 10/21/2011 4:38 PM:
As for the mechanical quality, I think the one I received is every bit
as good as my original 15C's. The PSE bug is the only one I've heard
of, and I think that's due to the speed of the underlying processor that
is running the emulation. But I'm not an expert. The original
diagnostics fail due to that emulator speed, but there is a new
diagnostic that does function properly.
Was the one that you tried at HPCC one of the prototypes? They are
saying on the HPMUSEUM forum that there are some differences.
The keyboard on mine feels very slightly different than my original
15C's but I wouldn't say one was necessarily better. Just different.
They both are great.
I haven't
read every single post on this topic, but has anyone mentioned
the HP15C-LE (Limited Edition) that HP just released? I bought one and
I tried
one out at an HPCC meeting and I was very disapointed. After
eveyone telling me how great the 15C was, I was not impressed.
Yes, it was a great machine for its time, and as such I regards the
origianl 15C as being a very interesting machine. But if you're going to
buy a calcualtor now (and thus put up with modern build quality, etc)
there are better choics (the 15C LE is about the same price as the 50G,
for exmaple).
it is quite true to its name. It actually runs
the original microcode
on an emulator, so the same bugs the original had are still there.
Along with some
others that weren't in the original. The PSE bug, for
example (I've alredy been contcated by a fellow HPCC member to ask what
he was doing wrong when he hit that bug).
The keyboard feel is not as good as the original either. And it's not as
well made from what I've seen.
-tony
11:53 p.m.
Dave Mabry wrote:
As for the mechanical quality, I think the one I
received is
every bit as good as my original 15C's. The PSE bug is the
only one I've heard of, and I think that's due to the speed
of the underlying processor that is running the emulation.
No, it's because the emulation of some of the display features is done
wrong. Nothing to do with the speed of the emulation, though there may
still be one more bug due to that.
22 Oct
22 Oct
2:57 p.m.
[15C LE etc]
As for the mechanical quality, I think the one I
received is every bit
as good as my original 15C's. The PSE bug is the only one I've heard
I beleive the 15C LE is similar in build to the latest 12C, isn;t it.
Althogh the latest 12Cs I've been inside have an epoxy-capped
direct-on-board IC, whereas the pictures of the 15CLE show it with a PQFP
soldered to the PCB. But the keybords are similar, and IMHO not as good
as the originail one. It certainly felt worse than my original 16C that I
had with me.
Incidnetlaly, do all modern 12Cs have direct-on-board ICs? If so, why was
the 15C LE built differently? Or is it that one factory making 12Cs makes
htem with direct-on-board ICs, the other factory with PQFPs?
Was the one that you tried at HPCC one of the
prototypes? They are
I'm not suppsoed to have seen the prototype :-). Seriously, I've seen
both. They don't seem that different on the outside.
saying on the HPMUSEUM forum that there are some
differences.
I believe the firmware was changed.
-tony
19 Oct
19 Oct
11:40 p.m.
Dave McGuire wrote:
A friend (not on this list) told me many months ago
about
people hacking the 35S. I suspect there's info out there.
I seem to recall that the CPU in there is actually based
on the 6502!
It uses a microcontroller from GeneralPlus (formerly SunPlus) with a
6502-compatible core. It would be extremely difficult to hack it,
because the firmware is in on-chip masked ROM, and the part is mounted
chip-on-board under a blob of epoxy. I'm not sure that even Tony would
dispute that it is not a user-serviceable part.
20 Oct
20 Oct
3:53 p.m.
A friend (not on this list) told me many months ago
about people
hacking the 35S. I suspect there's info out there. I seem to recall
that the CPU in there is actually based on the 6502!
It _is_ based on a 6502-compatible CPU, but it's part of a single chip,
mask programemd ROM containign the firmware on the same chip and no
access AFAIK to any of the buses. Oh, and siad chip is direct-on-board,
epoxy-capped. Not the easiest thing to hack IMHO.
-tony
5:51 p.m.
On Oct 20, 2011, at 3:53 PM, ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) wrote:
:-(
Neat that they used a 6502-architecture CPU, though.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
New Kensington, PA
A friend
(not on this list) told me many months ago about people
hacking the 35S. I suspect there's info out there. I seem to recall
that the CPU in there is actually based on the 6502!
It _is_ based on a 6502-compatible CPU, but it's part of a single chip,
mask programemd ROM containign the firmware on the same chip and no
access AFAIK to any of the buses. Oh, and siad chip is direct-on-board,
epoxy-capped. Not the easiest thing to hack IMHO.
4657
days inactive
4660
days old
54 comments
15 participants
participants (15)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
cclist＠sydex.com -
chrism3667＠yahoo.com -
derschjo＠mail.msu.edu -
dgriffi＠cs.csubak.edu -
dmabry＠mich.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
glen.slick＠gmail.com -
huw.davies＠mail.vsm.com.au -
IanK＠vulcan.com -
jkunz＠unixag-kl.fh-kl.de -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
oe5ewl＠gmail.com -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
vintagecoder＠aol.com