HP 35s for you RPN engineers 7

[aggman]

Check out HPs new scientific calculator...

http://h10010.

http://www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF05a/215348-215348-64232-20037-215351-3442983.html

I don't want to get a big discussion about how they don't build them like they used to but I bought one because I smoke through a HP 33s about once a year. I never have had one of the older 32s or any of their bigger graphing calcs. I bought the 33s when I was taking the PE exam and got stuck on the RPN. I just opened the box this morning but it appears that it has a much more "classic" feel to it and the buttons seem much better. It seems to follow the same designs as the little RPN financial calculator they sell. I didn't know if others who use RPN had seen this latest offering so I thought I would post it on here.

 

[271828]

I'm with you on the stack limit. No clue why they cling to those old limitations. I can't see how an infinite, or even large stack could do any damage to the older users. I find it to be no big deal for most cases, just working from inside->out.

I have one major problem with it, however. Say I have a big multi-term equation, especially if there are nested radicals, etc. and I want to back-solve for one of the variables. With my 48, I could back out almost any variable without re-writing the equation.

I can't do this with my 35s because I can't visualize where the "inside" will be after it's rearranged. I end up re-writing an equation every now and then.

 

[bjb]

271828,

I've only used RPN calculators with the 4 level stack, I wonder if the infinite stack of the RPL machines would somehow trip me up. I've been using RPN for so long now, it's ingrained into me. A user difinable stack seems to make sense, maybe they will incorporate that feature into a possible HP35sii. All in all, the 35s is a worthy calculator. If they would just make a successor to the HP 42s.....

 

[jdog1]

Just got my 35s over the weekend. Two words: GET ONE!

Pictures don't do the 35s justice; it's really a good looking calculator. The plastic case is black, and the aluminum cover plate is a very dark brown, almost black. The lower half of the key pad, the enter and backspace keys and are black. The rest of the keys are a very dark grey. The color difference is so subtle it's hard to even notice. The blue and yellow functions stand out very clearly against the dark brown cover plate. The new zipping hard case is cool too. Much nicer than the cheesy looking slip case the 33s had.

HP definitely got the classic HP-high-quality look right on this one. It reminds me of the first time I saw a 32sII in the university bookstore. Sitting there next to comparable TI's, Sharps and Casios and at two to three times the price, something about the look of the HP justified the price.

The 35s reminds me of the 32sII. The key feel is very similar to my 48GX, though maybe slightly more clicking sound. Could be that my 48 is just worn out and has been 'clicked' out. All of the keys on the 35s are larger than the 48 keys. Once the word gets out about the 35s, I expect this calculator to put a real dent in the used HP calculator market.

I've said before that I like the 33s as a daily user, or maybe I should say liked. Quality-wise, the 35s is way better than the 33s, hands down, no question. The keys are softer and quieter than the 33s. The traditional keypad layout with the large enter key is very nice. The 35s is what the 33s should have been to begin with. The 33s got me through the PE, so I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for it, but the 35s is my new love.

The 35s carries over a few minor quirks of the 33s...but it's executed so beautifully, that those quirks don't really matter much. It would be nice to have a matte screen, more pixels for better digit quality and a larger decimal point, but that's all stuff I can live with.

There is one new aggrivating problem though. Really, really aggrivating! I like to have my display set to ALL rather than fixed, scientific or engineering notation. I don't think in E to some power and I don't like to see a bunch of place holder zeros. The problem, which I think someone has already mentioned, is that when you have a long answer (like sin25 = 0.422618261741E-1), the exponent is not displayed on the screen; you have to scroll right to see the exponent. This about drove me crazy when I first got the calculator and was playing around with it. I've decided that the next best thing is fixed notation with 4 decimal places, which is the most I'll use for most things. Inexcusable, but I love the 35s enough that I'll just have to live with it. Crap!

The plastic packaging they ship the 35s in is bullet proof. Mere scissors are not enough to get into the package. I recommend tin snips or a circular saw. Me, I was so excited to get my hands on my new little black box I risked life and limb and used a razor sharp hunting knife to hack away at the packaging. I'd like to meet the shoplifter who inspired that kind of elaborately secure packaging. Seems like lawsuit material to me.

While everyone might have their little gripes about what HP should have done with it, considering that HP has the burden of trying to produce a scientific calculator that is all things to all people, I think they did a pretty good job. IMHO that the 35s represents HP best effort in many years.

 

[ron9876]

I have been doing some experimenting with the missed key issue. It seems if I slow down I don't have a problem. Maybe like someone else was saying if you start the second key before fully releasing the first key it skips.

 

[271828]

haynewp, try this.

Start with 9.7847 on the stack.

Then compute .626(5)(2)/4.45.

Let me know if you get anything strange (like 30.626 or 6.882). Of course, the answer should be 1.4067.

I missed this one a couple of times somehow and resorted to video recording the calc a bunch of times until it repeated a couple of times. I can very clearly hear the click for the 2, but it didn't register on a couple of tries. Without the 2 registering, the product ended up multiplied by the 9.7847 that was already on the stack.

I watched very closely and the 2 keystroke didn't overlap with either the x or the divide.

I can't seem to make it repeat, but it's a data point. I am totally confused at this point as to the question of user error or calculator error. I sure can't seem to make it not register on other than actual calcs. Sure sounds like user error, but my video/audio recording doesn't seem to agree.

 

[271828]

Clarification: when I typed "can't seem to make it repeat" I meant that if I just click 2 over and over, it always puts another 2 on there. I ran through that little product probably about 10 times and was able to repeat the error 2-3 times. I was going really fast, but I could clearly see and hear that the 2 should've registered.

 

[271828]

jdog, you have some DARN good eyes! I had never noticed the key color difference. Now looking VERY closely, I can barely see it. I started wondering if you (or I) had the wrong calculator!

 

[ron9876]

Try slowing down. When I go fast I get all kinds of answers but when I slow down there isn't a problem. Looks like to me that will have to either have to slow down or go back to some other calculator.

 

[haynewp]

271828

I am getting the right answer for that calc, but I was missing (5)(20)=100 over and over this weekend. It was driving me crazy. The number "2" was not registering to the point that it was missing almost every other time and I was getting "(5)(0)=0", but using RPN entry of course.

I am mainly noticing I miss numbers when holding the calculator in both hands and using my left and right thumbs to enter in numbers. By placing on my desk and using one hand entry, I hardly ever miss a keystroke.

 

[271828]

Hmmm. I always use the calculator on the desktop with 2-3 of my fingers, not a thumb.

Maybe there's a pattern with the 2. Other folks?

You might be right, Ron. Slower and smoother ends up being faster in the end lots of time in life.

 

[haynewp]

27-

I always hold the calculator in my hands. I found a long time ago I can enter in numbers faster by using my left thumb to cover the first 2 columns of keys and my right to cover from the decimal point over. As soon as I hit "sin" with my left thumb I can hit "+" with my right thumb. I never had a problem with my old 48.

 

[RARWOOD]

I just got a HP-35s. When I hit the clear key or the zero key the keys make a funny sound. They appear to be very loose.

Has any one else had this problem?

 

[jdog1]

My 35s keys have the typical soft click you expect from HP.

If your 0 key or clear key is making a noticably different sound than the other keys, I'd say there could be a problem, especially since they're right next to each other. Loose keys are also a bad sign. Sounds like a legitimate problem.

I did have a problem with my 33s with the 4 key missing key strokes. I called up HP service and eventually got a person to talk to. She sent out a 33s immediately and had me return the old one once I had received the new one. I had the new one in my hands in a few days. Can't ask for better service than that, except maybe better quality control to prevent such problems.

The 35s is HP's way of doing a Mulligan after the lukewarm to sour reception of the 33s. With the introduction of the 35s, I'd say HP calculators are on the verge of a comeback and as such, they're probably very anxious to avoid/correct any negative feedback on the calculator that represents this comeback. I'd give them a call, give them the chance to make it right.

 

[271828]

RAR, I agree with jdog1 and would send it back for another.

haynewp, I've been experimenting more over the last couple of days. It seems that I can't ever make it miss if I go fast, but smooth--no herky-jerky "as fast as I can" keystrokes. In reality, smooth is probably faster anyway, as it usually is with similar skills. Leaning back toward these being from operator error.

I did see that some over at hpmuseum report some missed keystrokes, but it's really hard to know if they can really be sure it's not the "loose nut behind the keyboard."

Someone mentioned basically hacking the electronics in an attempt to fix a possible hardware problem, but I have no clue what they're talking about.

 

[haynewp]

same for me. I think I may have also hit the edge of the keys when going fast and they not registered a couple of times. I was messing around the other day and tried pressing down very, very slowly on one key to see how far I could make the key go down without registering. I think it was over half way on every key I tried on. Which made me think I may have hit some keys on the edge and they didn't go all the way down when a couple of times lately the calculation to go bad.

The gist is I am not really sure what is going on but I definitely have been missing keystrokes, but I can't get it to miss when purposely going fast when keeping the strokes complete and smooth. I think the odds are too low that 3(?) of us on this thread received faulty units, so I think it is an issue with the whole line-or user error and getting used to pressing numbers more smoothly if you want to look at it that way.

The stack thing bothers me just as much because I keep thinking that I may have went over the max allowed during a long equation calc and I can't trust the final answer it gives. So I end up doing the calc over and writing down the intermediate calculation answers.

 

[IFRs]

Just ordered one from NewEgg for $49.99. Will see it in 3 days.

 

[IFRs]

Well, mine came and I unacket it. Took more effort to get the darn thing out of the plastic pack than I expected. First impressions: Keys are bigger and softer than my 42s. I think I can get used to them, though. I miss the ability to press XEQ andhave my 6 favorite programs displayed on the bottom roe of the display. I like some of the new functions assigned to buttons. More buttons = more options without going to menus (good!). It is a pain to have to type a program name than press Enter to run a program. It's larger but lighter than my 42s - feels cheaper. The larger display is nice. If I can keep it in the case it may last longer. Bummer about only using one characer for variable names - I got used to Dia for diameter, etc. Now it has to be D. I like the fractional display toggle key. It looks much larger than the 42s but when actually compared it is only 1/8" wider and 3/8" taller. We'll see how the next few weeks go...