What is your favorite HP Calculator
Chris W
70's) and I have one that is far and away my favorite for everyday use.
I am curious what other people with a similar long history with HP
calculators consider to be their favorite? So as not to be leading, I
will reserve my answer till after others have replied.
Chris W
http://thewishzone.com:8086/
Frank Pittel
: I have been using HP calculators since before high school (the late
For a long time it was the 41. However after the 42s came out I put my 41
away and switched to it. I wish I would have bought another 42s when I
heard it was being discontinued.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Tom Lake
news:d8alc.33997$NZ4.2693@lakeread05...
I've owned an HP-35, HP-45, TI SR-52, TI-59, TI-85, TI-86, TI-89, Casio ALG
FX 2.0+, Casio ClassPad 300, and now an hp 49g+. I'm still learning the
49g+ (aren't we all?) but at this moment, I'm most comfortable with the
programming language of the TI-89. I much prefer RPN for manual
calculations but I still like TI's more traditional form of BASIC when I
program. I'm sure as I get more familiar with the 49g+, I'll enjoy
programming with it more, though.
Tom Lake
Arnaud Amiel
but I have bought old ones as I found them available at reasonnable prices
(which is rare).
I believe that my favourite is the hp45, it is sitting on my desk at work
and it is the one I use most of the time. I like the fact that it is so
basic I can use it without searching the keyboard. It however has all the
functions I really need. I just miss a binary, hex, octal, decimal mode. It
also sits solid on the desk and has LEDs, all of this making it a good
discussion piece. And it is older than me, that is a good feeling I can't
have with many hp calcs.
My favourite programmable is not the 55 (I don't have a 65). I like the way
the LEDs are running when it is executing a program and its timer mode but I
find it really limited. To program correctly on the calc I need to see my
program. I don't have a 41 but all these talks about modules seem
complicated to me. I however know it is very well concidered and I am trying
to understand what it so good about it using an emulator but I can't find
this exciting part. I like RPL and as such I will choose the fastest, the
49g+.
If I had only one calc, it would be the 49g+. But the 45 is the one I use
the most for work, and like the most. Too bad it is not really portable.
Arnaud
Check it out at:
http://www.hpmuseum.org/hp45.htm
Picture: http://www.hpmuseum.org/3qs/453q.jpg
Tom Lake
> the most for work, and like the most. Too bad it is not really portable.
The HP-45 was a pocket calculator, very portable. Perhaps you have the
HP-46 desktop printing version? Or is it that your battery pack is dead and
you need to leave it plugged into the charger?
Tom Lake
Veli-Pekka Nousiainen
news:d8alc.33997$NZ4.2693@lakeread05...
*** Gold Medalist:
HP-71B together with Math ROM, Forth/Assembler ROM, Finance ROM,
Curve Fit ROM and extra RAM in the card-reader housing, HP-IL
and a Magnetic Digital Tape Drive plus a Portable Floppy Drive.
Naturally one also needs a printer and a Video Interface.
** Silver Medalist:
Sometimes I seem to like more the Hulkier HP-75C
together with extra RAM and the versatile I/O ROM
plus the great VisiCalc ROM,
which is one reason I like this "pocket" PC
(you need really huge pockets)
* Bronze Medalist:
The all time favorite is HP-41CX (or CV with clonix o CY)
Together with CCD, PPC or similar ROM + Advantage, etc...
and with HP-IL, tape, printer, ohhh...
It was once the best of them all!
[VPN] - mostly I use the new 49g+ with MMC/SD card
I always like to have the top model -
no matter how much it will cost!
I most certainly will aquire the Hydrix Powercalc!
Arnaud Amiel
news:neblc.67022$X14....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
It was very portable at the time but by today standards you could fit 3 or 4
hp33s in it. I don't have many pockets where it would fit in.
And the battery don't last for ever, but long enough, I rebuilt the pack
with higher capacity batteries.
As I like the 45 so much I would really like to get my hands on a 46 (with
the screen) and put it on my desk but haven't even seen a real one.
Arnaud
Arnaud Amiel
"Veli-Pekka Nousiainen" <DROP...@LETTER.welho.com> wrote in message
news:c73fl8$3if$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
> I most certainly will aquire the Hydrix Powercalc!
>
Me too, but they should hurry to release it. My girlfriend is back in 3
months and this will certainly reduce my calculator budget. And I guess the
Hydrix calc will be at the top end of my budget
Arnaud
Harold A. Climer
wrote:
I think I have the fondest memories of the HP25C. I could write
programs and keep them in memory even when the calculator was turned
off. At the time I thought it was the neatest thing since sliced
bread. It would fit into your pocket too.
I remember using it on a trip with a pilot friend of mine on a flight
in a small Cessna from Baltimore to Salisbury Maryland. I had written
a winds aloft/course made good program and he thought it was great.
In fact he bought one during the next week and later on a 45 and 55
too, and used them from then on for all his flight planning and in
flight calulations.
Arne Flones
I really loved all the programmables. Each new machine was a revelation,
providing new features to explore and new ways to solve problems. By far,
my favorite was the 41. I only wish I had had the good sense to keep it.
The 41 (and its successor, the 42) was the non plus ultra of keyboard
programmables, the last and best of a breed. I do love the 28/48/49
series for their awesome programming power, but they'll not best the
41 for its overall simplicity and power.
Unfortunately my 49g+ was stolen at school. But I'll get another one
soon. I still have the 95lx and the 48gx. The latter is damaged and has
a slightly flakey keyboard, but the 95 still works perfectly.
Chris W <1qazs...@cox.net.removeXYZ> wrote in message
news:<d8alc.33997$NZ4.2693@lakeread05>...
Matt M.
> Unfortunately my 49g+ was stolen at school. But I'll get another one
> soon. I still have the 95lx and the 48gx. The latter is damaged and has
> a slightly flakey keyboard, but the 95 still works perfectly.
Wow ... everyone at _my_ school would turn it on, try doing 2+2, give up
(of course I use RPN!), and toss it back in my backpack :)
-MrM
SgtTux
the only one ive used extensively. But everyone in my classes has
decided that since it is HP it is definitely superior to every TI calc
and no one asks to borrow it because they have all learned they cant use it.
Then my Physics teacher just likes to bash HP calcs saying that they
have so much stuff you cant do anything with it and that you cant learn
how to use it because even if you read the "huge" manual that comes with
the calculator, you wont learn anything about the calculator itself.
I am looking to getting a 33s when it comes out on hpshopping.com so we
will see. I need a scientific calc for science competitions etc and dont
want to fork out $100+ for a 32sII.
Lars Johansson
The 41.
--Lars
reth
Reth
"Lars Johansson" <larjo-s...@ikp.liu.se> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.53.04...@coulomb.ikp.liu.se...
Arnaud Amiel
"Lars Johansson" <larjo-s...@ikp.liu.se> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.53.04...@coulomb.ikp.liu.se...
>
>
Can you, and all those who only post a model, elaborate a little and tell us
why it is the favourite.
Thanks,
Arnaud
Roman Hartmann
"Chris W" <1qazs...@cox.net.removeXYZ> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:d8alc.33997$NZ4.2693@lakeread05...
-HP32SII (still my 1st choice for simple numbercrunching)
-HP49g+
Roman
Gil
PLEASE HP, BUILD IT AGAIN!
Rich
I'd say that my favorite is the 42S. It's
small, rugged, lasts forever on three easily
available button cells, and does pretty much
everything generally needed. I wonder if it's
allowed for exams? It has IR (although for
send only) and alpha-numeric characters.
For random arithmetic I used to use my
HP-15C, but I now use a cheap calculator.
Years ago I gave my 11C to a friend. Last
time I saw him he still uses it.
The 48 and 49 came out after my need for
a calculator passed (degree earned) so I
never used em much.
BTW, I was at Wall-Mart Fri and decided
to look and see if they have the 33S. They
had none on display, most of the scientific
and graphing calculators displayed were
TI. They also have an under-$5 scientific
(like the one I found at Target, but a
different make).
I think that if HP made a low-cost simple
RPN scientific calculator, it would sell.
Say, in the under $20 range. Or better yet,
put it in an HP-42S style case and charge
$60 for it.
You could even use the 6502. :-)
BTW, has anyone compared the speed of the
33S and 32S-II? The 6502 is a reasonably
capable 8-bit processor. But I doubt it's
very efficient for floating point.
Rich
Guenter Schink
In my case it depends very much on how well the specific hp served my
needs. I used to be a pilot of on airliner (B707). Calculating flight
data was a cumbersome process, it involved fiddling around with lots
of tables, graphs and such. The hp41 provided tremendous capabilities
at that time for calculating the performance data. These involved a
lot of independent input data which were linked to each other in
rather complicated formula, that were not readily available but had to
be calculated from the tables first. Imagine for example the change in
range with changing inflight weight, outside air pressure (read
altitude) temperature and so on. Not to forget the simplest of all:
wind triangle. Very exciting and useful was the possibility of great
circle navigation on the fly.
All of this became readily available with the advent of the hp41. A
couple of key pushes and here we go. It operated for a reasonable time
on batteries, a set of spares was all you needed to ensure
operability. Of course you would always have to double check with the
approved methods, but calculating alternatives for flight planning
took only two or three minutes rather than 20minutes when using the
books.
There was nothing around that came close to this neat little gadget.
Today I consider the hp48/49 series calculators to be much better than
the HP41 ever was (nostalgia left aside) but I have no comparable
benefit from _any_ modern device as I had from the 41.
My favourite calculator is the 41 because it served me perfectly well
at the time I needed it. :-)
Gruß Günter, reviving memories...
Rich
In infinite wisdom Guenter Schink answered:
> Arnaud Amiel meinte
>
>
>>"Lars Johansson" <larjo-s...@ikp.liu.se> wrote in message
>>news:Pine.GSO.4.53.04...@coulomb.ikp.liu.se...
>>
>>>The 41.
>>>
>>
>>Can you, and all those who only post a model, elaborate a little and tell us
>>why it is the favourite.
>
>
> In my case it depends very much on how well the specific hp served my
> needs. I used to be a pilot of on airliner (B707). Calculating flight
> data was a cumbersome process, it involved fiddling around with lots
> of tables, graphs and such. The hp41 provided tremendous capabilities
> at that time for calculating the performance data. These involved a
> lot of independent input data which were linked to each other in
> rather complicated formula, that were not readily available but had to
> be calculated from the tables first. Imagine for example the change in
> range with changing inflight weight,
Did you jettison the passengers or their luggage? :-)
Rich
Chris W
calculator for everyday use. First I thought I would list my experience
with calculators. It is pretty long so you may want to skip to the end.
No name calculator with a clock and alarm, other than that, standard
algebraic calculator with not too many features. I was still in
elementary school when I got this on (late 70's)
HP 33E (my dads) did some programming on it, and was when I learned RPN
(around 1979)
HP 11c -- This was my first real calculator, I got it when I was in the
9th grade. I read the book from cover to cover (back then, unlike now,
HP's calculator books were very comprehensive). If that calculator
could do it, I knew how to make it do it. By this time I had learned
that RPN was so far superior to algebraic notation that I couldn't
understand why everyone didn't use it. (Christmas 1983)
HP 15c a year or 2 after I had my 11c the screen cracked so I got this
one to replace it. Just like the 11c I knew this one forward and
backward, except at this point the calculator had features that went
beyond my math abilities at the time. (Mid 80's)
HP 41c(v or x) (my cousins) not much experience with it at the time, I
didn't have the money for it, but I now have the v41 emulator on my PC,
so I know a little more about it but never programmed it.
HP 42s I read most but not all of the manual on this one. Did a lot of
graphing and programming on this one. (1989 college)
Hp 32S (my dads)
HP 48SX Still in college, did lots of programming on this one. A friend
had it and didn't know how to use it and she convinced me to teach a
class on how to use it, so I taught that class to a few people and of
course know the 48sx pretty well. I would just read the parts of the
book I needed since I knew HP's pretty well by now. (early 90's)
HP 48GX I was working as a Mechanical Designer/drafter at this time and
didn't really need the advanced functions (but I had to have the latest
and greatest). I took it to work and showed two engineers what it could
do, they both went out and got them one that same day. It was very
similar to the 48SX so I knew it pretty well. (mid 90s)
HP 49G This was for the end of my second college degree, Computer
Science - Math. I was taking Diff-Eq and it had been close to 10 years
since my last calculus class so I needed help bad. I got it because it
would do symbolic integration and differentiation which I had mostly
forgot.
I still have the 11C(broken), 42S, 48GX and 49G. I mostly use the 48GX
and sometimes use the 49G, I would use it more but I hate the keyboard
feel and layout.
For everyday use I don't use the equation solver, I don't do any
calculus. I mostly use functions like Y^X, square root, sin, cos, tan
and some vector stuff. I know you are now all on the edge of your seat
wondering which one is my favorite for "EVERYDAY" use. . .
The 15c -- Here are the reasons why listed in order of importance.
1) RPN (how could anyone use anything else!?)
2) Size, this is the smallest RPN HP I know of and very portable.
3) Keyboard feel, its about as close to perfect as it can be.
4) Keyboard layout, I like the landscape layout better than portrait.
5) Battery life, I don't know what it is exactly but it is very long.
6) The looks, I think it is the coolest looking of them all.
The 11c is a very close second for all the same reasons.
I don't have my 15C any more, being the short sighted idiot I was at the
time, thinking newer was better, I sold it for I think $50 after I got
my 42S. What was I thinking!?
I would like to convince HP to start making the 15C again. They still
make the 12c, so most of the tooling to make a 15c is already in place.
With the 15c going for $200 on ebay and $350 on some web site, it is
obvious that I'm not the only one that loves this model. Come on HP
lets start making this one again.
Chris W
http://thewishzone.com:8086
Torbjörn Ekström
HP42S my absolutly first choice for simple numbercrunching
and complex number handling. After >10 years of using
hp42S, i not understand why so complicate and special
case to handling complex number on different
brand and model on days calulators, and so big
size if calculators on the whole, knows complex
number... (TI83, TI86, TI89, HP48g+,
HP49g+ => not fit easy and proper on skirtpocket)
If hp make new version of hp42S in same size like old version,
i buy immediatly least two...
HP48G Desperate last buy before run out on market,
definitly much, much better keybord than hp49G and plays
lot more than HP49G. - one of most importent mission so far,
to recive HP42S:s prom-code on IR and transporting this
to PC for using HP42S-emulator on my PC - very importent
mission for me and worth whole cost for buying of hp48g :-) ;-)
I have now _usable_ calculator on my
PC compare to MS embedded version :-)
HP49G more or less toy - not really using it,
_not_ like the keyboard!!!.
----
HP33S I planning buy one part for my work,
but unknow if i like it or not compare
to HP42s. After reading manual, i seems
possible but not so easy to handling
of complex number compare to hp42s, but
i have not yet, select better choice for
small complex numbers capable calculators
to days.
/TE
Larry Smith
I've used most HPs. The one I use most is the 32sii, it's simple,
powerful, and lasts forever on a set of batteries. It's not my
favorite, though. That honor goes to the hp-67. The only reasons
it's not still in continual use are two: short battery life, and
worry about the card reader failing with use (too hard to get it
fixed nowadays). But it was a great calculator. The 48/49 series
are not really calculators, they are palmtop computers and very good
at it, but they just aren't calculators.
The HP-15C runs a close second to the 32sii for normal use, though.
Although I have doubts about the chevron keyboard and the decimal
point, I do plan to buy a 33s when the bugs have been squashed.
--
.-. .-. .---. .---. .-..-. | Experts in Linux/Unix: www.WildOpenSource.com
| |__ / | \| |-< | |-< > / | "Making the bazaar more commonplace"
`----'`-^-'`-'`-'`-'`-' `-' | Check out my new novel: "Cloud Realm" at:
home: www.smith-house.org | http://www.smith-house.org/books/list.html
Tony Warnock
The 41 for programability.
Wayne Brown
The HP-41CX, and the main reason is: Synthetic programming.
--
Wayne Brown (HPCC #1104) | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
fwb...@bellsouth.net | if you're good enough. Otherwise you give
| your pelt to the trapper."
"e^(i*pi) = -1" -- Euler | -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"
Jo
Well if you are methodic, the best design goes into
a _Vault_. I heard somewhere that <GULP> there is no backup
for the old masks/rom they used. That would mean the 15c code
is dead.
Have you ever rewritten a piece of software,
thinking that you lost the original, only to
rediscover the original source later?
Comparing such versions are an interesting exercise.
Jo
( My 15c is Sooo old. )
Guenter Schink
>
>
>In infinite wisdom Guenter Schink answered:
>> Arnaud Amiel meinte
>>
>>
>>>"Lars Johansson" <larjo-s...@ikp.liu.se> wrote in message
>>>news:Pine.GSO.4.53.04...@coulomb.ikp.liu.se...
>>>
>>>>The 41.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Can you, and all those who only post a model, elaborate a little and tell us
>>>why it is the favourite.
>>
>>
>> In my case it depends very much on how well the specific hp served my
>> needs. I used to be a pilot of on airliner (B707). Calculating flight
>> data was a cumbersome process, it involved fiddling around with lots
>> of tables, graphs and such. The hp41 provided tremendous capabilities
>> at that time for calculating the performance data. These involved a
>> lot of independent input data which were linked to each other in
>> rather complicated formula, that were not readily available but had to
>> be calculated from the tables first. Imagine for example the change in
>> range with changing inflight weight,
>
>Did you jettison the passengers or their luggage? :-)
>
>Rich
>
Sometimes it would have been really nice if that had been an option
:-)
In fact fuel consumption was the issue. On an 9h transatlantik flight
you'd burn something like 45 tons(metric) of fuel, thus changing
weight accordingly. This would decrease the necessary lift,
consequently less angle of attack and as result less thrust required
to overcome the drag. This resulted in principal in some kind of an
exponential function "Nautical Airmiles"= "exp(delta(weight)*x)*y"
where x and y were values found by thourough analysis of some
regression runs. Some corrective parameters at very high (>145 tons)
and very low (<75 tons) in flight weight had to be applied also.
BTW I did these regressions using an HP97, because that had a printer
by which I could verify my input data.
Gruß Günter
Arnaud Amiel
"Jo" <With...@withheld.withheld> wrote in message
news:Xns94DE7E4837E44Wi...@140.99.99.130...
>
> Well if you are methodic, the best design goes into
> a _Vault_. I heard somewhere that <GULP> there is no backup
> for the old masks/rom they used. That would mean the 15c code
> is dead.
>
problem is that it is not a documented source code.
Arnaud
Reth
I can sign under every single word Gruß Günter wrote, except that I'm a
surveyor...
At the time the HP41 was released there was no such powerful tool around, it
was just ahead the technology. Plus the nostalgia :) It was my first! HP41C
with 1 memory module and the Survey Pac...
Reth
Matt M.
>
>
> -HP32SII (still my 1st choice for simple numbercrunching)
> -HP49g+
>
> Roman
>
>
Glad you think so ... those are the only two HP calculators I have!
No, really ... I bought my 49g+ to replace my TI-89, because of its
processor and SD card, and I bought my 32sII because it was one of the 4
or 5 HP calculators allowed in a state mathematics competition (along
with the 15C ... my first choice, but a few dollars too expensive)
-MrM
Chris
everything else. Who could argue with the speed, storage, screen, and raw
power (no-one can touch it for unit-based engineering calculations) of the
49+. It runs circles around my 48's, and its keyboard keeps getting better
every day! :-)
Maybe the 12C/15C/16C (depending on your specialty) would be an alternate
for simple number crunching. There is something really nice about that
landscape layout, especaiily when you are on the run.
Chris
"Roman Hartmann" <rhar...@bluewin.ch> wrote in message
news:4096560f$1...@news.bluewin.ch...
William R. Platt
"Guenter Schink" <news5.20...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:9m8d90dm0phll8ii5...@4ax.com...
<ein gross SNIP>
> In fact fuel consumption was the issue. On an 9h transatlantik flight
> you'd burn something like 45 tons(metric) of fuel, thus changing
> weight accordingly. This would decrease the necessary lift,
> consequently less angle of attack and as result less thrust required
> to overcome the drag. This resulted in principal in some kind of an
> exponential function "Nautical Airmiles"= "exp(delta(weight)*x)*y"
> where x and y were values found by thourough analysis of some
> regression runs. Some corrective parameters at very high (>145 tons)
> and very low (<75 tons) in flight weight had to be applied also.
>
> BTW I did these regressions using an HP97, because that had a printer
> by which I could verify my input data.
>
> Gruß Günter
OK, so 45 tonnes = 99180 lbs; at approx 7 lbs/ gal, = 14200 gallons.
Transatlantic is about 3000 n.mi, so that is 0.21 naut mi per gallon. And
how many passengers? So what is the specific fuel consumption per
passenger? That is a 707---how does it compare to a newer plane (especially
with newer engines) like say the 757?
A pilot once gave me fuel burn for a 737 and it worked out to be 70 n.mi per
person per gallon.
Regards,
Bill Platt
brentlz
48SX, and a 48GX. Previously had an 11C (did'nt really care for the
landscape orientation). Also still have an old HP 33
Of the lot, I find myself using the 42S the most, followed pretty
closely by the 48GX. If only the 48GX's display and O/S were crammed
into the 42S's form factor I'd have my perfect HP calc!
The 41CV & 48SX are sentimental favorites as they are my 1st "real
calculators": what I learned the joys of RPN/RPL and Synthetic/System
programming on back in college days...still have tons of books, goodies
disk(s), PPC-ROM, card reader(s), HP-IL gear, and a couple old EduCalc
catalog's (why didn't I buy more when I could!) that I'll never part
with...
Brent.
In article <d8alc.33997$NZ4.2693@lakeread05>,
1qazs...@cox.net.removeXYZ says...
Lars Johansson
> Can you, and all those who only post a model, elaborate a little and tell us
> why it is the favourite.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Arnaud
>
Sure. The 41 is my favourite for three main reasons:
1) What it has meant to me personally.
I bought one, being barely able to afford it, as a technical
gymnasium (high school) student and spent a few years programming
it, mostly numerical methods. I and a friend actually reinvented
some quasi-Newton algorithms. We competed to write the shortest
program for quadratic equation using only stack operations. Looking
back, more than twenty years later, I realize this machine
played a large part in transforming me into the geek that I am.
2) The intinsic qualities of the machine.
The keyboard is without peer. I like the display as well, and the
uncluttered layout. I wouldn't exactly call it beautiful, but it has
an appealing air of functionality. Also, it's not just a calculator
but the central unit of a system that can be expanded in many
directions. I don't believe we will ever see anything like it.
3) The place it has in history.
The 41 was *the* calculator at a time when programmable
calculators were important computational tools. Remember,
1979 was about the time the Apple II and the Commodore Pet
computers were introduced and several years before the
IBM PC. Computers with serious power were extremely costly.
The 41 was about as much computing power you could have for
routine work. The 28 was a failiure; it was a serious mistake
not to include trigs and logs directly on the keyboard.
By the time the 48 arrived, the game was over; the computer
revolution had progressed to the point where programmable
calculators just weren't very important any more.
--Lars
Chris W
> By the time the 48 arrived, the game was over; the computer
> revolution had progressed to the point where programmable
> calculators just weren't very important any more.
That is another reason why I think HP should start making the 15C again.
If I need programming to solve my problem I am going to use my
desktop PC because it is so much easier to program. But for every day
calculations you just can't beat the 15C. Se my other post in this
thread for more reasons why I think the 15C is the best Calculator HP
ever made.
Guenter Schink
>OK, so 45 tonnes = 99180 lbs; at approx 7 lbs/ gal, = 14200 gallons.
>Transatlantic is about 3000 n.mi, so that is 0.21 naut mi per gallon. And
>how many passengers? So what is the specific fuel consumption per
>passenger? That is a 707---how does it compare to a newer plane (especially
>with newer engines) like say the 757?
>
>A pilot once gave me fuel burn for a 737 and it worked out to be 70 n.mi per
>person per gallon.
Lbs, gal - what's that? non comprendre :-)
The Boeing 707 was the very early standard intercontinental aircraft
before the 747 took over the lead, not to mention more modern
aircrafts. Fuel consumption was rather high compared to todays
standards. There is no such thing like a specific mileage per kg per
passenger, because it depends very much on the flight profile
(distance, take off weight etc.). I.e. a typical flight from
Cologne/GE to Dulles at Washington could vary between 08:00h and
09:30, depending on the winds aloft. 9:00 flight time would give you
something like 4100 nautical airmiles. The great circle distance
between these 2 airports is about 3480 NM.
At 9 hours flight time you would burn about a ton of fuel just for the
purpose to carry 2 tons along. A typical passenger load was about 170.
Gruß Günter
Ricardo Guerreiro
this 2 my favourite is by far the 32SII as it fulfils my needs and is
far more enjoyable to work with than the 49G (which I have used 5 or 6
times and put away in one of my desk's drawers). Other than that I
have used a borrowed 48GX but I still prefer the 32SII. May not be the
most powerfull calc in the world but it is "MY CALC", The Calc for me
and I recently got a 2nd one from ebay. I am currently waiting on a
42S to arrive so if it is similar to the 32SII but more powerfull I
can't wait to try it.
Ricardo Guerreiro
> have so much stuff you cant do anything with it and that you cant learn
> how to use it because even if you read the "huge" manual that comes with
> the calculator, you wont learn anything about the calculator itself.
I had an Experimental Physics teacher, who is an astrophysicist that
is the opposite of yours. When he saw my 32SII on the lab's desk he
was like: "oh, you have an HP??!! - I emidiatly saw the shine in his
eyes - "That's really nice, you are the first in many years to have a
serious calc in my classes." - he said with a smile on his face. After
that class he told to pass by his office and we spent about an hour
programming it, enjoying it and the look on his face was like: so this
is what HP is now in the 90's (he had older models, probably those of
the late 70's early 80's) and he was really enthusiastic about the
32SII. I guess I must thank him for encouraging me to learn how to use
it to its full capacities. Maybe otherwise the only good thing about
it was RPN. Now I use it extensivly with programs.
Veli-Pekka Nousiainen
news:bCNlc.38293$NZ4.16661@lakeread05...
X
> That is another reason why I think HP should start making the 15C again.
But with a 32K RAM and a much greater speed
hp 15C Platinum - oh, I just wish...
[VPN]
Bill Markwick
> I have a 32SII since 1996 and a 49G since 2001. I have no doubt from
> >
Same here. The 32S II is unbeatable for a small pocket calculator,
and I've come to love my 49G, despite that atrocious keyboard, because
you just can't beat lots of memory (especially flash ROM). For sheer
nostalgia, though, it would be my 48GX. For the first 6 months I had
it, I spent every available minute searching through its apparently
infinite features.
From current HP efforts, it looks like that isn't likely to happen
again.
Bill
Jean Lemire
Number one:
HP-41CX that I still have and that still run great and that has the
best keyboard of all HP machines I had or still have.
Number two:
HP-48SX with Equation library card. Lots of memory, lots of functions
and a nice screen compared to the 41. Too bad this one was stolen.
Number three:
HP-21 for its small size and solid feel.
Number four:
HP-45 that was my first scientific calculator back in 1974. It still
works well and I use it once in a while.
Number five:
HP-49G because I wanted the latest (in 2002 after my 48SX disapeared).
Lots of memory, more fuctions than I need but the one I need are
there. Poor keyboard. I should have bought a 48-GX.
Jean (Johnny) Lemire from Richelieu, Quebec, Canada.
Barry Perryman
came with, and a 49G+ that I bought late last year, also running on the same
batteries but that's not as impressive.
As for a choice, it's the 32S every time, great keyboard that actually
works, nice big enter key, easy to use and easy to program.
Barry
On 4/5/04 10:39 pm, in article
1ea48e22.04050...@posting.google.com, "Ricardo Guerreiro"
Pete M. Wilson
I think my favorite has to be my 41cv (first HP calculator - first
personal calculator - I was late to work the day UPS delivered it!).
I have a soft spot for the 71 though - both the algebraic mode it had,
the IEEE math implementation, and using the FORTH/Assembler manuals to
write the first 48sx disassembler (so I guess the 48sx get's the soft
spot too - though mine stopped booting after no use for a while).
Pete M. Wilson
Gamewood, Inc.
wils...@gamewood.net
Daniel
which was already pretty ancient by the time I got my hands on it. Up
until that point I'd been suffering the indignity of using a cheap
Texas Instruments' calculator which had the annoying habit of getting
certain trig functions wrong!
It took me a few hours to get used to the RPN nature of the 25, but
after those few hours it just seemed natural. Of course the HP-25
meant too much to my Dad for him to let me take it to school and so at
the age of 13/14 I received my HP-32 which I used for a couple of
years. It was a fantastic piece of equipment, it felt solid, it did
everything I could possibly ask it to, and it just simply worked. That
calculator is now my Dad's main calculator, and is still just as good
as the day I first opened the packaging. A true testament to good
quality construction and design. (For those concerned souls the HP-25
is still running. It's just a bit bulky for carrying around, and
frankly any calculator that's 30 years old deserves a rest!)
But as with many people on this list I longed for the greater power of
the highest end HP-calculator and so a couple of years later I got the
then top end HP-28s. I loved that calculator, it has been with me for
something like 15 years. It saw me through my GCSE's, my A-levels and
my University degree. I never reached the limitations of that
calculator, there always seemed to be a method of programming it to
assist me with whatever I was studying, from statistics to group
theory.
I would still use the HP-28s on a day to day basis if it wasn't for
the small crack in the plastic by the screen that has developed in
recent years. I'm sure that it would soldier on for many more years,
but I just don't have the heart to watch it disintegrate, and so I
have retired it to the safety of a desk drawer where it resides in its
leather pouch.
I guess these days I don't have a real need for a powerful calculator.
If I need to do graphing I have Excel and MathCAD. If I need symbolic
algebra I have Mathematica, but part of me still wants to have a
HP-calculator by my side. The sad thing from what I read on this list
is that I'm going to be disappointed. I could justify the £150 for the
HP-49g+ if it were well made on the grounds that it was a piece of
quality equipment. But sadly it seems like that is not the case. I
guess I'd far sooner remember HP calculators for what they were rather
than face up to what they have become.
Daniel
J Greer
college. I lasted until a house fire in 1990. :(
I had several other HPs during that time including a 42CX if memory serves.
I currently have a 32S-II, 48SX, & 48GX (and a 38? that I never use) all
purchased new. The GX is the one I use most, so it must be my favorite.
I have had it for roughly 10 years. It is still reliable except for the
low battery annunciator. It doesn't work so when the batteries get low
it just crashes and I replace them, reset and all is fine.
I wasn't impressed with the 49G and didn't purchase one. I will probably
purchase a 49G+ someday.
As a public school teacher I'm pretty much stuck with TIs. The 83+ SE is
pretty good and I like the large screen on the V200. They just aren't
the quality of the old HPs.
Jeff
Tom Lake
news:Udvnc.15648$b57....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> My first hp was an HP-45 purchased new in the early 70s while in
> college. I lasted until a house fire in 1990. :(
You mean you didn't rush back into the burning building to rescue it? For
shame! 8-)
Tom Lake
bellsouth
Mine is similar but starts with my father's HP35 (actually his company owned
it). Naturally, it was far too expensive for me to use on a regular basis.
In fact, at the time, it was available with a special box and cable you
could use to attach it permanently to your desk. My father's was attached
in this way.
Before he got to use this calculator he used both a mechanical calculator
and a suitcase sized one located down the hall that was sort of shared among
four terminals. This was his favorite because it had a nixi-tube display
and (gasp) more than one memory. Sadly, both my father and I used slide
rulers and tables (you remember books of log and trig functions) extensively
because calculators were rare and expensive.
Finally, calculators came down in price and we purchased a scientific one
for home use. This was several years after the lame four function ones were
introduced. This was a no-name one that worked very well. The first one I
ever personally owned was a ti-56. It worked well enough but while taking
tests I always brought my charger and slide ruler. At one point I was
actually forced to use the slide ruler on a test. Eventually the keys
started dying and I had to buy my first HP-41c.
My absolute favorite calculator is the HP-41cv. I would still have one
today but for those pesky battery leaks. The last set of leaky batteries
(on my second HP-41) caused me to send the thing to Duracell for a
replacement. What I liked was that you didn't have to get stuff you didn't
want due to its modular design. More ram? Just buy a module. Need
specialized engineering functions? Buy a module. Need a bar code reader.
Just buy a module. And best of all, if you wanted to store a number in a
memory location there were actually short cuts for it. And, last, the
implementation of RPN was easier for me to use. The following key sequence
should square a number but does not on the "modern" HP line ... number
"enter" "x". Even the location of the keys was easier for me to understand
(just try to find the x<>y key on an HP48 and how about the roll-up and
roll-down keys).
Currently I own and use all the following calculators HP48gx, HP42s, HP12c,
TI86, Casio fx6300g, and Casio cfx-9850g.
"Daniel" <dan1...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:837570e.04050...@posting.google.com...