Why are the HP Prime and HP-35s so unpopular?

[Marco Polo]

(01-22-2021 07:36 PM)Valentin Albillo Wrote:  

Peet Wrote:Why are the HP Prime and HP-35s so unpopular?

And as I said, it's a matter of trust.

V.

Totally agree

[Valentin Albillo]

(01-23-2021 09:24 AM)trojdor Wrote:  [quote='Liam Hays' pid='141940' dateline='1611360235']I recently compared the real world integration of the cumulative normal distribution function (CDF) between a 32Sii and the 35s, and saw a much smaller difference....although the 32sii WAS slightly faster.

Both functions were entered as equations, then integrated. The 32sii finished in about 7.25 seconds, and the 35s finished in about 10.25 seconds....about 40% longer

Instead of entering the functions as equations, try entering them as RPN programs without using any explicit constants, i.e.: do not use, say, the constant 1 as a program line, use RCL 00, and so on with all other constants, then store the constants in the registers and try the integration procedure again. It should run much faster.

V.

[Liam Hays]

Quote:Would you care to post the exact integral you used to compare integration speeds ?

Sure. I used the program version on both the 32S and the 35s, because I figured that would provide the most accurate comparison. It's the Bessel Function from page 128, which, if I'm being honest, I don't really understand. This is the program:

Code:

J01 LBL J
J02 RAD
J03 INPUT X
J04 INPUT T
J05 RCL T
J06 SIN
J07 RCL* X
J08 COS
J09 RTN

To run it, I followed the instructions from the manual on both calculators, which are:

Code:

FN= J
0 [ENTER] pi   ( integral limits )
intFN d T
2 R/S   ( set X to 2 and solve )

I ran the experiment again, to verify, because I didn't write down my results last time. The 32S finished in 23 seconds, while the 35s finished in 58, or just over 2.5 times faster.

[Eddie W. Shore]

(01-23-2021 12:03 AM)Liam Hays Wrote:  I learned to use RPN and about HP calculators in general from an HP-32S, a wonderful little machine. Compared to that, the 35s is vastly more powerful in terms of capability---complex support beyond just arithmetic, vectors, equation and system solving in a natural way, a clear and readable two-line screen, a significantly more advanced version of the 32S' programming language, and enough memory to put all that to good use.

And therein lies the problem. The 35s is so darn close to being a nearly perfect machine. In my opinion, if HP had done these three things, bugs like the checksum bug, cosine bug, and self-test problems would be nothing more than an inconvenience:

1. Fixed the keyboard. When I pulled by 35s out of its packaging, the R/S, GTO, and XEQ keys already looked like they had been used for years, and just days later, the right-shift key decided it needed extra force to register. While the actual keypress feel of the keyboard is fine, to me, fixing the actual key sensors should have been number one on HP's list.
2. Made complex support more than half-baked. Having a dedicated i key is fine, but if I can't take a square root of a negative number and get a complex answer out, I would rather have STO and RCL as dedicated keys instead. (On that topic, using the final layout, they could have at least made the MODE key shifted, and moved STO to its own key).
3. Finally, given the poor thing a processor greater than the 6502 or whatever is in there. A few months ago, I tested the integration speed between the 35s and the 32S, using the example from the 32S, and the 32S finished in three times the speed of the 35s. The kind of math operations the 35s supports demands speed, which is readily available today and probably was in 2007.
   

On the topic of speed, this page ranks the performance of the 35s at 9.5, only about three times greater than the HP-41, released 28 years before (though comparing the 35s to the 41C is a completely different ballgame). All in all, I think that the HP-35s is a good calculator, but the problems it suffers from are severely debilitating. This is really a shame, since it's probably the last standard scientific calculator we'll ever get from HP.

Anyway, I'll be quiet now. PS: this is my first post here!

Welcome, Liam!

[trojdor]

(01-23-2021 04:21 PM)Liam Hays Wrote:  I ran the experiment again, to verify, because I didn't write down my results last time. The 32S finished in 23 seconds, while the 35s finished in 58, or just over 2.5 times faster.

Liam,
I was able to duplicate your benchmark test time on the 35s at "Disp All" display format, and get the identical 58 seconds.
However, the only way I could get the 32sii to match your time was to drop the display mode down to Fix 8 or Fix 9.
Otherwise the 32sii set at the same 'Disp All' finishes in about 46 seconds.
The 35s still takes longer....but only by about 26%.

What display mode is your 32s in? Are both calculators set the same?
It drastically affects the performance.
For instance, the 35s only takes about 7.5 seconds at Fix 4.
(Versus about 6 seconds for the 32sii at Fix 4.)

[Sukiari]

I really don’t like the 35s, it’s just goofy. The keyboard and screen are nice, but it just doesn’t feel ergonomic.

[Garth Wilson]

The Prime immediately turned me off when it came out. I hate touch screens, I have little use for graphics and no use for color, and color is always hard on battery life. I also don't want a proprietary battery that may not be available when it needs replacement years or decades down the road. I wish my 41 (which I use every day) used AAA cells like my 71 does; but at least the N cells are still available, even now after 40 years, even if not as cheap as AAA's.

[Maximilian Hohmann]

Hello!

(01-24-2021 09:31 AM)Garth Wilson Wrote:  I also don't want a proprietary battery that may not be available when it needs replacement years or decades down the road. I wish my 41 (which I use every day) used AAA cells like my 71 does; but at least the N cells are still available, even now after 40 years, even if not as cheap as AAA's.

I would say that the N cells of the HP-41 were then and are now much rarer than the Lithium battery of the Prime. The latter is used in many mobile phones and (probably) manufactured in much larger numbers than N cells ever were. And rechargeable N cells have always been quite rare.

I started my calculator life 1975 or 1976 first with a green VFD model followed by a red LED calculator. Both would last between 5 and 10 hours on a fully charged battery pack. Therefore it became natural to me to keep an eye on the charging state of the batteries, especially before an exam or similar event where recharging halfway through was not possible. Just like one refuels one's car before setting off for a long trip early in the morning or late at night. Also, because my first calculators were rechargeable, the idea of powering a calculator (or any other battery hungry device) from disposable batteries just disgusts me to a point of not using that device. I am very much with Greta on these issues.

Regards
Max

[aurelio]

(01-24-2021 12:46 PM)Maximilian Hohmann Wrote:  Hello!
Just like one refuels one's car before setting off for a long trip early in the morning or late at night. Also, because my first calculators were rechargeable, the idea of powering a calculator (or any other battery hungry device) from disposable batteries just disgusts me to a point of not using that device. I am very much with Greta on these issues.
Regards
Max

Unpossible to disagreee with you, Max
In the 80's casio sold a lot of calculator with photovoltaic cells, I have still one of that I've used daily on the field (not RPN, sigh, not scientific...) together with the 25c and the 41, why HP never tried to introduce those devices in the best calculators, just a matter of efficiency at that time of the photovoltaic cells, why at least as a backup source?

(edit for typos)

[Dave Britten]

(01-24-2021 02:29 PM)aurelio Wrote:  Unpossible to disagreee with you, Max
In the 80's casio sold a lot of calculator with photovoltaic cells, I have still one of that I've used daily on the field (not RPN, sigh, not scientific...) togheter with the 25c and the 41, why HP never tryed to introduce those devices in the best calculators, just a matter of efficiency at that time of the photovoltaic cells, why at least as a backup source?

It's odd that HP never tried including a solar cell on the Voyagers, given how incredibly low their power consumption is. Casio made a few programmable calculators with a solar cell back in the '80s and '90s, though they tend to be fairly limited in their capabilities. The recent fx-50FH and fx-3650PII are probably the most capable, with the former having more memory, but the latter being able to do numeric integrals and derivatives.

Personally, for calculators that need more power than just a coin/button/solar cell, I prefer AAs or AAAs, since I can put in my choice of NiMHs, and know that I won't have any trouble finding fresh ones 10 or 20 years down the road. Or even just grab a pack of alkalines at a gas station or pharmacy if I'm really in a pinch! Kinda why I like the OmniBook 300 too.

[Liam Hays]

Quote:What display mode is your 32s in? Are both calculators set the same?

They're both set to Fix 9. I'm not surprised to hear that the speed of both calculators is affected by precision changes.

As for the Prime, which I haven't mentioned yet, I don't own one. However, I know that I would much rather graph on a high-res color touchscreen than a blue-on-green low-res panel (with the slow graphing environment of a 48). What I would love to see, though it would be expensive, is an OLED screen in a calculator, with a fully adjustable brightness control, so that the machine would be usable in any location, day or night.

I can also see why some people would be adverse to rechargeable batteries---after all, they need an extra cable, they wear out and can be unreliable, and so on---but I don't think the Prime would be nearly as speedy or capable if it ran off a set of three or four AAAs. In addition, a lithium-ion battery makes it possible for the calculator to tell you how much charge is left, something much harder to do on a set of disposables.

That ties my thoughts back to the 35s. A faster processor would help it a lot, but if it means that the machine eats a pair of CR2032s in one month, would it be a worthwhile tradeoff? I don't think so. Which begs the question: surely there's a similar processor with lower current draw out there (cough, cough, Saturn)? Why couldn't HP have put a little time into finding one and building the calculator around it instead?

[rprosperi]

(01-24-2021 03:57 PM)Dave Britten Wrote:  It's odd that HP never tried including a solar cell on the Voyagers, given how incredibly low their power consumption is.

Discussed often, back in the day.

One not too obvious consideration is the Voyagers were intended and built to be much tougher than your average calculator, able to be roughly handled for on-site, workplace use, and the solar cells of the period were not as rugged as they've become in the intervening years. If they considered it at all, it's possible the design team concluded the ruggedness would have been compromised if solar-powered.

And of course, since these machines lasted literally years on each set of cells, a user was never surprised by sudden or unexpected loss of battery power.

[Dave Britten]

(01-24-2021 08:46 PM)rprosperi Wrote:  

(01-24-2021 03:57 PM)Dave Britten Wrote:  It's odd that HP never tried including a solar cell on the Voyagers, given how incredibly low their power consumption is.

Discussed often, back in the day.

One not too obvious consideration is the Voyagers were intended and built to be much tougher than your average calculator, able to be roughly handled for on-site, workplace use, and the solar cells of the period were not as rugged as they've become in the intervening years. If they considered it at all, it's possible the design team concluded the ruggedness would have been compromised if solar-powered.

And of course, since these machines lasted literally years on each set of cells, a user was never surprised by sudden or unexpected loss of battery power.

Yeah, those seem like the most likely explanations. They made them SO power efficient, that there wasn't really any reason to increase the manufacturing costs and decrease durability when it already costs far less than a dollar per year to power the calculator. You could almost jam a couple electrodes into a potato to run the thing.

[rprosperi]

(01-24-2021 09:03 PM)Dave Britten Wrote:  You could almost jam a couple electrodes into a potato to run the thing.

LOL!!!

Now that's a sight I'd like to see.

[Dave Britten]

(01-24-2021 10:27 PM)rprosperi Wrote:  

(01-24-2021 09:03 PM)Dave Britten Wrote:  You could almost jam a couple electrodes into a potato to run the thing.

LOL!!!

Now that's a sight I'd like to see.

It's been done with a TI-84 (though it took a hell of a lot more than just one potato):

https://youtu.be/KFDlVgBMomQ

Perhaps the EEs can do the math and figure out how many we'd need to power a 15C.

[Garth Wilson]

(01-24-2021 12:46 PM)Maximilian Hohmann Wrote:  Hello!

(01-24-2021 09:31 AM)Garth Wilson Wrote:  I also don't want a proprietary battery that may not be available when it needs replacement years or decades down the road. I wish my 41 (which I use every day) used AAA cells like my 71 does; but at least the N cells are still available, even now after 40 years, even if not as cheap as AAA's.

I would say that the N cells of the HP-41 were then and are now much rarer than the Lithium battery of the Prime. The latter is used in many mobile phones and (probably) manufactured in much larger numbers than N cells ever were. And rechargeable N cells have always been quite rare.

True, but even though N cells have never been very common, they have been around for at least 42 years (I can't find what year they were introduced, but it had to be before the 41 was designed) and will be around for probably decades more. Mobile-phone batteries won't be able to compete with that. Mobile phone models are a here-today-gone-tomorrow proposition, and mobile phones just don't last. I suspect that in two or three more decades, any mobile-phone battery available today will have long been discontinued, whereas N cells may still be available.

Quote:I started my calculator life 1975 or 1976 first with a green VFD model followed by a red LED calculator. Both would last between 5 and 10 hours on a fully charged battery pack. Therefore it became natural to me to keep an eye on the charging state of the batteries, especially before an exam or similar event where recharging halfway through was not possible.

I started with a TI-58c and then TI-59. Supposedly a full charge was good for four hours; but I never could get more than 2½, even brand new. I would also put only a decimal point in the display to reduce the current when leaving it idle, especially for the 59 which would lose its memory if you turn it off for even a second, and a program would have to be re-loaded from cards.

Quote:Just like one refuels one's car before setting off for a long trip early in the morning or late at night.

For my first 2½ decades of HP-41cx use, a set of batteries would last a couple of years of regular, daily use. I don't want to have to be thinking about charging regularly. (And no, I don't use a cell phone.) When I got the double extended memory module, it dropped to six months, as it clearly has some current leakage. With Diego's Clonix-D module, it went down to ten weeks, but then I realized the problem might be coming from buying cheap N cells on eBay that might have been counterfeits rather than being what they were labeled. I just put the real thing in to see how they last now.

[toml_12953]

(01-22-2021 01:24 PM)Peet Wrote:  Both have at least as many or even more pluses than disadvantages compared to the popular 50G and 42S calcutators.
The current HP-17bII+ also seems to be a pretty good calcutator in the sum of its properties, but it hardly gets any positive mention.

From my point of view, the lack of external storage is the biggest weakness of the 35s but this is exactly what it shares with the 42s.

The prime, on the other hand, even seems to be superior to the 50g in every aspect.

What makes the 42s/50g so good and the 35s/Prime so bad?

Are these calcutators really so bad that it is worth dreaming about the past instead of wishing for improvements?

The Prime unpopular? It's very popular. It needs its own group! Many of us who own one love it. Yes, there are problems and HP support is lacking (not to knock Tim and Cyrille who are the two shining lights in an otherwise dark Prime future)

As for the 35s, The only list I can find has only 22 bugs in it. Most of them aren't showstoppers. I've used it since it first came out and either haven't run into most of the bugs listed or haven't been adversely affected by them.

[CMarangon]

Hello!

1 - Because they left the traditional line of HP calculators, which everyone was used to.

2 - HP Prime is also unpopular because it stopped using USER RPN language, it is more like a cell phone, killing all knowledge that the HP Community learned for decades. Whoever uses the HP 50 will have to learn all over again.


A similar thing happened with Stargate, that created a spin of name "Stargate Universe", totally different of the original series. This spin off had not the tradictional beings and races of extra-terrestrial races that people were used to seeing. The new series of was cancealed at the second season. Already born dead!

That is my opinion, an HP48 series user since 1994.
I think also that there is no statistics data about if people like or not of HP Prime.
All I can see is that some people that I know prefere HP50.


HP35 I don't know

[Sukiari]

(01-26-2021 04:37 AM)CMarangon Wrote:  Hello!

1 - Because they left the traditional line of HP calculators, which everyone was used to.

2 - HP Prime is also unpopular because it stopped using USER RPN language, it is more like a cell phone, killing all knowledge that the HP Community learned for decades. Whoever uses the HP 50 will have to learn all over again.


A similar thing happened with Stargate, that created a spin of name "Stargate Universe", totally different of the original series. This spin off had not the tradictional beings and races of extra-terrestrial races that people were used to seeing. The new series of was cancealed at the second season. Already born dead!

That is my opinion, an HP48 series user since 1994.
I think also that there is no statistics data about if people like or not of HP Prime.
All I can see is that some people that I know prefere HP50.


HP35 I don't know

To me it seems likely that they wanted to sell more HP calculators into the secondary school market. They looked at what was hip with the kids. A device with a color screen that needs to be charged practically daily was deemed to be the ticket. Throwing the RPN / RPL users under the bus was a huge mistake, especially because TI owns the US math education market because of aggressive sales into schools, and partnerships with textbook companies. What was even the market for the Prime, knowing this?

Just another one of a long string of bizarre, near-suicidal moves by HP.

[John Keith]

(01-29-2021 07:41 AM)Sukiari Wrote:  Just another one of a long string of bizarre, near-suicidal moves by HP.

Neither bizarre nor suicidal- just typical corporate behavior. The calculator division is tiny compared to the overall size of HP. The only harm to HP is reputational and there is no column for that in their spreadsheets.