HP-67 versus TI-58

[Josef]

Which calculator is faster, the HP-67 or the TI-58? It is a Performance Index calculation.

http://www.thimet.de/CalcCollection/Calc...mance.html

[John Garza (3665)]

Many factors in comparisons like this. Even with that we all know the strengths between he two companies. TI is better at microelectronics and internal math algorithms (faster and more accurate). And HP is better at usability and quality. Let's seem them toss both machines out a second story window and see what happens!

I wonder how and HP-65 and SR-56 would perform.

-J

[toml_12953]

(08-01-2023 12:03 AM)John Garza (3665) Wrote:  Let's seem them toss both machines out a second story window and see what happens!

I wonder how and HP-65 and SR-56 would perform.

-J

At an early demo of the HP-35 (the original, not the S) an HP rep accidentally dropped one to a hard concrete floor. Everyone was worried but when he picked it up, it still worked perfectly. After that, "The Big Drop" as HP people called it, became a standard part of the demos. At least that's what a rep told me when I asked him why he obviously deliberately dropped one during a demo I attended.

[Josef]

The HP-67 program is shorter (39 instructions) and, in my opinion, more efficient, but the TI-58 is significantly faster at 51 instructions. For HP, I like the RPN, and by the way, the HP-65 was in space on the Apollo for the Soyuz approach and orientation calculations. Texas Instruments failed to do that even though they supplied the electronic circuits and instruments for the Apollo program. Admittedly, the TI-58 was introduced for sale a year later than the HP-67. I'll compare the HP-65 and HP-67 again, two years of development will surely make a difference.

[HP67]

(08-01-2023 12:03 AM)John Garza (3665) Wrote:  And HP is better at usability and quality. Let's seem them toss both machines out a second story window and see what happens!

I agree with this completely. I had several TIs (55, 58, original "Programmer," a few others I have lost track of) and they all fell apart after short periods of regular use- and I am not hard on my gear. Paint wore off the bezel, keys were like the teeth of a 150 year old widow etc. frames creaked and groaned. Just wretched.

My first HP, (the HP 67) was like a battleship in comparison. In 1981 I paid around 400 USD for mine. The old HPs were worth the price and still are.

[Josef]

(08-01-2023 12:03 AM)John Garza (3665) Wrote:  I wonder how and HP-65 and SR-56 would perform.

-J

Unfortunately, I don't have an SR-56, but I do have an SR-52 and it is surprisingly faster than the T-58 and TI-59.

[John Garza (3665)]

Some here are interested in HP quality, so I'll tell you something interesting that happened recently.

I bought an HP-35 on the auction site. On delivery, instead of placing it on my doorstep in the shade, the package was just small enough to squeeze into the mailbox. It sat there all day baking in the Texas sun. The box was 157.6 degF as per a handheld temperature scanner.

In short, the battery was cooked, dead. So I put a fresh pack in and was greeted with the friendly red zero. Pretty amazing to hold a working machine in your hand and it's almost too hot to hold.

One of those moments when you say to yourself: "Yeah, it's an HP"

-J

[Josef]

I have not tested dropping HP calculators on the ground, I believe they are more robust, however, they suffer from the same failures as Texas Instruments. I find the execution of the electronics to be less professional with HP than Texas Instruments. When you compare the size of the SR-52 and the HP-65, you can see that the TI is indeed significantly larger and heavier. However, the price of the HP-65 was $795 (equivalent to $4,920 in 2023). TI was making cheaper calculators, and thus there was a saving to be made. As we see on eBay HP calculators are significantly more expensive than TI's, which I would say are still losing value.

I personally really like the HP design, although it's not as clear as on the TI, because of this, the calculator could have significantly more features.

[teenix]

(08-01-2023 12:16 AM)toml_12953 Wrote:  At an early demo of the HP-35 (the original, not the S) an HP rep accidentally dropped one to a hard concrete floor. Everyone was worried but when he picked it up, it still worked perfectly. After that, "The Big Drop" as HP people called it, became a standard part of the demos. At least that's what a rep told me when I asked him why he obviously deliberately dropped one during a demo I attended.

From MoHPC HP-35 page...

Quote:The HP-35, like all the hand-held HPs that followed, was required to remain undamaged after falling three feet onto concrete on each of its corners.

cheers

Tony

[Josef]

(08-02-2023 06:12 AM)teenix Wrote:  The HP-35, like all the hand-held HPs that followed, was required to remain undamaged after falling three feet onto concrete on each of its corners.

The electronics I believe will not be damaged when overloaded with 1G, but the corners will be deformed, I don't believe there will be damage in the corners, after all it's quite fragile material. The calculator is connected around the perimeter with 6 long screws, so it can withstand a fall from 20 meters.