HP calculator geneology

[Geoff Quickfall]

Ther is the OLED version of the voyagers like this 15C



And the LED transitional voyager:
(Notice the reverse colouring of the two badges)





Geoff

[PANAMATIK]

(02-04-2015 05:37 PM)Geoff Quickfall Wrote:  

Geoff

This beautiful LED version could be built in reality with an emulator chip and QDSP 6064 LEDs. I really would like to build it, if I had the time.

Great images! Do you also made a photo of the Nixie tube version of the HP-11C.

Bernhard

[walter b]

(02-04-2015 09:26 PM)PANAMATIK Wrote:  Great images!

These images are some 8 ± 2 years old, IIRC. Search the old forum.

d:-)

[PANAMATIK]

(02-04-2015 09:41 PM)walter b Wrote:  These images are some 8 ± 2 years old, IIRC. Search the old forum.

d:-)

This image however is new in the forum

   

d:-)

[Geoff Quickfall]

Yep! Originally an April fools day 'supposed find' at the flea market! Leave it to you to use the search engine! :-).

Now a Nixie tube 15, and when I get home I will show you a panaplex 41C!

Geoff

[axd1967]

DM42 and Free42 triggered my attention to the evolution between 41-42-48.

As owner of an HP48SX (and also briefly of a 28S) I discovered its roots in the DM41 (a 41CX clone), and recently started digging in the User Manual of the 42S to discover how close these three calcs are related.

I searched for "evolution" but it looks like this is the only thread; I was also sent to
http://www.finseth.com/hpdata/evol.php.

'evol' tells following:

41C/CV -> 41CX
41CX -> 42S
41CX -> 48SX

With what I know for now (I'm still busy with the 42S manual), I'm much more inclined to believe following:

41C/CV -> 41CX -> 48SX
41C/CV -> 42S -> 48SX

or at least there has been much cross-pollination between 42S and 48SX

but of course the 48SX has also 41CX features such as alarms, so the 48SX is more a merge of various ideas.

I did not take the 28 or the 15 into account.

Here are my arguments:

1. The 42 misses 41CX features, as is also stated in the 42 manual
2. there are no significant 42 features that are not present in the 48
3. The 42 clearly improved the 41 UI, and the 48 further improved that UI (eg the evolution of the menu concepts)
4. The 42 manual layout is very similar to the 48SX. Now this sounds like a less objective argument, but to me this is part of the relationship between 42 and 48.
   

rgds

[TASP]

And perhaps it would be interesting to see more examples of 'descendants' that were a step back from the predecessor.

I'm thinking of the HP70 in regards to the HP80 here. So, are there other models that were scaled back versions of a prior machine ?

[Massimo Gnerucci]

Didn't we talk about this on Facebook already, Alexander? ;)

(05-29-2016 05:21 PM)axd1967 Wrote:  'evol' tells following:

41C/CV -> 41CX
41CX -> 42S
41CX -> 48SX

You missed the interconnections shown in that document: not counting previous models 42S comes from functionality present in the 15C and 41CX; 48SX from 41CX and 28S.
I warned you, however, that is not a universally recognized HP calcs taxonomy chart... :)

[rprosperi]

(05-29-2016 05:21 PM)axd1967 Wrote:  Here are my arguments:

1. The 42 misses 41CX features, as is also stated in the 42 manual
2. there are no significant 42 features that are not present in the 48
3. The 42 clearly improved the 41 UI, and the 48 further improved that UI (eg the evolution of the menu concepts)
4. The 42 manual layout is very similar to the 48SX. Now this sounds like a less objective argument, but to me this is part of the relationship between 42 and 48.
   

Some replies on these points:

The 42S is really a successor for the 41CV; it does not support the Time functions (which is a shame since the 27S and other early Pioneers included it), nor any of the expanded memory features, though some of the other "CX" enhancements are there. The 42S was built on the RPL (more accurately some form of proto-SysRPL) platform shortly after the 18C and 28C were introduced.

I find the 42S manual more 41-like than 48-like, but this is sensible since it was really intended as a step-up for long-time 41 users, but also keep in mind that this was nearly 10 years after the 41 so manual layout/design and writing style had evolved (and started a long but sad trend downhill, IMHO).

The 48SX was such a quantum leap ahead of (and away from) the "RPN" line of models that it's truly hard to compare to predecessors. I believe the 48SX was intended to do what it did, which is to set an entirely new standard, head and shoulders above all predecessors, including everything done in prior models but with much more thrown in. As it was so different, there was no real way to position it (or tune it's features to be) as a follow-on to any single model or line; it was rather simply a reboot of the whole concept. Most agreed, others shunned either the unit's size or the paradigm shift from keystroke programming to RPL, but none can argue that it wasn't a huge step forward (preparing for impassioned... um, feedback here).

So, I'm not disagreeing with your thoughts, just saying one's view of product "evolution" depends not only on the product's market positioning, but also on the underlying technologies and broader issues like usage paradigms.