Finally got an HP 42S

[Eddie W. Shore]

It is good as all the HP 42S fans say it is.

[Sanjeev Visvanatha]

(02-08-2015 11:59 PM)Eddie W. Shore Wrote:  It is good as all the HP 42S fans say it is.

I received my first 42S last week. I agree completely, a powerful and small package!

[Jlouis]

(02-08-2015 11:59 PM)Eddie W. Shore Wrote:  It is good as all the HP 42S fans say it is.

Hi Eddie,

congratulations!

We are waiting a review and many tips in your blog soon!

Cheers

[ElectroDuende]

(02-08-2015 11:59 PM)Eddie W. Shore Wrote:  It is good as all the HP 42S fans say it is.

(02-09-2015 11:41 AM)Sanjeev Visvanatha Wrote:  I received my first 42S last week. I agree completely, a powerful and small package!

People should stop buying that stupid overvalued calculator!!

(so prices will go down to allow me get one!)

:-)

[Gerald H]

Just to relativize the advances made since production of the 42S ceased, consider the time taken for this Task:

Factorize 765,927,960,121:

HP 42S: 364s ( 6m 04s ) SQFO
HP 42S: 149s ( 2m 29s ) FAST, SQFO
WP 34S:11s SQFO

using the same optimised form of Shanks' square form factorization.

The 42S is a great calculator, also an historical relic - the WP 34S current & cheaper.

[jracca]

(02-09-2015 04:04 PM)Gerald H Wrote:  Just to relativize the advances made since production of the 42S ceased, consider the time taken for this Task:

Factorize 765,927,960,121:

HP 42S: 364s ( 6m 04s ) SQFO
HP 42S: 149s ( 2m 29s ) FAST, SQFO
WP 34S:11s SQFO

using the same optimised form of Shanks' square form factorization.

The 42S is a great calculator, also an historical relic - the WP 34S current & cheaper.

I love my 34S, but for matrix functions, the 42s is vastly superior, the matrix editor and viewing is so much easier, I don't consider the 34s to even be competition, this is even more true if you need complex matrix functions. The only other calculators which are as easy to use matrix functions are the huge graphic calculators (the 50g shines in its ability to do symbolic matrix functions)

For just about everything else the 34s is vastly superior, especially the memory and I/O

[walter b]

(02-09-2015 04:33 PM)jracca Wrote:  I love my 34S, but for matrix functions, the 42s is vastly superior, the matrix editor and viewing is so much easier, I don't consider the 34s to even be competition, this is even more true if you need complex matrix functions. The only other calculators which are as easy to use matrix functions are the huge graphic calculators (the 50g shines in its ability to do symbolic matrix functions)

For just about everything else the 34s is vastly superior, especially the memory and I/O

We know the shortcomings of the WP 34S in Linear Algebra. Actually, we were discussing whether matrix support made any sense at all without data types, but with the display given. We decided for putting matrices in though we knew and know that we need a better platform. You find related statements in the manual.

CETERVM CENSEO: Please provide prototype HW for WP 43S FW development.

d:-I

[Dave Frederickson]

(02-09-2015 04:04 PM)Gerald H Wrote:  The 42S is a great calculator, also an historical relic - the WP 34S current & cheaper.

Have you noticed that this forum is full of historical relics, and some of the calculators are pretty old, too. Eddie was proclaiming the acquisition of a vintage HP collectible, which the WP 34S is not.

Vintage HP calculators are primarily discussed in the General section and discussions of the virtues of other calculators are relegated to the Not HP Calculators section.

[Dwight Sturrock]

Love the 42S! I recently dug two of mine out of a desk and have started to assess what it is going to take to get them going again. One is in great shape except for a tempermental shift key.

Used these for many years, definitely my all time favorite calc.

[Gerson W. Barbosa]

Congratulations!

As a celebration for your new acquisition, I've written this 42-byte 42S program. Certainly not the best example to demonstrate the capabilites of the HP-42S, but an example of a program that uses only the stack (Quite easier on the HP-42S than on the HP-41C). Some of you might want to make the program shorter while keeping the same byte-count, thus allowing for a more meaningful program name.

Enjoy your new HP-42S!

Gerson.

Code:


00 { 42-Byte Prgm }
01>LBL "V"
02 0
03 SIGN
04 STO ST Z
05>LBL 00
06 2
07 STO× ST T
08 RCL+ ST L
09 SQRT
10 ×
11 DSE ST Y
12 GTO 00
13 R^
14 STO+ ST X
15 RCL÷ ST Y
16 ENTER
17 RCL÷ ST L
18 X^2
19 RCL× ST Y
20 6
21 ÷
22 +
23 .END.

[vk6ti]

Hi Eddie
I don't think you will be disappointed,
I had to get another 42s after mine was stolen 5/6 years ago, I was blown away by their resale value, I waited a long time but I got one for a reasonable price. In the interim I used the 35s, and
The 41, But prefer the 42s

Regards
Ray

[Gerald H]

(02-09-2015 08:22 PM)Dave Frederickson Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 04:04 PM)Gerald H Wrote:  The 42S is a great calculator, also an historical relic - the WP 34S current & cheaper.

Have you noticed that this forum is full of historical relics, and some of the calculators are pretty old, too. Eddie was proclaiming the acquisition of a vintage HP collectible, which the WP 34S is not.

Vintage HP calculators are primarily discussed in the General section and discussions of the virtues of other calculators are relegated to the Not HP Calculators section.

I feel a quote coming on, so let it be Robert Record:

"No man can worthily praise Ptolemye … yet muste ye and all men take heed, that both in him and in all mennes workes, you be not abused by their autoritye, but evermore attend to their reasons, and examine them well, ever regarding more what is saide, and how it is proved, than who saieth it, for autorite often times deceaveth many menne."

In 1557 Ptolemy was pretty much respected, even though an historical relic.

Difficult to avoid mentioning non-HP calculators in comparisons but I'll do my best.

[jracca]

(02-09-2015 06:54 PM)walter b Wrote:  We know the shortcomings of the WP 34S in Linear Algebra. Actually, we were discussing whether matrix support made any sense at all without data types, but with the display given. We decided for putting matrices in though we knew and know that we need a better platform. You find related statements in the manual.

CETERVM CENSEO: Please provide prototype HW for WP 43S FW development.

d:-I

Agreed, with the hardware given, I believe the implementation is the best possible with both the display and memory limitations. My comment is not be taken as a criticism of the 34s, just that the 42s has certain features that make it more than a relic, especially for those of us who use matrix functions often.