In support of the 33s & 35s

[Matt Agajanian]

Hi all.

To be honest, the 35s & 33s shouldn’t be bashed so much. They still have functionality, programmability, and capability that rival both their namesakes (the 35 and 33E/C) and, dare I say, these two even rival the 32S II which they take their programming structure from.

So yes, there are flaws. But, give yourselves credit that you’re brilliant programmers, mathemeticians, scientists, etc. that you can engineer workarounds that circumvent the flaws. HP tried and succeeded in developing at least two options (33s and 35s) that still employ the keystroke programming structure that has produced so many HP programming savants and thousands more programs and app pacs for the Woodstocks, Voyagers, Classics, Spices/Spikes. And, even better, although the 33s no longer comes from the HP factory, the more flexible 35s is still in production.

[cjmcc]

I never had real problems with the HP33S. The appearance was a little strange, and I never used it enough to get fully comfortable with the layout. What struck me the most was how much faster it ran programs compared to my HP15C. On the 33, calculating great circle distance and heading happened almost instantly. My 15 could handle it, but wanted a chance to think about it a little bit.
The HP35S is a sharp looking calculator. It's a shame no path was provided to correct the nits discovered after the release. It looks sharp, provides a lot of functionality, and came close to being a true classic.

[TheKaneB]

I like the 35S a lot, and apart from the vector input bug, the other flaws don't impact my user experience at all. It' my go-to scientific calculator hands down.

[williamlim13]

I have both the HP33s and HP35s. I like HP35s more and have been using HP35s daily, at home, office and at site. HP35s is really a very powerful calculator, in term of complex functions

[Thomas Radtke]

It's much more powerful than the 32SII, but slower. And the number of bugs found in the first few months indicate that there are many more. It's all about the justified fear of the unknown .

[Joe Horn]

Something I rarely (if ever) see pointed out is which model (32SII, 33s, or 35s) runs programs the fastest. The same program, run on all 3 models, runs fastest on the 33s.

[pier4r]

Interesting the speed discussion.

Can someone run this http://www.hpmuseum.org/forum/thread-975...l#pid86751 on the 33s?

The 35s results reported so far are not as quick as I would have expected. Someone on reddit pointed out this: http://www.hpmuseum.org/software/35sumfun.htm program.

I guess grsbanks or someone else produced something faster.

[Massimo Gnerucci]

Old news, really.

[pier4r]

(01-01-2018 03:34 PM)Massimo Gnerucci Wrote:  Old news, really.

Can be old for someone only if someone knows it already =) , besides thanks for the link.

Nonetheless if someone has spare time, adding the result in the other thread wouldn't be bad.

[Massimo Gnerucci]

(01-01-2018 03:45 PM)pier4r Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 03:34 PM)Massimo Gnerucci Wrote:  Old news, really.

Can be old for someone only if someone knows it already =) , besides thanks for the link.

News is old however, you know it or not. ;)

[pier4r]

Interesting bit in the link posted.

Quote:OT: Machines getting slower as they get niftier
Message #14 Posted by Thomas Okken on 7 Aug 2007, 11:10 p.m.,
in response to message #8 by Gerson W. Barbosa

Hi Gerson!
....

Did I mention I think they should bring back the 42S? ;-)

- Thomas

And now ~10 years later the 42S is back (not exactly 1:1 , but for practical purposes, is there).

edit1:

Quote:Re: OT: Machines getting slower as they get niftier
Message #17 Posted by Gerson W. Barbosa on 8 Aug 2007, 12:31 a.m.,
in response to message #14 by Thomas Okken

Quote: Did I mention I think they should bring back the 42S? ;-)

I'd be pleased with Free42-in-a-box :-)

Regards,

Gerson.

ha! That is nice.

[Gerald H]

(01-01-2018 03:34 PM)Massimo Gnerucci Wrote:  Old news, really.

Linguistic trends: Rather than the fashionable "old news" how about "history".

Similarly for "fake news" how about "fiction".

Suggestions not fashionable but extend vocab.

[toml_12953]

(01-01-2018 12:47 PM)Thomas Radtke Wrote:  It's much more powerful than the 32SII, but slower. And the number of bugs found in the first few months indicate that there are many more. It's all about the justified fear of the unknown .

What is a new version of any hardware or software? Trading the bugs you know for ones you don't!

[Thomas Radtke]

(01-01-2018 06:09 PM)toml_12953 Wrote:  What is a new version of any hardware or software? Trading the bugs you know for ones you don't!

You're certainly right, but the 35s is a little too buggy for my taste. I'm using it, too, but only to do some quick calculations and because I'd rather not bring my valueable 32SIIs to work.

[Michael de Estrada]

(01-01-2018 03:28 PM)pier4r Wrote:  Can someone run this http://www.hpmuseum.org/forum/thread-975...l#pid86751 on the 33s?

I get 23 seconds on my HP 33s for N=100 and 209 seconds for N=1000, compared to 31 seconds and 287 seconds respectively for the 35s as reported in your link. The code I used is:

LBL B
INPUT N
0
STO S
1
STO X
LBL C
ATAN
SIN
e^x
<cube root of x>
STO+ S
RCL N
RCL X
1
+
STO X
x<=y ?
GTO C
RTN

The result for N=1000 is 1395.3462877

[pier4r]

(01-01-2018 07:51 PM)Michael de Estrada Wrote:  I get 23 seconds on my HP 33s for N=100 and 209 seconds for N=1000, compared to 31 seconds and 287 seconds respectively for the 35s as reported in your link. The code I used is:

LBL B
INPUT N
1
STO X
0
STO S
LBL C
ATAN
SIN
e^x
<cube root of x>
STO+ S
RCL N
RCL X
1
+
STO X
x<=y ?
GTO C
RTN

I appreciate! many thanks!
This put it in perspective even when using the math built in functions.

[Michael de Estrada]

(01-01-2018 08:38 PM)pier4r Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 07:51 PM)Michael de Estrada Wrote:  I get 23 seconds on my HP 33s for N=100 and 209 seconds for N=1000, compared to 31 seconds and 287 seconds respectively for the 35s as reported in your link. The code I used is:

LBL B
INPUT N
0
STO S
1
STO X
LBL C
ATAN
SIN
e^x
<cube root of x>
STO+ S
RCL N
RCL X
1
+
STO X
x<=y ?
GTO C
RTN

I appreciate! many thanks!
This put it in perspective even when using the math built in functions.

I have corrected my code in the quote. This does not impact execution time.

[Michael de Estrada]

I ran this code on my HP 35s, and the execution time for N=1000 has increased from the reported 287 seconds to 309 seconds. The code is the same, except the HP 35s lacks a dedicated cube root of x function key, so I needed to replace it with 3 <x root of y>.

[Michael de Estrada]

I’ve got one more for you:

HP-29C (Woodstock) N=10, 35 seconds, Result=13.71183501

[pier4r]

(01-02-2018 12:58 AM)Michael de Estrada Wrote:  I ran this code on my HP 35s, and the execution time for N=1000 has increased from the reported 287 seconds to 309 seconds. The code is the same, except the HP 35s lacks a dedicated cube root of x function key, so I needed to replace it with 3 <x root of y>.

Inserted your timings for the 29C, many thanks!


Anyway for the 35s I guess grsbanks (if I remember who reported the timings) used another algorithm to be slightly faster. Could it be?