Which HP for my "twenty buck shootout"?

[Guy Macon]

I am in the process of comparing the top of the line non-graphing non-programmable scientific calculators from all of the major manufacturers. I hope to put together a comparison and publish it online. So far I have sitting on my desk:

Hewlett Packard HP 35 (EDIT: Stupid typo, HP-35S)

Casio fx-991EX

Texas Instruments TI-36X Pro

Sharp EL-W516T

Canon F-792SGA

My question is whether the HP-35S is the best choice for such a comparison, or whether I should pick another HP model like the SmartCalc 300s. All of the others are less than $20 and so is the 300s.

The HP-35S is over twice as expensive as the rest (and in my opinion has over twice the quality) and doesn't have Textbook Format Display (similar to Casio's Natural Textbook display and TIs MultiView display) so is it really the best choice for such a comparison?

BTW, my personal daily use calc is a SwissMicros DM42, so I may have a prejudice in favor of HP.

[Maximilian Hohmann]

Hello!

(11-10-2019 11:46 AM)Guy Macon Wrote:  My question is whether the HP-35 is the best choice for such a comparison,...

Yo say it yourself! The HP 35s is not a "20 buck calculator" (here in Europe the official price in the HP store is 71 Euros or 78$ which is actually four times as much as the other calculators!). Comparing them may or may not make much sense, but certainly not in the 20-buck categrory.

The only two calculators from HP which fit into that category are the 300s+ (16 Euros) and the 10s+ (10 Euros). Both are nothing but Casios with an HP label on them so comparing them to their originals from Casio will not reveal many surprises I guess :-)

Regards
Max

[Massimo Gnerucci]

(11-10-2019 11:46 AM)Guy Macon Wrote:  Hewlett Packard HP 35
(...)
The HP-35S

Don't mix the two, please! :)

[rprosperi]

I agree with Max. You can compare top-of-line non-graphing models, or top-of-line under $20 models.

There will be many minor differences between the latter, but the former will reveal that HP provides a wider range of models in the non-graphing category. Not necessarily more models, but models with a wider range of features, for example the 35S. It will also show the HP model is the most expensive, while providing more, but that's probably not news to anyone.

Maybe include both the 300S+ and the 35S, to see all aspects of the comparison.

I look forward to your review, I honestly don't know too much about the other machines.

[Dave Britten]

The 10bII+ comes in around $23 on Amazon, and while it's ostensibly a financial calculator, it also has a full set of scientific functions, hyperbolics, two variable stats (list-based or accumulated), regression, etc. You'll have to live with most of the scientific functions being shifted functions, but that's no worse than the 34C, right?

All the other HPs around this price range are basically rebadged Casios; the 10bII+ is the most uniquely HP model.

[ijabbott]

The HP-35S doesn't fit your criterion of "non-programmable".

[grsbanks]

(11-10-2019 08:19 PM)ijabbott Wrote:  The HP-35S doesn't fit your criterion of "non-programmable".

That's debatable...

[RMollov]

(11-10-2019 08:55 PM)grsbanks Wrote:  That's debatable...

And why so? I don't get the humor here.

[grsbanks]

The 35S is so bug-ridden (GTO and XEQ functions that don't change their target when they should if you alter the code, for example) that the time you spend accounting for them detracts from the actual task at hand, writing your program.

[Guy Macon]

(11-10-2019 08:19 PM)ijabbott Wrote:  The HP-35S doesn't fit your criterion of "non-programmable".

Yeah. I added it to my list mainly because I have one already and I wanted something from HP, but it really is in another class than the others; higher price, butter build quality, programmable (I had actually forgotten about that), no "textbook format display". Please forget that I mentioned it.

[RMollov]

(11-11-2019 06:45 AM)grsbanks Wrote:  The 35S is so bug-ridden (GTO and XEQ functions that don't change their target when they should if you alter the code, for example) that the time you spend accounting for them detracts from the actual task at hand, writing your program.

Fair enough, thanks. I wrote one quite big program for it and it worked well. The luxury you mention was not available on the 41 so I never trusted/used it. Is there any calculator to do so?
The lack of IO is what killed it for me.
Cheers