The programmable calculator the HP-30b should have been

[Joseph_21sv]

The 30b is financial and uses a three-digit exponent even though it “does not need” to use exponents of ten for any earthly reason, especially with its 15 digit precision. Therefore, since the point of this calculator is that it is the calculator the 30b should have been, it inherits the “unnecessary” exponent display of the 30b.

[Joseph_21sv]

Here are the preliminary specifications of the CW-32B
Display size: 7x83 dot matrix+15+3 seven segment digits
Display color: Black/Red/Green
Numerical precision: 15 digits
Entry method: RPN, but dot matrix can be set to display textbook notation
Memory: 74 numbers [A…Z, a…z, 0…9, .0….9, theta, (I)]+144 numbers addressed by (I)
Memory arithmetic: + - * / ^
Mode settings: non-volatile
Basic arithmetic + - * / ^ with shortcuts to x^2 sqrt(x) x! % %change %total
Special functions:
Redefinable keyboard: yes
Shift keys: yes
Alphabetic characters: accessible by ALPHA key
Exponentials, Logarithms: base e, 10, y
Trigonometrics: circular, hyperbolic, shortcut for pi tau=2*pi eta=pi/2 sigma=pi/4, degree and radian measure
Statistics:
Types: x, x-weight, x-y, x-y-weight, x-x1-y
Storage: 96 data points
Summation: x, x1, y, x*x1, x*y, x1*y, x*x1*y, x^2, x1^2, y^2
Measures of central tendency: Mean x, x weighted, x1, y, y weighted; population/sample standard deviation x, x weighted, x1, y, y weighted; population/sample standard error x, x weighted, x1, y, y weighted; covariance; Minimum, Q1, Median, Q3, Maximum x, x1, y
Regression models: O(f(x)^4|f(x) in {x^a, 1/O(x^4), e^ax, ln(O(x)), sin(O(x)), sec(O(x)), sinh(O(x)), sech(O(x))})
Probability distributions: same as WP-34S
(Pseudo-)Random Number Generator
Date entry: month/day/year, day/month/year
Date calculations: 30/360, actual/actual
Menus/Prompts: yes—scrolling menus with softkeys
RPN stack roll: bidirectional
Radix mark: selectable ./,
Thousands separator: toggleable
Number formats: FIX/FLOAT
Equation Solver: yes
Absolute value, integer truncation: both
Business/Financial functions:
TVM solvers: standard, odd-period, Canadian, Lunisolar (P/nYR, C/nYR)
TVM shortcuts: n=x*P/YR, i=x/C/YR
Cash flow capacity: 96 groups, unlimited frequency
Cash flow analysis: NPV, NFV, NUS, IRR, MIRR, FMRR, normal/discounted PBP
Bond calculations: all types, price, yield, coupon rate, accrued interest, normal/modified Macaulay duration
Amortization: accumulated interest, balance
Depreciation calculations: Standard/French Straight line, Declining balance with or without crossover, Sum of Years’ digits, French Amortization, US Accelerated Cost Recovery System
Markup calculations: percent of cost and price
Break-even analysis: yes
Black-Scholes equation: yes
Interest rate conversions: yes
Programming features:
Storage: 576 steps
Model:
Editing:
Display: yes
Flow control:
Branch target: addressed by step number or label
Unconditional branching: yes
Conditional branching: any
Subroutines: GSB step number, XEQ label
Loops: any
Addressing: direct and indirect
Flags: yes
As you can see, I am up in the air about whether the calculator should be keystroke programmable or use a more sophisticated, computer-like, programming language and whether it should have one or two shift keys. What do you all think about these issues?

[toml_12953]

(09-01-2014 12:50 PM)walter b Wrote:  

(09-01-2014 08:49 AM)Don Shepherd Wrote:  The original post "cries" for table formatting.

+1.

In *my* world, we say 1. +

[walter b]

(09-07-2014 01:07 AM)Joseph_21sv Wrote:  Here are the preliminary specifications of the CW-32B
Display size: 7x83 dot matrix+15+3 seven segment digits
Display color: Black/Red/Green
...
What do you all think about these issues?

Looks like a wish list for Xmas to me. As I wrote earlier, dreams are for free. On the other hand, is there anything like a layout, some HW components, a platform you want to build on, etc.? Else this list would be just another example of vapourware(TM) - a kind of material this forum is full of, BTW.

d:-?

[Paul Dale]

... and the kitchen sink

You missed a date format Y.M.D.


- Pauli

[peacecalc]

Hello friends,

here a little table of @Joseph_21sv list. It is raw, but a possible choice to work with if you like.

Greetings
peaceglue

[Joseph_21sv]

Personally, I envision the CW-32B laid out in a portrait orientation (I find it awkward to carry a landscape oriented calculator such as the HP-10/11/12/15/16C in a shirt pocket—not in the least because you have to rotate it a quarter turn every time you want to use it and every time you want to put it back in). But what do you all think? Should the CW-32B have a portrait or landscape orientation?

[Joseph_21sv]

Three polls about the design of the CW-32B:
One or two shift keys?
Keystroke programmable calculator or financial pocket computer?
Portrait or landscape orientation? (I am leaning towards portrait because it is less awkward to carry it around in a pocket while one has it idle)
What are everybody's opinions or these issues?

[Thomas Radtke]

(09-08-2014 01:10 AM)Joseph_21sv Wrote:  [...] I am leaning towards portrait because it is less awkward to carry it around in a pocket [...]

If you're not a citizen of Schilda, you could always rotate it by 90° ;-p.

[Joseph_21sv]

(09-08-2014 09:40 AM)Thomas Radtke Wrote:  

(09-08-2014 01:10 AM)Joseph_21sv Wrote:  [...] I am leaning towards portrait because it is less awkward to carry it around in a pocket [...]

If you're not a citizen of Schilda, you could always rotate it by 90° ;-p.

Rotate it by 90°? I have just said having to do that to shift the calculator between operation and the pocket is the biggest part of what makes landscape oriented pocket calculators awkward to carry in a pocket: Ever thought why the 10C series is mostly discontinued in spite of its popularity? They are pocket calculators, and most pockets are designed to carry electronic devices which are portrait oriented, making them, being landscape oriented, awkward to actually carry in a pocket—even though they can obviously fit there.

[walter b]

(09-07-2014 01:31 AM)toml_12953 Wrote:  

(09-01-2014 12:50 PM)walter b Wrote:  +1.

In *my* world, we say 1. +

Ok, 1+

[Thomas Radtke]

(09-08-2014 03:23 PM)Joseph_21sv Wrote:  I have just said having to do that to shift the calculator between operation and the pocket is the biggest part of what makes landscape oriented pocket calculators awkward to carry in a pocket:

That was kind of tl;dr, and still I couldn't resist - big sorry!

Interesting complaint, never heard of anything like that, and never noticed a problem to put the 15C into the shirt pocket.

[Joseph_21sv]

(08-31-2014 09:24 PM)Thomas Radtke Wrote:  I put it this way: Just once needed to program the 30b, I was surprised I could access the TVM variables. Everything went smooth, programmability reflected what I was needing. So, in my limited view on the 30b it is as good as I need it to be. It was even better than expected.

More memory means more programs means more grey matter based memory needed to remember what all those programs are for ;-). Just kidding, I understand your point, of course.

But don’t you agree that the 30b smacks more of programmable calculator firmware for the 20b than a calculator of its own? I mean, it needs a keyboard overlay to indicate where all the programming functions are because they are all accessible by a shift key—sort of makes one wonder why HP bothered to give it programmability at all, much more a programming model similar to that of the 35s and 150+% of the program capacity of the original 12c.

[Tim Wessman]

(09-08-2014 04:47 PM)Joseph_21sv Wrote:  But don’t you agree that the 30b smacks more of programmable calculator firmware for the 20b than a calculator of its own?

Of course it is the same as a 20b. The difference between them was a better keyboard, higher quality ID, and some additional functionality. Why would it need to be "totally different" in order to be considered a separate calculator?

The code base is identical, as a simple switch would allow you to build one or the other.

The overlay was because that printed top surface piece needed a very, very long lead time and programming wasn't yet complete. It has nothing to do with "slapping it together" and everything to do with lead times, supply chain, and development times.

[Don Shepherd]

(09-08-2014 04:47 PM)Joseph_21sv Wrote:  sort of makes one wonder why HP bothered to give it programmability at all

Programmability is always great for those who need or want to customize the calculator to do things particular to their needs. The clear plastic overlay was a good way to add programmability but at the same time keep the keyboard neat and clean for those (the majority) who don't care about programming. I think that concept worked well in the case of the 30b.

[Thomas Radtke]

(09-08-2014 04:51 PM)Tim Wessman Wrote:  The overlay was because that printed top surface piece needed a very, very long lead time and programming wasn't yet complete.

It is now :-). To difficult to update this design?

Joseph_21sv Wrote:But don’t you agree that the 30b smacks more of programmable calculator firmware for the 20b than a calculator of its own?

In addition to what Tim said, there's an interesting mistake in the first edition 20b manual, mentioning programmability. Just think of this couple as twins with one of them having its legs ablated.

[Joseph_21sv]

(09-08-2014 05:12 PM)Thomas Radtke Wrote:  

(09-08-2014 04:51 PM)Tim Wessman Wrote:  The overlay was because that printed top surface piece needed a very, very long lead time and programming wasn't yet complete.

It is now :-). To difficult to update this design?

Joseph_21sv Wrote:But don’t you agree that the 30b smacks more of programmable calculator firmware for the 20b than a calculator of its own?

In addition to what Tim said, there's an interesting mistake in the first edition 20b manual, mentioning programmability. Just think of this couple as twins with one of them having its legs ablated.

That just begs the question: If HP made that mistake in the first edition 20b manual, why is the Business Professional calculator numbered 30b rather than 20bII? In fact, why didn’t HP just make the 20b originally programmable like the whole world thought they must have intended to do from seeing that mistake?

[Tim Wessman]

(09-08-2014 07:09 PM)Joseph_21sv Wrote:  That just begs the question: If HP made that mistake in the first edition 20b manual, why is the Business Professional calculator numbered 30b rather than 20bII? In fact, why didn’t HP just make the 20b originally programmable like the whole world thought they must have intended to do from seeing that mistake?

It wasn't a mistake. Two products - two price points. What is so difficult to understand about that? That is a universal marketing/business strategy.

The manuals were meant to be the same for both products, with sections saying "in the 30b, ...." to include additional information for the custom features.

See: 48GII/49g+
BAII+/BAII+ Professional
iPhone 5s/iPhone 5c

[Joseph_21sv]

(09-08-2014 07:20 PM)Tim Wessman Wrote:  

(09-08-2014 07:09 PM)Joseph_21sv Wrote:  That just begs the question: If HP made that mistake in the first edition 20b manual, why is the Business Professional calculator numbered 30b rather than 20bII? In fact, why didn’t HP just make the 20b originally programmable like the whole world thought they must have intended to do from seeing that mistake?

It wasn't a mistake. Two products - two price points. What is so difficult to understand about that? That is a universal marketing/business strategy.

The manuals were meant to be the same for both products, with sections saying "in the 30b, ...." to include additional information for the custom features.

See: 48GII/49g+
BAII+/BAII+ Professional
iPhone 5s/iPhone 5c

The way @Thomas Radtke wrote the comment that I quoted, it gives me the impression that he means the edition of the manual which shipped with the first few batches of 20b units in 2008. But it sort of still is a more subtle mistake: For several months HP appeared to have released a product that didn’t actually exist yet and confused consumers sent back hundreds of perfectly functional calculators mistakenly thinking they were defective. This mixup effectively gave away that HP would be using the two products-two price points strategy with their “Super 10BII” calculator before they were even started thinking of what that second price point might be—admittedly HP didn’t really need to use that strategy as they discontinued the 20b the year after they released the 30b. What I actually don’t understand about all that is why HP would accidentally give away what they were doing and then quietly discontinue one product upon realizing that they had made the other to supersede it by so much—why not just make the more sophisticated one in the first place like they actually made people mistakenly think they had done? Doing that would have saved the unnecessary returns of what would have been hundreds of perfectly functional calculators but for the documented feature that the calculators actually didn’t have—and also two years of consumers waiting for the other shoe to drop. Ultimately, I guess I don’t understand why two products-two price points is so universal that it is even used for twin products where the one twin product supersedes the other by so much that the other is discontinued after the release of that product.

[Thomas Radtke]

(09-09-2014 01:14 AM)Joseph_21sv Wrote:  The way @Thomas Radtke wrote the comment that I quoted, it gives me the impression that he means the edition of the manual which shipped with the first few batches of 20b units in 2008.

Exactly, and that was before the 30b came out.

http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/...ead=138052

(message #4)

Edit: What I forgot - both calcs are physically different. The 20b has a terrible keyboard.

Edit 2: Also interesting - http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/...ead=152580