HP calculator geneology

[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.