Why are the HP Prime and HP-35s so unpopular?

[Liam Hays]

Quote:What display mode is your 32s in? Are both calculators set the same?

They're both set to Fix 9. I'm not surprised to hear that the speed of both calculators is affected by precision changes.

As for the Prime, which I haven't mentioned yet, I don't own one. However, I know that I would much rather graph on a high-res color touchscreen than a blue-on-green low-res panel (with the slow graphing environment of a 48). What I would love to see, though it would be expensive, is an OLED screen in a calculator, with a fully adjustable brightness control, so that the machine would be usable in any location, day or night.

I can also see why some people would be adverse to rechargeable batteries---after all, they need an extra cable, they wear out and can be unreliable, and so on---but I don't think the Prime would be nearly as speedy or capable if it ran off a set of three or four AAAs. In addition, a lithium-ion battery makes it possible for the calculator to tell you how much charge is left, something much harder to do on a set of disposables.

That ties my thoughts back to the 35s. A faster processor would help it a lot, but if it means that the machine eats a pair of CR2032s in one month, would it be a worthwhile tradeoff? I don't think so. Which begs the question: surely there's a similar processor with lower current draw out there (cough, cough, Saturn)? Why couldn't HP have put a little time into finding one and building the calculator around it instead?