Video Review and Tutorial for HP 35s

[lipoff]

I made a little video review and tutorial for the HP 35s:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT9w5MbZinc

My first YouTube video! I'll say this --- making a video is a lot harder than it looks!

I think it'll all be old hat to most readers of this forum, but if someone just got an HP 35s or is curious about how some features work on it, maybe this will be helpful.

I hope my preference for the HP 35s over the HP 42s, HP 15c and WP 34s at the end isn't too controversial!

[Moggul]

I really like the HP-35S. Definitely ine of my favourites.

[Thomas Radtke]

It's in its 13th year without modifications. Amazing.

[Steve Simpkin]

(05-23-2020 10:21 AM)Thomas Radtke Wrote:  It's in its 13th year without modifications. Amazing.

And a little bit sad...
HP 35s Bug List

[lipoff]

(05-23-2020 06:34 PM)Steve Simpkin Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 10:21 AM)Thomas Radtke Wrote:  It's in its 13th year without modifications. Amazing.

And a little bit sad...
HP 35s Bug List

I have to say I don't find the actual bugs nearly as annoying on a day-to-day basis as:

• The thousands separator not showing up until you add the number to the stack
• The exponent trailing off the screen in All display mode
• The x<>y key not being adjacent to the ENTER key
• Having to manually append an h to the end of a hexadecimal number in hexadecimal mode
  

The only actual bug that's ever affected me is the checksum not behaving in a useful manner.

On the other hand, there should never be a doubt that your calculator will return a numerically incorrect answer.

It's still my favorite calculator.

[pinkman]

Yes I really like it too, and the more you use it, the more you find workarounds for the few limits it has (the one that annoys me the more: names of labels or vars).

Thanks for the video, you made an exhaustive demonstration.

[DA74254]

Thanks for the video. Will watch it a bit later.

Amongst all my calcs, I'd say though the 35s is not my favourite as such, but I use it frequently, and I like it. Both the size and design pleases me

[Gerald H]

(05-23-2020 06:34 PM)Steve Simpkin Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 10:21 AM)Thomas Radtke Wrote:  It's in its 13th year without modifications. Amazing.

And a little bit sad...
HP 35s Bug List

No more bugs found since 2015-12-10 - you must admit that's a pretty clean record.

[Thomas Radtke]

(05-23-2020 06:34 PM)Steve Simpkin Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 10:21 AM)Thomas Radtke Wrote:  It's in its 13th year without modifications. Amazing.

And a little bit sad...
HP 35s Bug List

Yes, back then it was a drama, and I thought: Oh no, I'll have to buy a 35SII, too. Later I was wishing there was a 35SII .

[EngineerX]

I would not expect anything more powerful than the 35s if HP decides to launch a new calc. I honestly think the 35s is the last one. They will keep it in production for quite some time until HP decides to quit the buz.

There are other options available from SM.

[Thomas Radtke]

(05-24-2020 12:40 PM)EngineerX Wrote:  There are other options available from SM.

I think the 35S targets the educational market, and as it has been approved for certain tests in the US, it cannot be replaced easily.

I'm pretty sure HP will produce it until components reach EOL.

[mchris]

I didn't know that they're still producingit. It's a surprise for me!

[EngineerX]

(05-24-2020 02:52 PM)Thomas Radtke Wrote:  

(05-24-2020 12:40 PM)EngineerX Wrote:  There are other options available from SM.

I think the 35S targets the educational market, and as it has been approved for certain tests in the US, it cannot be replaced easily.

I'm pretty sure HP will produce it until components reach EOL.

Yes, I think it was HP's best shot at pleasing both "NCEES students" and the people from the 41 era with looks and RPN entry.

If you ask me, I think they did quite well given the 35s was produced under two main constraints:
1. Students would never buy a quality machine (think of the DM42!)
2. Any more advanced (feature wise) and it would not be accepted for the NCEES

It bugs me however that HP never tried to fix the bugs, most probably because the vast majority of users never heard of them.

[Steve Simpkin]

(05-24-2020 01:57 AM)lipoff Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 06:34 PM)Steve Simpkin Wrote:  And a little bit sad...
HP 35s Bug List

I have to say I don't find the actual bugs nearly as annoying on a day-to-day basis as:

• The thousands separator not showing up until you add the number to the stack
• The exponent trailing off the screen in All display mode
• The x<>y key not being adjacent to the ENTER key
• Having to manually append an h to the end of a hexadecimal number in hexadecimal mode
  

The only actual bug that's ever affected me is the checksum not behaving in a useful manner.

On the other hand, there should never be a doubt that your calculator will return a numerically incorrect answer.

It's still my favorite calculator.

Agreed. I've not really run into the "bugs" myself. While not my favorite HP, I quite like the HP35s. Thank you for the video!

[Steve Simpkin]

(05-24-2020 04:57 PM)EngineerX Wrote:  

(05-24-2020 02:52 PM)Thomas Radtke Wrote:  I think the 35S targets the educational market, and as it has been approved for certain tests in the US, it cannot be replaced easily.

I'm pretty sure HP will produce it until components reach EOL.

Yes, I think it was HP's best shot at pleasing both "NCEES students" and the people from the 41 era with looks and RPN entry.

If you ask me, I think they did quite well given the 35s was produced under two main constraints:
1. Students would never buy a quality machine (think of the DM42!)
2. Any more advanced (feature wise) and it would not be accepted for the NCEES

It bugs me however that HP never tried to fix the bugs, most probably because the vast majority of users never heard of them.

Some insights on the development of the HP35s from Tim Wessman.

"No, that is what the calculator group at the tail end of the "let's outsource all our software and hardware development and make stuff just as good but cheaper and quicker" stage was able to produce under the management and with the budget allocated."

"The goal was to a) make money, b) fix the abomination that was the 33s (hey look! It has a modern shape and shiny colors! Look how cool it is!), and c) to give a nice improvement in capability and functionality while still meeting NCEES requirements."

https://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap...ead=191740

[Thomas Radtke]

(05-24-2020 04:57 PM)EngineerX Wrote:  It bugs me however that HP never tried to fix the bugs, most probably because the vast majority of users never heard of them.

Implementing the firmware was outsourced to Kinpo, so HP only had the specs book. I think that reason was named, but it cannot be the whole truth. The 35s software stems from the 33s, even shares some bugs. But there was an update to the 33s, both hard- and software, and the huge evolution to what the 35s became.

I see no reason why Kinpo shouldn't have been able to debug the code. First and most bugs were found in the first few months after the machine came out.

[grsbanks]

(05-24-2020 07:37 PM)Thomas Radtke Wrote:  I see no reason why Kinpo shouldn't have been able to debug the code. First and most bugs were found in the first few months after the machine came out.

They will have already moved on to something else by then. Going back to the 35s to address the bugs wouldn't have brought any extra money in. Unlike the HP of yesteryear, Kinpo don't give a flying f*** about any particular calculator or the heritage it is supposed to have.

[BillBee]

Kudos! That was a really good video.

The 35s and 33s are the only HPs allowed for the PE exams (as of 2019 at least). Hopefully, they will continue with the concept as it gives hope (usb port, flash memory - dreams).

Take Care,
Bill

[DM48]

I enjoy the 35s and love its feel and that is not something I have said about an HP calculator since the 48G series. I have had to put it down since starting the path to learn the 42s.

HP producing for the serious professional scientific/engineering crowd days are done IMHO. Such a shame since the 42s and 48GX could have been so much more with today's tech.