Why no Voyager HP-14C?

[Craig Bladow]

So the HP-16C's designation makes sense, from a power of two stand point. Is there a reason the HP-15C was not called the 14C (15 is more 'complex' than '14'?) or was there a Voyager model that did not make it to market?

[Valentin Albillo]

(08-07-2021 02:59 AM)Craig Bladow Wrote:  So the HP-16C's designation makes sense, from a power of two stand point. Is there a reason the HP-15C was not called the 14C (15 is more 'complex' than '14'?) or was there a Voyager model that did not make it to market?

It's just a matter of subtracting 10 and adding a 'C' if needed to previous models:

HP-21, HP-22, HP-25. ->. HP-11C, HP-12C, HP-15C

V.

[Joe Horn]

(08-07-2021 03:16 AM)Valentin Albillo Wrote:  

(08-07-2021 02:59 AM)Craig Bladow Wrote:  So the HP-16C's designation makes sense, from a power of two stand point. Is there a reason the HP-15C was not called the 14C (15 is more 'complex' than '14'?) or was there a Voyager model that did not make it to market?

It's just a matter of subtracting 10 and adding a 'C' if needed to previous models:

HP-21, HP-22, HP-25. ->. HP-11C, HP-12C, HP-15C

V.

The leap from the HP-26 to the HP-16C was relatively much larger than for those other models.

[Paul Dale]

(08-07-2021 04:14 AM)Joe Horn Wrote:  The leap from the HP-26 to the HP-16C was relatively much larger than for those other models.

Touché.

It needs added shift keys to make them more fun (9 or 10 being the best numbers). I'd also replace the CHS key with something useful. It's a feeble stand-in for 0 x↔y -. And why can't we have a second many-position slide switch like the HP-55 but so much more? And the operators are on the wrong side -- hang on let's not let religion into this, they are perfect either way.

Seriously, I'd joyfully buy multiple four bangers like this. Even more if they could be repurposed. To me: keypress and display are important. I'll accept LCD or LED for the latter but the former is critical.


Pauli

[rprosperi]

(08-07-2021 04:14 AM)Joe Horn Wrote:  The leap from the HP-26 to the HP-16C was relatively much larger than for those other models.

...and thus answering the long-pondered question of what would a 4-banger RPN machine look like?

Like Pauli, I'd buy many, and put then throughout the house, car, and at least one where my wife could find it and I could watch the fun.

Thanks Joe!

[grsbanks]

(08-07-2021 02:59 AM)Craig Bladow Wrote:  So the HP-16C's designation makes sense, from a power of two stand point. Is there a reason the HP-15C was not called the 14C (15 is more 'complex' than '14'?) or was there a Voyager model that did not make it to market?

Let's also not forget that 13C and 14C may have been skipped because 13 is considered unlucky in the West, as is the number 4 in the Far East.

[rprosperi]

(08-07-2021 03:16 AM)Valentin Albillo Wrote:  It's just a matter of subtracting 10 and adding a 'C' if needed to previous models:

HP-21, HP-22, HP-25. ->. HP-11C, HP-12C, HP-15C

V.

Thanks Valentin, I never noticed the correlation between these model numbers.

As far as the 16C model number is concerned, probably no HP or other machine ever had a more appropriate model number, whoever suggested this must have been very satisfied with the idea.

[Didier Lachieze]

(08-07-2021 03:16 AM)Valentin Albillo Wrote:  

(08-07-2021 02:59 AM)Craig Bladow Wrote:  So the HP-16C's designation makes sense, from a power of two stand point. Is there a reason the HP-15C was not called the 14C (15 is more 'complex' than '14'?) or was there a Voyager model that did not make it to market?

It's just a matter of subtracting 10 and adding a 'C' if needed to previous models:

HP-21, HP-22, HP-25. ->. HP-11C, HP-12C, HP-15C

V.

Thanks Valentin, I also never noticed this link between the Woodstocks and the Voyagers. Also the 15C was introduced in 1982 with the 16C, 10 years after the HP-35. HP celebrated this anniversary with a calendar and a brochure so the '5' may also be a reference to the first HP pocket calculator. And after the 11C/12C pair introduced in 1981, it makes sense to have another pair with the 15C/16C.

The Voyagers following the Spices it could have been logical to have the two programmable scientific ending with 3 and 4 as the 33C and the 34C, which would have given the 13C and the 14C, but this was not the HP choice.

For the financial calculators they decided with the 38E and the 37E to keep the first digit of the previous HP-80 and HP-70, and they kept these digits again with the HP-18C and the 17B.

So it seems the numbering skipped one generation: for the scientifics from the Woodstocks to the Voyagers skipping the Spices, and for the financials from the Classics to the Spices skipping the Woodstocks and then to the Clamshells/Pioneers skipping the Voyagers.

[Raymond Del Tondo]

(08-07-2021 07:23 PM)rprosperi Wrote:  As far as the 16C model number is concerned, probably no HP or other machine ever had a more appropriate model number, whoever suggested this must have been very satisfied with the idea.

Yes, but the HP-42S comes close. From a 41 perspective, the 42S may be very near to the ultimate solution;-)
Which it could have been, only lacking display quality and I/O, especially input.

And the 12C has a similar straight model number. 12 months a year, a typical divider for financial people.
Maybe it were the same people who decided for the 12C and 16C model numbers.

[Dave Shaffer]

(08-07-2021 12:55 PM)rprosperi Wrote:  and at least one where my wife could find it and I could watch the fun.

You need a better wife! Mine has her own HP11C and HP32S - so I doubt she would be flummoxed!