DM32 from Swiss Micros

[Eric Rechlin]

(05-18-2023 12:57 AM)FLISZT Wrote:  Does anyone know why SwissMicros did not keep the hardware platform used on the DM41X / 42?

The SoC used on the DM41X/DM42 is no longer available so once SwissMicros runs out of their current inventory, they will have to switch to the new SoC used on the DM32. I believe they have a fairly substantial inventory of the DM41X/DM42, so those won't see a replacement for some time, but new calculators like the DM32 have to go on the new SoC.

Also, the old platform used the hopelessly-outdated Micro USB. The new platform uses USB-C, like most other devices from the last 6 years or so.

[FLISZT]

(05-18-2023 04:55 AM)Eric Rechlin Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 12:57 AM)FLISZT Wrote:  Does anyone know why SwissMicros did not keep the hardware platform used on the DM41X / 42?

(…)
The SoC used on the DM41X/DM42 is no longer available so once SwissMicros runs out of their current inventory, they will have to switch to the new SoC used on the DM32.
(…)

Thank you Eric for this insight.
This explains a lot.

Best regards

[EdS2]

(05-18-2023 12:57 AM)FLISZT Wrote:  I don't know what SM's sales targets are, but obviously, opinions are divided because of the price.

Strictly speaking, yes, opinions are divided. But it's a self-selected sample - two or three people are grumpy about paying the asking price (or paying for postage) while many interested parties are simply putting in their pre-order. A much much larger number of people have no interest in buying.

It's easy to miscalibrate on a very small number of complaints.

[carey]

The HP32sii had a small 390 byte programming space. The Swiss Micros DM32 product page lists flash memory size but I don't see user programming memory size mentioned anywhere. Does anyone knows if the DM32's program memory size has been announced? Thanks.

[toml_12953]

Is the DM32 as limited as the HP-32SII was? (384 bytes of memory) If so, I can't see the appeal of this calculator. It seems like the DM42 and even the DM41X have so many programming advantages over it that it wouldn't be worth it to buy the 32.

What are the advantages of the 32, if any?

[johanw]

(05-18-2023 09:42 AM)toml_12953 Wrote:  What are the advantages of the 32, if any?

As the owner of a DM42 and DM15 I'm asking myself the same. For programming the 42 is far superior, for simpler tasks the 15 suffices.

[DA74254]

(05-18-2023 04:04 PM)johanw Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 09:42 AM)toml_12953 Wrote:  What are the advantages of the 32, if any?

As the owner of a DM42 and DM15 I'm asking myself the same. For programming the 42 is far superior, for simpler tasks the 15 suffices.

I'm a "calcoholic".
My signature reflects my calcs (except some 15 non-rpn/l calcs, that's not much used)
Recently obtained a WP43 from the Pilot Run, which looks very promising.
I do, however, have a "need", or at least a purpose, for a SM32. It'll be my daily driver at sea. (I'm a ships engineer, and I prefer calcs over excel when projecting (future) fuel consumption, run hrs oil change prediction and such stuff).
Regarding price; I think it is fairly reasonable. In 1992 (when I had my last year at engineering school) the HP48 was "the new hot" and was advertised at around US$400,- in Norway. Wich, in today's money is a tad over US$700,- (No, I never bought one. I bought second hand, and still have, my trusty old HP-28S).

[jonmoore]

(05-18-2023 05:57 AM)EdS2 Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 12:57 AM)FLISZT Wrote:  I don't know what SM's sales targets are, but obviously, opinions are divided because of the price.

Strictly speaking, yes, opinions are divided. But it's a self-selected sample - two or three people are grumpy about paying the asking price (or paying for postage) while many interested parties are simply putting in their pre-order. A much much larger number of people have no interest in buying.

It's easy to miscalibrate on a very small number of complaints.

I tend to agree with your summary of the situation.

Overnight, I had time to reflect on the valid points Eric mentioned yesterday, and today I asked my kids why they often 'borrow' my 32S or 32Sii. And they said it was because the 32 enables them to get through their class/homework faster than using the 'approved' Casio calculator. In simple terms it has nothing to do with the programmability, but is instead based on the direct access to mathematical functions that involve menu diving on Casio or Ti calculators. Although the older child does use the equation feature and simple step programming.

Excuse the little digression into Casio-land below, but it is pertinent to why I believe that an appropriately priced calculator that follows the design principles of the HP-32S/Sii would be a commercial success . Quite obviously not a mass market sucess, but definitely a 'cult' calculator success nonetheless. Especially if it was targeted at the individualist pre-university math student. Incidentally, mathematics is one of those classes where students are often told to put their tablets, smartphones and laptops away. The graphical calculator is going the way of the Dodo (due to applications/apps like Desmos and GeoGebra), but handheld calculators are preferred in many situations as they minimize distractions.

In fairness to Casio, their approved calculator is the fx-991ex and this is fairly decent with regard to direct access to functions, particularly when using the Australian variant, which my kids prefer as the face-plate is more legible than the Casio's attempts to inject some 'yoof' into the UK version (plus the AU version has LCM & GCD functions which British teachers object to, but only police in exam situations).



However, Casio have ruined what was good about the fx-991ex with the 2023 version which is now even worse than the TI-30X for menu diving, as the vast majority of functions can only be accessed via the Catalog and the simplicity of converting decimal to rational numbers (and between improper and mixed fractions) sits behind a horrendously convoluted Format key.



A classic case of a graphic design solution to an interaction design challenge, compounded by the typical nightmare of decisions by committee.

Back to Eric's points regarding the industrial design choices utilized in the DM32 (SoC architecture, LCD, casing and suchlike), maybe a DM32L landscape design with a cheaper architecture might slot into the product portfolio nicely. After all, you wouldn't buy your learner-driver teenage child a McLaren Speedtail as their first car.

[Nigel (UK)]

(05-18-2023 04:04 PM)johanw Wrote:  

(05-18-2023 09:42 AM)toml_12953 Wrote:  What are the advantages of the 32, if any?

As the owner of a DM42 and DM15 I'm asking myself the same. For programming the 42 is far superior, for simpler tasks the 15 suffices.

The 32 lets you enter algebraic expressions for evaluation, integration, and solving.

Nigel (UK)

[Thomas Radtke]

It seems the 42S vs. 32SII battle still goes on

[Eric Rechlin]

Back in the 1990s, in Texas they had an interscholastic calculator competition at the high school level. It was all about how fast you can use a calculator.

The best-performing students often used the HP 32SII because it has so many functions that are so easily accessible, though its use of RPN and a high-quality keyboard were probably even more significant. It has very limited use of menus so nearly everything is right there on the keyboard, just one or two keystrokes away. What few menus it has only add one more keystroke. That was by itself a big advantage over the 42S and graphing calculators of the time, which buried functionality multiple menus deep or required typing in command names, while still managing more functionality compared to competing scientific calculators from other brands, and now as has been shown it's a big advantage over the current menu-driven scientific models as well.

[lgasca]

(05-18-2023 07:31 PM)Eric Rechlin Wrote:  Back in the 1990s, in Texas they had an interscholastic calculator competition at the high school level. It was all about how fast you can use a calculator.

The best-performing students often used the HP 32SII because it has so many functions that are so easily accessible, though its use of RPN and a high-quality keyboard were probably even more significant. It has very limited use of menus so nearly everything is right there on the keyboard, just one or two keystrokes away. What few menus it has only add one more keystroke. That was by itself a big advantage over the 42S and graphing calculators of the time, which buried functionality multiple menus deep or required typing in command names, while still managing more functionality compared to competing scientific calculators from other brands, and now as has been shown it's a big advantage over the current menu-driven scientific models as well.

UIL Calculator is still a thing, sadly it's become harder to find RPN calcs and many people resort to using TI's for the number crunching. Some students use the prime, but it's cumbersome to use for some of the questions, especially with its solver, but more practice with it can help.