I'm in love

[richmit]

When I left school in 1999 and entered the workforce it became a pain to carry my trusty HP-48GX around with me to meetings -- oddly enough people don't lug around book bags with them in the corporate world like we did in school.

So I needed a pocketable scientific calculator, and the HP-42S became my constant companion. I love that calculator, but sometimes it frustrates me because so much of it's functionality is hidden in menus.

I tried just about every calculator on the market, and they all were underwhelming -- especially for complex numbers which are very important to me. Eventually, in 2013, I came across the Casio fx-5800P. It didn't do everything the 42 did, but it has passable complex number support and was quicker for simple calculations. Not RPN but I adapted. I have been using it for the last 10 years.

Recently I picked up an HP-15CE. I'm completely blown away by this little gem! It's fantastic! No menus. No soft keys. Everything I need no more than two key presses away, and none of the junk I don't need. I can do things with this machine with a few keystrokes that would have taken a dozen or more before. And it has the most efficient complex number support I've ever seen!

I'm in love.

It is incredible to me that a 40 year old calculator design turns out to be my perfect everyday companion.

[Johnh]

I agree! Im a calc user since the mid '70's and still a full time structural engineer.

Over the last few months, my HP15C CE has been the one I reach for everyday. It's so well designed, compact, clear, direct and positive to use. Alternatives for me are an HP35S, a couple of school Casios and a Samsung full of Android emulations of every HP I can find. I use the Touch 15C if I'm not on the real one.

[John Garza (3665)]

(01-28-2024 05:03 AM)richmit Wrote:  So I needed a pocketable scientific calculator, and the HP-42S became my constant companion. I love that calculator, but sometimes it frustrates me because so much of it's functionality is hidden in menus.

Contrast that with the prior 41C with NO menus, and the majority of functions NOT visible on the keyboard. Now, that's hidden.

Though I like the 15 and the newer model of it, my work entails low light conditions, so LCDs are sometimes difficult to read. If it only had a backlight....

-J

[bxparks]

(01-28-2024 05:03 AM)richmit Wrote:  So I needed a pocketable scientific calculator, and the HP-42S became my constant companion. I love that calculator, but sometimes it frustrates me because so much of it's functionality is hidden in menus.

I'm curious, can you expand on which functions you found difficult to access on the 42S versus the 15C? For complex numbers that you mention, I find the 42S easier because it has a 2-line display, and the complex number is displayed on a single line, instead of being split into Re and Im parts. I think most functions that operate on complex numbers are accessible using a button the 42S.

The problem I have with the 15C is that I don't use the 15C often enough to remember all the shortcuts, flags, and magic incantations needed access some features. A soft menu system seems easier on my brain, especially since I cycle through many different brands and types of calculators. I also find the single-line display of the 15C limiting. Maybe I've been spoiled by smartphones and the large displays on modern calculators. There are also critical features (for me) missing on the 15C, like bitwise BASE operations. The 42S has enough BASE functions for emergencies, but even that can be too limited in some cases compared to the 16C.

[richmit]

(01-28-2024 05:27 PM)bxparks Wrote:  

(01-28-2024 05:03 AM)richmit Wrote:  So I needed a pocketable scientific calculator, and the HP-42S became my constant companion. I love that calculator, but sometimes it frustrates me because so much of it's functionality is hidden in menus.

I'm curious, can you expand on which functions you found difficult to access on the 42S versus the 15C? For complex numbers that you mention, I find the 42S easier because it has a 2-line display, and the complex number is displayed on a single line, instead of being split into Re and Im parts. I think most functions that operate on complex numbers are accessible using a button the 42S.

Mostly it was the hyperbolics, angle conversions, rectangular/polar, and stats.

The efficiency for complex numbers is close with the 42S, but I really like the dual stack approach on the 15C. Part of it is the simplicity -- no need for functions like Re, Im, Conj, Abs, or Arg. Or the way you enter pure imaginary numbers (on the 15C "123.4 [shift] [IM<>RE]" vs "0 [enter] 123.4 [shift] [complex]" on the 42S).

A good deal of this could come down to the way my neurodivergent brain perceives things. Sometimes I'm drawn to a technology because it simply feels "comfortable" or "elegant". But it only feels that way to me because I don't always process things the same way as other people.

(01-28-2024 05:27 PM)bxparks Wrote:  The problem I have with the 15C is that I don't use the 15C often enough to remember all the shortcuts, flags, and magic incantations needed access some features. A soft menu system seems easier on my brain, especially since I cycle through many different brands and types of calculators.

This is true. It took me a couple days to get that bit down, and if I didn't use it all the time I would probably forget that stuff.

(01-28-2024 05:27 PM)bxparks Wrote:  There are also critical features (for me) missing on the 15C, like bitwise BASE operations. The 42S has enough BASE functions for emergencies, but even that can be too limited in some cases compared to the 16C.

I use the 16C for that stuff. It pretty much lives on my electronics work bench right beside the logic analyzer display.

I wrote a several programs for the 42 to do base-n stuff. I have them all on github with several other programs. You might find them useful when you are away from your 16C.

https://richmit.github.io/hp42/base.html

[bxparks]

(01-28-2024 07:03 PM)richmit Wrote:  Mostly it was the hyperbolics, angle conversions, rectangular/polar, and stats.

Definitely agree that HYP functions are hard to reach on the 42S. Did you try assigning them to the CUSTOM menus? That's only 3 keystrokes.

With regards to angle and polar conversions, I personally think the CONVERT menu on the 42S is easy enough to use. The 15C wins for having direct buttons for those.

As for stats, I think the 42S wins over the 15C here. I couldn't remember if the 15C even did curve fitting (consults manual: only does linear regression), and I couldn't remember how to use the various keys ([y,r], [L.R.]) without consulting the manual. The menu system on the 42S is easier to remember for me.

(01-28-2024 07:03 PM)richmit Wrote:  The efficiency for complex numbers is close with the 42S, but I really like the dual stack approach on the 15C. Part of it is the simplicity -- no need for functions like Re, Im, Conj, Abs, or Arg. Or the way you enter pure imaginary numbers (on the 15C "123.4 [shift] [IM<>RE]" vs "0 [enter] 123.4 [shift] [complex]" on the 42S).

Agree that entering complex numbers on the 42S was cumbersome. I like the 35s method, with a dedicated Complex-i button which makes your example just "[i] 123.4". I liked it so much that added that to my RPN83P calculator app, so your example becomes just "[2ND] [i] 123.4".

(01-28-2024 07:03 PM)richmit Wrote:  I use the 16C for that stuff. It pretty much lives on my electronics work bench right beside the logic analyzer display.

Heh. I don't have a 16C. I used to pull out my phone for JRPN 16C. But now I use RPN83P because I added all the 16C functions that I need.

(01-28-2024 07:03 PM)richmit Wrote:  I wrote a several programs for the 42 to do base-n stuff. I have them all on github with several other programs. You might find them useful when you are away from your 16C.
https://richmit.github.io/hp42/base.html

Cool, thanks for the link. You got some interesting stuff in your repo.

[dm319]

It's funny, but one thing I noticed when I tried some fun with TVM calculations was that there was a directness to using the HP-12c, exactly what johnh says above. It makes it a real pleasure to use and highly optimised for doing the kind of calculations you'd use a calculator for.

I'm not sure exactly what factors give this feeling - but the distance of the screen from the numeric pad is very short on the voyager calculators. And the screen is high contrast, large figures and very clear (not dot matrix!). As you are entering in numbers, you can see the clear LCD screen updating very close to where your eyes are focusing on, and I wonder if that is partly what makes it so satisfying to use.

[floppy]

(01-28-2024 05:03 AM)richmit Wrote:  It is incredible to me that a 40 year old calculator design turns out to be my perfect everyday companion.

It has a PC-link for saving programs? or SD?

[richmit]

(01-29-2024 11:21 AM)dm319 Wrote:  It's funny, but one thing I noticed when I tried some fun with TVM calculations was that there was a directness to using the HP-12c, exactly what johnh says above. It makes it a real pleasure to use and highly optimised for doing the kind of calculations you'd use a calculator for.

I'm not sure exactly what factors give this feeling - but the distance of the screen from the numeric pad is very short on the voyager calculators. And the screen is high contrast, large figures and very clear (not dot matrix!). As you are entering in numbers, you can see the clear LCD screen updating very close to where your eyes are focusing on, and I wonder if that is partly what makes it so satisfying to use.

Yes. Something about the Voyagers (I have the 12c, 16c, and 15ce) is very satisfying. Using them just makes me happy.

Part of it is the exquisite design. Someone very smart thought so very hard about precisely what capabilities to include, and how to make everything work together. On such limited hardware too.

[carey]

(01-28-2024 05:03 AM)richmit Wrote:  Eventually, in 2013, I came across the Casio fx-5800P. It didn't do everything the 42 did, but it has passable complex number support and was quicker for simple calculations. Not RPN but I adapted. I have been using it for the last 10 years.

You may find interesting a recent (Jan 24, 2024) report at TI-planet.org on two emulators for the Casio fx-5800P, along with a discussion of some OS hooks discovered in ROM that weren't fully implemented. While written in French, Google will translate.

[dm319]

I'd still hanker for a voyager style HP-42s like this one. I understand they couldn't make the buttons work with the screen though.

[Paul Dale]

Get yourself a DM 42 and convert to a C47.
I am not aware of anyone who has gone back to the 42S layout.

Stick on overlays to convert the C47 aren't expensive and work amazingly well. All the keycaps are unchanged.

The C47 has become my favourite calculator ever.
I've compared it with the WP 43 (I'm the P in WP BTW) and the C47 is**much** easier to use.


Pauli

[vaklaff]

(01-29-2024 10:25 PM)carey Wrote:  You may find interesting a recent (Jan 24, 2024) report at TI-planet.org on two emulators for the Casio fx-5800P, along with a discussion of some OS hooks discovered in ROM that weren't fully implemented. While written in French, Google will translate.

Thanks for the pointer, indeed an interesting story! I own an fx-5800P, it brought me back to calculators after decades without them, I was curious how a modern programmable looked like, but can't say we clicked. No reason, definitely a subjective thing. Several years later and with a small fleet of programmables of various vintages, I have to say I pretty much share richmit's feelings. It's a 15c which is on my desk permanently and its simulator gets most usage of all the sims/emus in my phone. And this small Casio detour is back to the OP's topic :-)

[Dave Britten]

(01-30-2024 05:21 AM)Paul Dale Wrote:  Get yourself a DM 42 and convert to a C47.
I am not aware of anyone who has gone back to the 42S layout.

Stick on overlays to convert the C47 aren't expensive and work amazingly well. All the keycaps are unchanged.

The C47 has become my favourite calculator ever.
I've compared it with the WP 43 (I'm the P in WP BTW) and the C47 is**much** easier to use.


Pauli

Hmm, I should give this a try. I haven't done much with my DM42 lately.

Personally, I've always thought the 11C was HP's most elegant design. The 15C is certainly more powerful and capable, but the keyboard overloading they had to do to add matrix and complex number operations resulted in quite a few functions that are not at all discoverable or intuitive (such as Px,y and Cx,y having special meaning for matrices). An 11C with the solve function and a little bit more memory would probably be my ideal Voyager.

[John Garza (3665)]

...and there is a difference between the everyday-knock-about-calculator, and the one used for serious programming. So consider the use case.

There are lots of usability issues involved in small personal devices like calculators, phones, etc.
It makes deciding 'the best one' something like a weighted decision matrix. And the weights can vary from person to person.

I sincerely WISH I could settle on a single best calculator. I haven't been able to do that, so I end up cycling through my machines, with one 'on the deck' ready to go at any given moment. And yes, there is a 15C in that mix. A good machine, but lacks other features that keeps it from being number one for me.

The search goes on...
How many closets should I allocate to this hobby anyway?

-J

[Thomas Klemm]

(01-30-2024 05:49 PM)Dave Britten Wrote:  Personally, I've always thought the 11C was HP's most elegant design.

(03-23-2014 05:46 PM)Thomas Klemm Wrote:  My favourite calculator is the HP-11C.
It has all I ever need. And nothing more.

[Dave Britten]

(01-30-2024 06:08 PM)John Garza (3665) Wrote:  ...and there is a difference between the everyday-knock-about-calculator, and the one used for serious programming. So consider the use case.

There are lots of usability issues involved in small personal devices like calculators, phones, etc.
It makes deciding 'the best one' something like a weighted decision matrix. And the weights can vary from person to person.

I sincerely WISH I could settle on a single best calculator. I haven't been able to do that, so I end up cycling through my machines, with one 'on the deck' ready to go at any given moment. And yes, there is a 15C in that mix. A good machine, but lacks other features that keeps it from being number one for me.

The search goes on...
How many closets should I allocate to this hobby anyway?

-J

Perfect is the enemy of good enough. My multiple bins full of calculators are proof of that.

[John Keith]

(01-30-2024 05:49 PM)Dave Britten Wrote:  Personally, I've always thought the 11C was HP's most elegant design. The 15C is certainly more powerful and capable, but the keyboard overloading they had to do to add matrix and complex number operations resulted in quite a few functions that are not at all discoverable or intuitive (such as Px,y and Cx,y having special meaning for matrices). An 11C with the solve function and a little bit more memory would probably be my ideal Voyager.

As impressive as the 15C was technologically, I have to agree. Since the advent of the 48 series, I don't even think of using the 15C for matrix or complex calculations. The 11C has a permanent place on my desk.

[Peter Klein]

I keep thinking about buying a 15c CE. I keep deciding not to. It's a case of nostalgia and HP Acquisition Syndrome vs. practicality. It boils down to several factors.

I can live with the Voyager's "landscape" orientation, but don't love it. I have big hands, and the number keys are too close together for me to "touch type." That's me, others don't mind. On the other hand, the Voyagers have the clearest, most readable display of all the HP calculators. I do love that. So there's a major ergonomic trade-off.

I used an 11c as my daily driver for years, after my HP-25 lost its memory and programming ability. The 11c does pretty much everything I truly need. And everything that the 15c does that the 11c doesn't, the 42s and DM42 do as well or better. And they also have Hex/Decimal/Binary conversions and arithmetic. I prefer the Pioneer form factor. That preference is tempered by the fact that the Pioneers have a tendency to lose contact with the rightmost column of keys, and are not easily fixable. The Voyagers are more rugged, and more fixable up to a point.

Debugging and modifying a program on the Voyagers is a royal pain, due to the numbers-only programming display. I was very disappointed that the 15c LE and CE did not include a flag that, when set, would show alphanumerics like STO 5 instead of 44 5. With the new hardware, I don't think that would have been all that difficult to implement, and I believe it would have significantly increased sales. Yes, I understand the limitations of the otherwise beautiful 7-segment display. But with a little creative use of mixed case letters, etc. it would have been quite doable. Look how the Panamatic "Low Power" ACT handles this issue. A few symbols and letters look a bit odd, but that is still much easier than remembering every key position.

Then there's the most vexing issue with all the earlier calculators--the lack of ability to save and load programs from a computer. Let's say you have several medium to large-sized programs that you use regularly. They either won't all fit in memory, or they interfere with each other. The only way to change from one program to another is to erase Program A and key in Program B.

Question: Does (or will) the new POGO programming cable allow the backing up and restoring of user programs? A USB connection would be better. But the ability to use the POGO cable for I/O would be very nice.

All these things taken together made me decide to buy a DM42 rather than at 15c CE. And yet, I still sort of want a 15c CE, just to have the ultimate Voyager. I just can't justify the expense, especially given how many other calculators I own. Others may feel differently, and I understand. Some days I feel differently, too.

[John Garza (3665)]

(01-30-2024 10:24 PM)Peter Klein Wrote:  Then there's the most vexing issue with all the earlier calculators--the lack of ability to save and load programs from a computer. Let's say you have several medium to large-sized programs that you use regularly. They either won't all fit in memory, or they interfere with each other. The only way to change from one program to another is to erase Program A and key in Program B.

Back when HP introduced Continuous Memory with the 25C, they said it was for those who use only a few programs repeatedly. It still holds true. It's really not for 'serious programming'. Contrast that with the mag card programmables where you could build a personal library of hundreds of programs and load one in 2 seconds or so.

Read/Write with a PC is a nice feature, but if I have to carry around a laptop, why do I need a calculator? It's a nice feature for documenting/archiving programs though.

-J