hp35s amazon reviews VS MoHPC reviews

[pier4r]

In my explorations of the MoHPC forums (especially the MyBB version) I read only, well, bad reviews over the 35s. So many, in fact, that I wouldn't touch it with a 10 meter stick.

How come that on amazon the calculator has so many reviews (700+!) with such positive rating?

[Gerald H]

Negative reviews in the Forum probably due to the data in this veridical document:

http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/...i?read=735

I find the 35s very comfortable to use & programme.

I have 27 units & use them in my classes.

I didn't intend to get 27, but of the 19 I bought 8 were defective, most of the considerations being about non-functioning keys.

HP did quickly send a replacement unit each time, so I ended up with 27 - 19 working well & 8 crippled but I can't bring myself to throw them away nor can I use them in class.

8 defective in 19 units - Acceptable?

[pier4r]

(10-29-2017 10:01 AM)Gerald H Wrote:  8 defective in 19 units - Acceptable?

Well depends on the batch. Sometimes there are batch of hard drives, in 2017, that are a lump of garbage (well now, let's say they have many sectors that die too quickly). We talk about thousands of items.

If a product is always defective, then it is less acceptable.

[Maximilian Hohmann]

Hello!

(10-29-2017 09:31 AM)pier4r Wrote:  In my explorations of the MoHPC forums (especially the MyBB version) I read only, well, bad reviews over the 35s. So many, in fact, that I wouldn't touch it with a 10 meter stick.

For some reason, the reviewers on this forum highlighted only the bad aspects of this calculator. The weird bugs, 99,9% of all users will never encounter in real life, and the keyboard issues with some batches.

Myself I have two of these calculators and both have good keyboards. My only criticism is the high battery drain which at least one of my specimens suffers from - it will flatten it's batteries within two months just lying in a drawer. But allegedly only some batches were affected by this illness and someone on this forum found a solution by replacing a capacitor, if I remember correctly (I mainly collect them and don't care too much - just take the batteries out when I'm not using it).

Otherwise I think it is a good calculator with a nicely feeling keyboard in best HP tradition and a well readable display. I would rate it a 8 out of 10 points for a programmable scientific calculator.

Regards
Max

[rprosperi]

(10-29-2017 01:45 PM)Maximilian Hohmann Wrote:  For some reason, the reviewers on this forum highlighted only the bad aspects of this calculator. The weird bugs, 99,9% of all users will never encounter in real life, and the keyboard issues with some batches.

If you read all the threads about the '35S, you will see there are many critical ones, but also many positive ones. In general (keyboard and battery flaws aside, seemingly related to mfg batches which all products suffer from) this is a very nice RPN calculator, with a nice mix of features and optional settings. Most of the true shortcomings (e.g. R->P conversion IIRC) have had simple workarounds documented.

I agree 99.9% of users will never notice the issues, they are all fairly esoteric. However the one flaw I could not overlook is the buggy program CRC routines which make it impossible to verify one has properly entered a program from a listing documented with the 'proper' CRC value.

As Dieter and others have quite correctly commented, this is no worse than most earlier models which had no CRC feature at all, with the annoying exception that it can make you review an entered program many times looking for the error that isn't really there. Many folks have tried to characterize that flaw, but as far as I know no one has.

So, yes, it really is a very good calculator for most folks, however the vast majority of members on this Forum do not typically fit in the 'most folks' category. Note that is not criticism, just rationale to understand why a generally popular calculator can appear to have a bad reputation here at MoHPC.

My advice is buy one and try it; most likely you will like it. I like mine and use it often, despite the many flaws and comments I've made about it's issues.

[DA74254]

(10-29-2017 10:01 AM)Gerald H Wrote:  Negative reviews in the Forum probably due to the data in this veridical document:

http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/...i?read=735

I find the 35s very comfortable to use & programme.

Removed the part of the quote I cannot verify as mine is not defective.
Anyway, I tried the first few of the "buggy" things listed at the mentioned link.

Cos 89,9999999999 (10 9's behind decimal point) Gives 1,74532925199E-12
Wolfram Alpha: 1,74532925199(cont:43295769...)E-12
Within the "range" of the 35s, it's correct.

Tan 89,9999999999: 572957795131
Wolfram: 572957795130,876798...

Please tell me where (and what) is "dud" here.

Listing 5 I don't understand as one can only have 800 indirect stored instances..?

And so, except from not giving "i" in sqrt(-1) and not giving 0^0 as undef (or, as some claim; 1) I'm satisfied with my unit. It works for my planetary calculations. It's easy to program and the RPN is true to the 4-reg stack.
I'd happily give it a 4* reduced for those last things I mentioned.

[Mark Hardman]

(10-29-2017 05:34 PM)DA74254 Wrote:  Cos 89,9999999999 (10 9's behind decimal point) Gives 1,74532925199E-12
Wolfram Alpha: 1,74532925199(cont:43295769...)E-12
Within the "range" of the 35s, it's correct.

Tan 89,9999999999: 572957795131
Wolfram: 572957795130,876798...

Please tell me where (and what) is "dud" here.

Try comparing the results for cos(89.99), cos(89.999); you will see errors of 7.0E-15 and 1.0E-14 respectively.

[Gerald H]

Concerning trig functions see:

http://www.finetune.co.jp/~lyuka/technot...hp35s.html

[DA74254]

(10-29-2017 06:23 PM)Mark Hardman Wrote:  Try comparing the results for cos(89.99), cos(89.999); you will see errors of 7.0E-15 and 1.0E-14 respectively.

Ah, OK.
So better use more digits then ;-)
Then again, the 35s is accurate to 12 digits, thus at E-14 you are beyond the guaranteed accuracy of the calc.

[Thomas Radtke]

Concept of the 35s, being the only worthy successor to the 32SII, is very nice (well done, Tim et al.), implementation is crap. Reviews reflect this contrast.

Still waiting for a 35sII ;-).

[Csaba Tizedes]

(10-30-2017 07:19 AM)Thomas Radtke Wrote:  Still waiting for a 35sII ;-).

Yeah, I need a calculator which built quality is like 32SII, functionality like 15C, memory like 35s, SOLVE like 17BII...

... with SD support, IrDA, Bluetooth, WiFi and additionally GPS, MP3 player, full sensors for meteorology observations, sensors for orientation (gyroscope) with integrated monocular (like Zeiss MiniQuick 5x10) for precise sighting, real time clock, stopwatch, timers, daily alarms, moonphase, sunrise/sunset, programmability in Java and C, access to any sensors of course, etc...

Yes, I want my 15C in a 32SII case with all the functions of a smartphone and a CASIO ProTrek+SUUNTO without phone features.

Csaba

[Paul Dale]

I'd prefer the WP 34S in a pioneer case.

Pauli

[freelanzr]

I bought a HP 35s in order to 'retire' my HP-32SII to collector status.

There are few nice improvements over the 32SII such as complex number entry, vector data type, significantly improved programming space and capability, built-in physical constant library, navigation keys, and a 2-line, high contrast dot-matrix display.

Even though the 35s is certainly more powerful, there are a few odd design decisions (aside from the understandable 'must meet NCEES criteria') that caused me to revert back to using the 32SII for standard use, and reaching for a 42s or DM42 when a more powerful feature set is required.

Industrial Design:
- Although a very handsome machine, it is inexplicably larger than the pioneers.
(and is also no longer comfortably pocketable)
- Subjective, but the sturdiness, key layout, and key press/feel/reliability seems inferior.
- Alpha keys A thru F are NOT used for the HEX characters (RPN mode only)... Really? Annoying.

Still a vastly superior build quality compared to other manufacturer's current sci-calc offerings.
(with the notable exception of SwissMicros)

Software Design:
- Function algs are less reliable and programming loops more risky than the 32SII.
(I have less confidence in this calc due to the bug reviews)
- Objectively 'clumsy' non-decimal number base support.
(poorly implemented compared to every other calculator, non-intuitive and too many extra key presses)
- Function support for complex numbers and vectors are incomplete and 'quirky', which can be annoying trying to recall specific supported functions
- No native coordinate conversions, which is a very popular function set.
- No native matrix support and only up to system of 3 equations solver.
(Competition all have matrix modes, Casio and Canon have sci-calcs with 4x4 support)

System Design:
- Subjective, but seems that the feature set was too ambitious compared to the HW, at the expense of usability.
- Tries to be both an Algebraic entry and RPN... really, why... Marketing?
(IMO, should have focused on being the best RPN mid-level ever, fully implementing vector and complex number functionality, and add built-in 4x4 sys of eqn solver + matrix support, less program space is ok for a no connectivity model)
- The added capability over the 32SII is often either unnecessary (algebraic mode), not fully implemented (vector, complex function support), or hampered (programming labels/portability) by the need to keep the calculator NCEES acceptable, impacting the overall user experience and learning curve required to discover and work around all the quirks.

Yet, there are few programmable RPN scientific (non-graphing) calcs stil in production, and many of the 35s issues can have minimal impact once the user adapts to the calculator, or programs the missing functionality.

I am just not that into hand-programming left out features (e.g. matrix support) into a calculator with no way to extract programs or back-up the calculator state, so although the extra power and storage is available, it is not utilized by me.

So it just seems that this calculator type would be better served if it focused on doing less, but doing it better and more completely vs. leaving it up to the user to program the missing functionality while still having to work around the quirks and shortcomings.

Overall, potentially a worthy replacement for a mid-level scientific RPN, just not a particularly well-implemented nor compelling one.
So I cannot really recommend this particular HP calc other than it is the only currently available RPN in its class.

[Tugdual]

The keyboard was for me a total disappointment. Keys were no longer reliable after one year of moderate use. The calc went to the bin.

[toml_12953]

(10-29-2017 09:31 AM)pier4r Wrote:  In my explorations of the MoHPC forums (especially the MyBB version) I read only, well, bad reviews over the 35s. So many, in fact, that I wouldn't touch it with a 10 meter stick.

How come that on amazon the calculator has so many reviews (700+!) with such positive rating?

Many of the bad reviews are from people who remember the "Old HP", the company that, when the original 35 had a small math bug, offered to replace every one free of charge. And that was only ONE bug! The "New HP" won't even fix the bugs in later productions of the 35s let alone replace units in the field. Of course the profit margins are quite a bit lower than they were in 1972 when the 35 was $395.00 in 1970's dollars!

If you ask me (you didn't but I don't care!) I wouldn't refrain from buying a 35s due to such small bugs. I actually own one and it's a great, relatively inexpensive calculator. I use it daily and have never run into any of the glitches.

[TheKaneB]

I think the user base in this forum is vastly more advanced in knowlegde and experience than the general public that you find on Amazon. That said, I am very happy with my 35S. I don't use it for vector and complex math because it's a bit limited in those areas, but for simple stuff it's a brilliant calculator. I use it alongside my 50G which I rely upon for complex math, vector math, some CAS and custom programmable stuff and my HP Prime which I use basically just for graphing and sometimes for CAS.
3 calcs to cover all my scientific calculation needs ever (I could just use the 50G if I wanted, but the 35S is easier to operate for most common functions).

[rprosperi]

(04-15-2019 12:48 PM)TheKaneB Wrote:  I think the user base in this forum is vastly more advanced in knowlegde and experience than the general public that you find on Amazon...

Plus a lot of us (myself certainly included) can be drama queens when it comes to discussing bugs which we know HP is aware of, yet fail to address for future production. The list of bugs for the 35S is fairly long and in a couple cases actually deep, but it hardly detracts at all from using it in the way intended. Further, most folks that cry the loudest about issues in a machine like this would not be satisfied by its feature set even if it was bug-free.

Mostly it's disappointment that the 35th Anniversary machine was hoped to be from the 'old HP' but it wasn't, confirming the emergence of the 'new HP' with all that brings. In truth, given the changes inside HP by that time, the team did a great job delivering a machine that had lots of appeal to the old crowd, with almost no demonstrable market demand for where it would be primarily sold, the education market.

It's about 'what coulda been' and not really about what it really is.

[TheKaneB]

yeah I can see your point, but we can all agree that once HP ditched its old production lines they couldn't deliver any more "proper old style HP built" calculators. I think they tried their best to give us something fairly good, but they aren't going to lose money just for a couple hundreds aficionados. They *need* many thousands of school kids to float the calculator business, that's the only reasonable source of money.

[Csaba Tizedes]

(04-15-2019 04:53 PM)rprosperi Wrote:  Further, most folks that cry the loudest about issues in a machine like this would not be satisfied by its feature set even if it was bug-free.

HP32SII is a very good calculator.
HP35s is a good calculator.
But useless.
For a 32SII user.
For a HP user who heavily used his/her HP during his/her education and engineering practice.
For them this is a toy.
I am a very old HP user with some experience with 32SII, 15C, 48SX.
I do my engineering studies with these machines.
Later I bought my 35s and I made just for fun this little diffeq solver - this was our hydrostatics example in the University.
32SII done it.
35s fails.
This is a toy - as I wrote.

(04-15-2019 04:53 PM)rprosperi Wrote:  the education market.

Jump to eBay, buy a 35s in mint condition, then buy a real calculator and forget the 35s.
Or buy a TI-84 superb CE Plus Minus etc Idunno Slim pocket.fr something stuff - that is much better - I will.

Csaba