Tell me about the HP 67

[Trond]

Hi everyone! For those of you who are proud owners of a HP 67, I thought I should let you know that I am interested in what you have to tell about it (since the thread about HP 34C got a bit sidetracked by this).

Some specific questions I have:
How long do the batteries last? I assume it can be used with non-rechargeable batteries (?) but if so, would the batteries be eaten up very quickly?

How are the buttons with letters used on this one? Are they program labels?

I also like the sound of how sturdily it is built (according to some people here) but this does not seem to be the case with the card reader?

[hth]

I have a 67 I obtained in a trade that I never have powered up. I should probably do so, but the problem is that I never got enough motivation to try it.

If I could get some rechargeable batteries that could be taken out and loaded in a smart charger outside, I would be more inclined to try it out. Is that possible?

The buttons with letters are auto assign local labels in a program, the HP-41 has that too. Typically you use them for different entry points in a program and as a reminder you can write what they do on a magnet card and slide it into the slot (similar to what you can do on the HP-41 card reader).

I am a little bit put off by that it loses memory when turned off, but the build quality feels very solid. The keys rattle on mine if I shake it sideways, I suspect that is normal?

Håkan

[Didier Lachieze]

(12-10-2017 07:18 AM)hth Wrote:  If I could get some rechargeable batteries that could be taken out and loaded in a smart charger outside, I would be more inclined to try it out. Is that possible?

You can use a battery pack such as this one with 3 AAA batteries that you can charge outside of the calculator.

[Maximilian Hohmann]

Hello!

(12-10-2017 05:09 AM)Trond Wrote:  ... I thought I should let you know that I am interested in what you have to tell about it...

The short version: It is among the top 3 of my all-time favorite calculators. For several reasons:
- It is very very well made. Maybe the best made calculator ever. Built to last forever so to say.
- It has exactly the right weight. Not too heavy to carry but heavy enough that it won't move around your table when you type on it.
- One of the very few calculator which you can actually use for "blind" typing. The keyboard is so good that it will never miss a keystroke or, heaven beware!, bounce. You can keep your eyes on the sheet with numbers and type as fast as you can move your fingers without even looking once. The only other calculator with which I was ever able to do that is it's big brother, the HP-97.
- It has that wonderful H.MS+ function for summing time values (actually the only function I really need since I moved from engineering to flying). One needs to press the "h" function key, but that alone is a wonderful thing: A calculator with three shift keys! "f", "g" and "h" - once you are used to that (and have memorised the various combinations) you will never ever want to use a calculator with less than three shift keys again.
- And of course an excellent LED display and that most wonderfully well made keyboard of all pocket calculators - ever. But I did mention that already.

(12-10-2017 05:09 AM)Trond Wrote:  How long do the batteries last?

The original 500mAh NiCd batteries last for about two hours I would reckon. Since it has no constant memory they are not drained when the calculator is turned off, but NiCd batteries have a high internal discharge rate and therefore need to be recharged before each use.

(12-10-2017 05:09 AM)Trond Wrote:  I assume it can be used with non-rechargeable batteries (?) but if so, would the batteries be eaten up very quickly?

Don't know about that because I have successfully avoided disposable batteries for decades. Especially in my hobbies where it does not really matter. However a good alkaline battery should have a capacity of something like 2500mAh, five times that of the original rechargeable batteries, and therefore should last for about ten hours.

Myself I bought a couple of aftermarket NiMh batteries (from one eBay seller well known around here) for my HP classics with something like 2000mAh. They can be charged inside the calculator using the normal charger, which takes a lot longer than charging the original batteries of course, and are good for many hours of operation and countless charging cycles.

(12-10-2017 05:09 AM)Trond Wrote:  How are the buttons with letters used on this one? Are they program labels?

Yes. A-E and "f" shifted A-E. Ten labels. Plenty considering the limite dnumber of program steps.

(12-10-2017 05:09 AM)Trond Wrote:  I also like the sound of how sturdily it is built (according to some people here) but this does not seem to be the case with the card reader?

The card reader rollers suffer from time just like any/most polymer parts. Replace them with modern O-rings and the card reader will easily outlive you.

Regards
Max

[Trond]

(12-10-2017 08:11 PM)Maximilian Hohmann Wrote:  Hello!

(12-10-2017 05:09 AM)Trond Wrote:  ... I thought I should let you know that I am interested in what you have to tell about it...

The short version: It is among the top 3 of my all-time favorite calculators. For several reasons:
- It is very very well made. Maybe the best made calculator ever. Built to last forever so to say.
- It has exactly the right weight. Not too heavy to carry but heavy enough that it won't move around your table when you type on it.
- One of the very few calculator which you can actually use for "blind" typing. The keyboard is so good that it will never miss a keystroke or, heaven beware!, bounce. You can keep your eyes on the sheet with numbers and type as fast as you can move your fingers without even looking once. The only other calculator with which I was ever able to do that is it's big brother, the HP-97.
- It has that wonderful H.MS+ function for summing time values (actually the only function I really need since I moved from engineering to flying). One needs to press the "h" function key, but that alone is a wonderful thing: A calculator with three shift keys! "f", "g" and "h" - once you are used to that (and have memorised the various combinations) you will never ever want to use a calculator with less than three shift keys again.
- And of course an excellent LED display and that most wonderfully well made keyboard of all pocket calculators - ever. But I did mention that already.

(12-10-2017 05:09 AM)Trond Wrote:  How long do the batteries last?

The original 500mAh NiCd batteries last for about two hours I would reckon. Since it has no constant memory they are not drained when the calculator is turned off, but NiCd batteries have a high internal discharge rate and therefore need to be recharged before each use.

(12-10-2017 05:09 AM)Trond Wrote:  I assume it can be used with non-rechargeable batteries (?) but if so, would the batteries be eaten up very quickly?

Don't know about that because I have successfully avoided disposable batteries for decades. Especially in my hobbies where it does not really matter. However a good alkaline battery should have a capacity of something like 2500mAh, five times that of the original rechargeable batteries, and therefore should last for about ten hours.

Myself I bought a couple of aftermarket NiMh batteries (from one eBay seller well known around here) for my HP classics with something like 2000mAh. They can be charged inside the calculator using the normal charger, which takes a lot longer than charging the original batteries of course, and are good for many hours of operation and countless charging cycles.

(12-10-2017 05:09 AM)Trond Wrote:  How are the buttons with letters used on this one? Are they program labels?

Yes. A-E and "f" shifted A-E. Ten labels. Plenty considering the limite dnumber of program steps.

(12-10-2017 05:09 AM)Trond Wrote:  I also like the sound of how sturdily it is built (according to some people here) but this does not seem to be the case with the card reader?

The card reader rollers suffer from time just like any/most polymer parts. Replace them with modern O-rings and the card reader will easily outlive you.

Regards
Max

Thanks for all the info!

[Jim Horn]

I second Maximilian's praise of the HP-67. I bought one as soon as they hit the market in 1976 and used it heavily until the HP-41 replaced it in 1979. While it's 26 registers and 224 program steps along with volatile memory (OFF erased everything) is woefully obsolete today, the card reader helped a lot. And in the 1970s it was truely remarkable.

The three shift keys resulted in a busy set of keyboard labels but they were well done and made it easy to use. Before long I was programming it by feel, sometimes while driving between the Los Angeles basin to the San Francisco Bay area at night in the middle of nowhere to keep my mind alert. No menus at all, just shifted keys. And LEDs so I could see the results in the dark.

Combined with its built-like-a-brick ruggedness and two hardware modifications - a 2x speedup control switch and a "phase 0 interrupt" flush button that allowed creation of any desired internal bit pattern - it was a wonderful tool. That latter capability allowed creation of controlled bit pattern magnetic cards which, when read into the HP-41, allowed analysis of the internal operation of that newer machine. One weekend of about ten thousand keystrokes revealed a lot back then...

[rprosperi]

(12-11-2017 07:43 PM)Jim Horn Wrote:  I second Maximilian's praise of the HP-67. I bought one as soon as they hit the market in 1976 and used it heavily until the HP-41 replaced it in 1979. While it's 26 registers and 224 program steps along with volatile memory (OFF erased everything) is woefully obsolete today, the card reader helped a lot. And in the 1970s it was truely remarkable.

The three shift keys resulted in a busy set of keyboard labels but they were well done and made it easy to use. Before long I was programming it by feel, sometimes while driving between the Los Angeles basin to the San Francisco Bay area at night in the middle of nowhere to keep my mind alert. No menus at all, just shifted keys. And LEDs so I could see the results in the dark.

Combined with its built-like-a-brick ruggedness and two hardware modifications - a 2x speedup control switch and a "phase 0 interrupt" flush button that allowed creation of any desired internal bit pattern - it was a wonderful tool. That latter capability allowed creation of controlled bit pattern magnetic cards which, when read into the HP-41, allowed analysis of the internal operation of that newer machine. One weekend of about ten thousand keystrokes revealed a lot back then...

The Force runs strong in your family...

Entering HP-67 programs by feel, and while driving, is over the top.

Respect!

[Craig Bladow]

I have an HP-65 which is a great calculator. My question is if the HP-67 improvements are compelling enough reasons to get one if one already has an HP-65?

[Maximilian Hohmann]

(12-11-2017 09:39 PM)Craig Bladow Wrote:  I have an HP-65 which is a great calculator. My question is if the HP-67 improvements are compelling enough reasons to get one if one already has an HP-65?

As much as I value the HP-67 I would say no. Especially not from a collector's point of view. The HP-65 is an absolute must have for a serious collector (the first of it's kind is always special) whilst the HP-67 is "just" the top model of a line which comprises only two calculators.
And if you really want to use it as a scientific calculator there exist a dozen better ones now (HP-50G, Prime, Ti89/Voyage200/nSpire, ...) which can be had for a tiny fraction of what a good HP-67 will be sold for.

[Sukiari]

Sadly the lack of continuous memory really hurts this machine. It's nice to use and such, but for the money you could do a lot better. The 32SII is, IMHO, much better, and it's faster and slimmer as well.

If you really want the ultimate RPN calculator get or make a WP-34S.

[Trond]

(12-12-2017 03:15 AM)Sukiari Wrote:  The 32SII is, IMHO, much better, and it's faster and slimmer as well.

I already have one of those
It was my first RPN calculator, my dad gave it to me for my birthday, as I had been borrowing his HP 15c.

[Don Shepherd]

(12-11-2017 09:39 PM)Craig Bladow Wrote:  I have an HP-65 which is a great calculator. My question is if the HP-67 improvements are compelling enough reasons to get one if one already has an HP-65?

I bought a 65 eleven years ago and absolutely love it. One year ago I bought a 67 to see what it was like. I was very disappointed. The card reader would not consistently work. I returned it twice to the Ebay seller and he could never quite fix it so it would work consistently. He finally refunded my money, after a bit of haggling.

While the 67 certainly has more programming features than the 65, I was really put off by the labeling of the keys. I could never quite remember if a label went with the key above it or below it. That was a serious distraction that was never a problem with my 65. I also did not especially like the color of the 67; a kind of sickly green.

I eventually bought a second 65 in case my 11-year-old one ever fails. Both 65's run like troopers and I especially like the simple RPN programming model and reduced programming instruction set. It is amazing what can be accomplished with 9 registers and 100 lines.

So my advice is: buy a second 65.

[Massimo Gnerucci]

(12-12-2017 07:56 PM)Don Shepherd Wrote:  I was really put off by the labeling of the keys. I could never quite remember if a label went with the key above it or below it. That was a serious distraction that was never a problem with my 65.

That's true! I can never remember to look down the key rather than up.
Quite an unicum, and I don't like it.

[Trond]

(12-12-2017 07:56 PM)Don Shepherd Wrote:  

(12-11-2017 09:39 PM)Craig Bladow Wrote:  I have an HP-65 which is a great calculator. My question is if the HP-67 improvements are compelling enough reasons to get one if one already has an HP-65?

I bought a 65 eleven years ago and absolutely love it. One year ago I bought a 67 to see what it was like. I was very disappointed. The card reader would not consistently work. I returned it twice to the Ebay seller and he could never quite fix it so it would work consistently. He finally refunded my money, after a bit of haggling.

While the 67 certainly has more programming features than the 65, I was really put off by the labeling of the keys. I could never quite remember if a label went with the key above it or below it. That was a serious distraction that was never a problem with my 65. I also did not especially like the color of the 67; a kind of sickly green.

I eventually bought a second 65 in case my 11-year-old one ever fails. Both 65's run like troopers and I especially like the simple RPN programming model and reduced programming instruction set. It is amazing what can be accomplished with 9 registers and 100 lines.

So my advice is: buy a second 65.

Interesting point of view. Thanks!

[Maximilian Hohmann]

Hello!

(12-12-2017 08:03 PM)Massimo Gnerucci Wrote:  That's true! I can never remember to look down the key rather than up.

Yes, this is true. For some reason that only HP knows they changed their labeling from above the keys to below for a few calculators only (I am only aware of the HP-97/91 apart from the HP-67). Personally I don't mind too much because in the days when I was really using them I just knew which keys I needed to press and did not have to look at the keyboard very often.

[Thomas Okken]

(12-12-2017 08:45 PM)Maximilian Hohmann Wrote:  Hello!

(12-12-2017 08:03 PM)Massimo Gnerucci Wrote:  That's true! I can never remember to look down the key rather than up.

Yes, this is true. For some reason that only HP knows they changed their labeling from above the keys to below for a few calculators only (I am only aware of the HP-97/91 apart from the HP-67). Personally I don't mind too much because in the days when I was really using them I just knew which keys I needed to press and did not have to look at the keyboard very often.

I assume they did that because the 67 has labels a - e, and they couldn't put those letters above the A - E keys because of the card slot. They didn't have that problem with the 65 because it doesn't have labels a - e.

[Craig Bladow]

(12-12-2017 07:56 PM)Don Shepherd Wrote:  While the 67 certainly has more programming features than the 65, I was really put off by the labeling of the keys. I could never quite remember if a label went with the key above it or below it.

Yet on the 65 what you get when you press 'f-1' 'int' is not exactly intuitive.

[Don Shepherd]

(12-13-2017 03:10 AM)Craig Bladow Wrote:  

(12-12-2017 07:56 PM)Don Shepherd Wrote:  While the 67 certainly has more programming features than the 65, I was really put off by the labeling of the keys. I could never quite remember if a label went with the key above it or below it.

Yet on the 65 what you get when you press 'f-1' 'int' is not exactly intuitive.

Craig, I agree, the F-1 functions may not be considered intuitive, unless you understand that they represent the inverse or complement of the F function associated with the key. But I personally prefer the method that HP chose on the 65, it makes for a cleaner keyboard with fewer labels and it assumes a somewhat higher level of mathematical sophistication on the part of the user.

We had a discussion of this point back in 2011:

http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/...989#189989

[larthurl]

(12-13-2017 03:48 AM)Don Shepherd Wrote:  

(12-13-2017 03:10 AM)Craig Bladow Wrote:  Yet on the 65 what you get when you press 'f-1' 'int' is not exactly intuitive.

Craig, I agree, the F-1 functions may not be considered intuitive, unless you understand that they represent the inverse or complement of the F function associated with the key. But I personally prefer the method that HP chose on the 65, it makes for a cleaner keyboard with fewer labels and it assumes a somewhat higher level of mathematical sophistication on the part of the user.

We had a discussion of this point back in 2011:

http://www.hpmuseum.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/...989#189989

I agree. There was a time when a product owner/user was expected to have a certain level of knowledge/sophistication.

I am a watch collector and often bristle when a watch dial (on luxury watches even) state both metric and feet for water resistance. If it's 100m, just say 100m for goodness sake. I can do the math.

......Art

[Trond]

So it looks like 67 has statistics (mean and SD) while 65 does not? Which other functions were added to the 67?