Re: Another 35S first impression
- From: Dieter <didis.mehlbox@xxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:45:24 +0200
mstorkamp@xxxxxxxxx schrieb:
My basis for comparison: My first HP was a 34C, then a 41CX,
Hey, these (34C, 41C) were also my first two HPs, back in 1980/81.
I've long regretted selling the 34 to finance the 41,
I sold mine to a friend - and bought it back 20 years later.
and have fond memories of
that one that taint my impression of the 35S.
I miss the LED display. <8)
I think a calculators
job is to solve simple numeric problems, with the functions you need
right at your fingertips, and where ever you happen to be. Anything
more complicated I can always go sit down at a computer and solve.
As long as you've got a laptop with you. I like the idea of being able
to do some non-trivial calculations without having to lug around a
bigger device, such as a laptop.
As to the aesthetics of the 35S, I think they nailed it on the retro
look.
Yup. But the display should be wider. The 35s cannot show a number with
all its digits, quite often scrolling is required. I also do not like
the numbers being aligned at the left without leaving a space for the
sign. 12 mantissa digits + "E" + 3 exponent digits plus two signs would
require an 18 digits wide display. The 35s display has only 14.
Finally a return to the proper 'Enter' key.
Not quite. The arrow is missing. <8)
But the logo is on
the wrong end of the calculator,
So is the HEWLETT PACKARD label.
they mislabeled the 'EEX' key,
They even misdesigned its function. You *have* to enter at least one
mantissa digit. A simple E3 or E-9 generates a SYNTAX ERROR. #-\
and
although the second shift key points to the right, the functions are
printed on the left side of the key.
The blue functions are printed on the slanted front face. Okay, if
there's also an alpha function it's the left side on the front.
Anyway, I'd prefer the classic golden and blue shift keys with an
f and g on top. 8-)
As for function, the display is nice. I like the way complex numbers
are dealt with. There have been complaints that it is not as complete
an implementation as the 42 had, but it does have all of the basics.
Having vectors is a nice touch, but the single most glaring omission
is not having cross product.
Well, read the German manual and it says the 35s *can* do it. #-)
No, we've not a special upgraded European version over here. That's
simply one of the many, many errors and peculiarities of the German
"translation", if this word may be used for something that's here and
there close to Babelfish.
Example: the manual says that the discussed code sets a flag to indicate
the calculation of "natuerliche Eintraege", i.e. "natural entries" of
data. WTF are "natural entries"?!? After a while you get the idea:
Entries = data entered in some kind of register, or something that's
logged somewhere. Right, they babelfished "natural log" this way. #-)
Take a look at the back cover of the German edition and you'll find a
whole paragraph in Spanish. Maybe the Spanish edition vice versa has a
German paragraph - who knows...
As long as they were using menus for the flag functions, they could
have thrown in FC?, FS?C and FC?C.
A "FC?" can easily be simulated with the usual tricks that were common
even in the days of the 67. <8) Combining two tests gives you a lot of
new options. Simply use a "FS?" and place another test behind it that
always tests false. This inverts the first test. E.g. Clx FS? 1 x<>0?
is equal to FC? 1. If you know that x at that point is always > 0,
another option would be FS? 1 x<0?
Yes, the manual is thick. But IMO it is also poorly written.
Wait till you see the German "translation".
Full of errors, sometimes just amusing. #-)
BTW - what about other versions? Is the French, Spanish or Italian
version also this bad?
Being a
bit rusty with keystroke programming an RPN calculator, I found I got
a lot more out of going back to the 34C manual and doing the exercises
in it than I did from going through the 35S manual.
Aaaah, those were the days of the legendary HP manuals. First class
content, translated by a native speaker who was also familiar a with the
the subject. Today the "translator" not even knows what a logarithm or a
flag is. Yes, even the word "flag" (which as a technical term usually is
*not* translated) can be found in various "creative" translations... #-)
program used when learning any new language). The new manual seems to
be filled with too many ellipses and code fragments. And the example
for using flags? :
CF 0
FS? 0
LN
STO X
What's the point of that?
Do you refer to the example on page 14-13? In my edition it's a complete
routine starting with label S, CF 0, CF 1. The following text suggests
replacing lines S002 and S003 by various combinations of CF/SF 0 and
CF/SF 1, thus storing either the input itself or its logarithm in Sto X.
Of course the manual says this in finest babelfish-German. Even with
wrong grammatics. <8)
Okay, the 35s itself is much better than the manual. The keyboard is
fine, it looks great and I finally got Solve and Integrate back, and
it's much faster than in the original 34C. Yes, I like the speed as well
- it's more than 3 times faster than the 41.
Dieter
.
- References:
- Another 35S first impression
- From: mstorkamp
- Another 35S first impression
- Prev by Date: Re: New release of Orpie rpn calculator program
- Next by Date: Emu48 on a Ipaq 6515 with 240 x 240
- Previous by thread: Re: Another 35S first impression
- Next by thread: Implementing a fixed size stack for an RPN Calculator
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
