On 27 Mar 2004 23:28:58 -0500, the renowned (DoN.
Nichols) wrote:

In article ,
Grant Erwin wrote:
jim rozen wrote:
In article , Grant Erwin says...

[ ... ]

The HP-1XC models, on the other hand, although slow
and battery-hungry by today's standards,

[ ... ]

Say what? I think the batteries in my 15C are about
10 years old at the moment. Are more modern calculators
even *better*?

Yup, they're old NMOS technology, whereas today's are CMOS. Also, today's
voltages are much much lower. - GWE

Hmm ... I *think* that the 'C' in the model number indicates
that it is one of the early ones based on CMOS technology, instead of
the NMOS used in the earlier ones -- 35, 45, 55, 65, 67, etc. I believe
that there was a 25C as well, a smaller version of the form factor of
the 35 et all, but with CMOS technology.

Those earlier ones *were* battery hungry. The 15C lasts a very
long time, except when a piece of heavy equipment holds some buttons
depressed for a month or two. :-)

The later ones, like the HP48 series, are much worse on batteries than
the earlier C ones. Probably 50 times worse in terms of current. They
go through a set of 3 AAA cells in no time. The others use much lower
capacity button cells and seem to last forever. I think HP must have
switched from their own ASICs to cheaper off-the-shelf technology.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com