A few weeks ago, someone suggested using the HP32SII calculator for
its fraction capabilities. Thanks for the great suggestion! I've
had that calculator for seven years and never realized it could do
fractions. I was making 12 drawers for cabinets last night and used
the calculator extensively.

Too bad those calculators aren't made anymore. Very sad.
Evidently, those calculators are one of the few pieces of
electronics that seem to have gotten more expensive as they've
aged. I can't give away the Sparc Center 1000 in my garage - it
was a $120,000 box at one time.

Regards,
Aaron

Check with Radio Shack. They sell "fractions" capable calculators for
around $15.

Bob Swinney
"Aaron Kushner" wrote in message
...
A few weeks ago, someone suggested using the HP32SII calculator for
its fraction capabilities. Thanks for the great suggestion! I've
had that calculator for seven years and never realized it could do
fractions. I was making 12 drawers for cabinets last night and used
the calculator extensively.

Too bad those calculators aren't made anymore. Very sad.
Evidently, those calculators are one of the few pieces of
electronics that seem to have gotten more expensive as they've
aged. I can't give away the Sparc Center 1000 in my garage - it
was a $120,000 box at one time.

Regards,
Aaron

Robert Swinney wrote:
Check with Radio Shack. They sell "fractions" capable calculators for
around $15.

Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will comfortabley
fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really miss the HP42S
that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs and nobody makes one
like it now.

Aaron, Hang on to that HP32! I'm jealous.

-Greg

Greg wrote:

Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will comfortabley
fit in your pocket (except used, for big $).

HP is coming out with a replacement for the 32SII, the HP 33S. It doesn't
seem to be widely available but some people have been able to buy them.
There's some discussion of this new model over on comp.sys.hp48.


--

Steve Dunbar wrote:

HP is coming out with a replacement for the 32SII, the HP 33S. It doesn't
seem to be widely available but some people have been able to buy them.
There's some discussion of this new model over on comp.sys.hp48.

Hey, thanks for the tip! I'll keep my eyes out for it.

-G

You may be able to buy it direct from HP's website. www.hp.com and click on
handheld devices to find calculators link.

"Greg" wrote in message
...


Steve Dunbar wrote:

HP is coming out with a replacement for the 32SII, the HP 33S. It
doesn't
seem to be widely available but some people have been able to buy them.
There's some discussion of this new model over on comp.sys.hp48.

Hey, thanks for the tip! I'll keep my eyes out for it.

-G

Greg wrote:


Steve Dunbar wrote:

HP is coming out with a replacement for the 32SII, the HP 33S. It doesn't
seem to be widely available but some people have been able to buy them.
There's some discussion of this new model over on comp.sys.hp48.

Hey, thanks for the tip! I'll keep my eyes out for it.

I couldn't help myself; I bought the HP 33S at a local
electronic store this week.

It has a few features not in the HP32S, but I kind of liked the
simpler HP32S interface. But now you've get the capability to do
calculations with exponents up to 500. I'm sure that will come in
handy when I want to figure out how many universes could be
filled with ping pong balls.

The second LCD line is nice to see what is in the previous stack.
On the downside, the keyboard is _way_ busier than the 32S and
will take some getting used to. And they moved the ENTER key to
the bottom right and it is the same size as the other keys. But
this would probably only bother someone who had been using other
HP calculators for the last 20 years.

-Aaron

Greg wrote:



Robert Swinney wrote:

Check with Radio Shack. They sell "fractions" capable calculators for
around $15.


Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will comfortabley
fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really miss the HP42S
that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs and nobody makes one
like it now.

Aaron, Hang on to that HP32! I'm jealous.

-Greg

I know what you mean - have a 28C clamshell and a TI 81 for the shop .
The 28 is for the office.

At work I use a software version of an HP on my PDA.

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

Greg sez:
Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will comfortabley
fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really miss the HP42S
that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs and nobody makes one
like it now.

Hey! No problem. I was never "comfortable" with RPN all along. IMO, RPN
was developed (HP probably)
to accommodate the shortcomings of early microprocessors. It takes a
helluva lot more processing power to enter equations "the natural way".
Again, and IMO, those that became "comfortable" with RPN were deluding
themselves into thinking they were some sort of math geniuses for doing so.
On the other hand -- I assume anyone that could be "comfortable" with the
awkward back and forth motion of a slide rule might not agree. Now, before
anyone jumps on me for that statement - I have several slide rules and know
how to use them. Expertise with a slide rule did not dupe me into learning
RPN - I chose to wait until AE came along.

Bob Swinney

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:42:19 -0700, the renowned "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Greg sez:
Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will comfortabley
fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really miss the HP42S
that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs and nobody makes one
like it now.

Hey! No problem. I was never "comfortable" with RPN all along. IMO, RPN
was developed (HP probably)
to accommodate the shortcomings of early microprocessors.

I think it was developed by engineers with programming experience who
thought it was more efficient. It is. Forth and Postscript both are
stack-based computer languages. Languages such as C generally
re-arrange things at compile time so that they can execute similarly
at run time. That re-arrangement is somewhat non-trivial (recursion)
but that's not what AE calculators do- they just store intermediate
results and pending operators.

Eg. 2 * sin(43°) + 0.5

RPN AE
--- --
43 2
sin *
2 43
* sin
..5 +
+ 0.5
=

Eg. 4 * ( 5 + 7)

RPN AE
--- --
5 4
7 *
+ (
4 5
* +
7
)
=


It takes a
helluva lot more processing power to enter equations "the natural way".

Nah, the stack on early HP calculators was 4 levels. If you want to
use "the natural way", the calc chip needs to store one intermediate
result for each level of paren or implied paren, and the operator. So
it is just a tiny bit more RAM (to hold the operators) and probably a
few more intermediate results (depending on how many levels of paren
the calculator can handle).

Again, and IMO, those that became "comfortable" with RPN were deluding
themselves into thinking they were some sort of math geniuses for doing so.

Entering things from the "inside out" rather than from "left to right"
always seemed easier to me, fewer keystrokes and less chance of making
an error. The results you need for the next step often seem to right
there from the last step. The fact that people would avoid borrowing
your calculator was just a bonus. ;-)

On the other hand -- I assume anyone that could be "comfortable" with the
awkward back and forth motion of a slide rule might not agree. Now, before
anyone jumps on me for that statement - I have several slide rules and know
how to use them. Expertise with a slide rule did not dupe me into learning
RPN - I chose to wait until AE came along.

Bob Swinney

Too bad no manufacturer (AFAIK) has offered RPN as a simply set
*option*- like radians vs. degrees for trig. It would add negligible
cost, and modern calculators can show several levels of stack at once.

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

In article , Spehro Pefhany says...

Too bad no manufacturer (AFAIK) has offered RPN as a simply set
*option*- like radians vs. degrees for trig. It would add negligible
cost, and modern calculators can show several levels of stack at once.

I think the newer HP calculators can be operated in either mode.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Too bad no manufacturer (AFAIK) has offered RPN as a simply set
*option*- like radians vs. degrees for trig. It would add negligible
cost, and modern calculators can show several levels of stack at once.

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

If you happen across an old HP17BII, it has selectable RPN or AE modes. But
be aware the HP17B is AE only.

Yeah! I guessed it was something like that.

Bob Swinney
"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:42:19 -0700, the renowned "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

Greg sez:
Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will
comfortabley
fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really miss the HP42S
that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs and nobody makes one
like it now.

Hey! No problem. I was never "comfortable" with RPN all along. IMO,
RPN
was developed (HP probably)
to accommodate the shortcomings of early microprocessors.

I think it was developed by engineers with programming experience who
thought it was more efficient. It is. Forth and Postscript both are
stack-based computer languages. Languages such as C generally
re-arrange things at compile time so that they can execute similarly
at run time. That re-arrangement is somewhat non-trivial (recursion)
but that's not what AE calculators do- they just store intermediate
results and pending operators.

Eg. 2 * sin(43°) + 0.5

RPN AE
--- --
43 2
sin *
2 43
* sin
.5 +
+ 0.5
=

Eg. 4 * ( 5 + 7)

RPN AE
--- --
5 4
7 *
+ (
4 5
* +
7
)
=


It takes a
helluva lot more processing power to enter equations "the natural way".

Nah, the stack on early HP calculators was 4 levels. If you want to
use "the natural way", the calc chip needs to store one intermediate
result for each level of paren or implied paren, and the operator. So
it is just a tiny bit more RAM (to hold the operators) and probably a
few more intermediate results (depending on how many levels of paren
the calculator can handle).

Again, and IMO, those that became "comfortable" with RPN were deluding
themselves into thinking they were some sort of math geniuses for doing
so.

Entering things from the "inside out" rather than from "left to right"
always seemed easier to me, fewer keystrokes and less chance of making
an error. The results you need for the next step often seem to right
there from the last step. The fact that people would avoid borrowing
your calculator was just a bonus. ;-)

On the other hand -- I assume anyone that could be "comfortable" with
the
awkward back and forth motion of a slide rule might not agree. Now,
before
anyone jumps on me for that statement - I have several slide rules and
know
how to use them. Expertise with a slide rule did not dupe me into
learning
RPN - I chose to wait until AE came along.

Bob Swinney

Too bad no manufacturer (AFAIK) has offered RPN as a simply set
*option*- like radians vs. degrees for trig. It would add negligible
cost, and modern calculators can show several levels of stack at once.

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

In article ,
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:42:19 -0700, the renowned "Robert Swinney"
wrote:

[ ... ]

It takes a
helluva lot more processing power to enter equations "the natural way".

Nah, the stack on early HP calculators was 4 levels.

It depends on what you mean by "early". The 9200 and 9200B
desktop machines (which is where I got my start programming HP
calculators) were three levels of stack -- with real *core* memory, and a
mag card reader/writer. All three levels of stack were visible at once
on the tiny crt display. Since it had core memory, you could turn it
off, and when you turned it back on, your program was still there, ready
to run.

It also had a clamshell printer which fit on top of the case
like a toupee, and it printed on an electro-sensitive paper (conductive
aluminum foil, and it wrote by blasting through with electrostatic
discharges that to the black background on the paper. As your printout
extended, you were unfurling an antenna to broadcast your calculations
to the world. :-)

So -- when I got my HP-45, I was already comfortable with RPN,
and also with a slipstick.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Robert Swinney wrote:
Greg sez:
Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will
comfortabley fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really
miss the HP42S that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs
and nobody makes one like it now.

Hey! No problem. I was never "comfortable" with RPN all along.
IMO, RPN was developed (HP probably)
to accommodate the shortcomings of early microprocessors. It takes a
helluva lot more processing power to enter equations "the natural
way". Again, and IMO, those that became "comfortable" with RPN were
deluding themselves into thinking they were some sort of math
geniuses for doing so. On the other hand -- I assume anyone that
could be "comfortable" with the awkward back and forth motion of a
slide rule might not agree. Now, before anyone jumps on me for that
statement - I have several slide rules and know how to use them.
Expertise with a slide rule did not dupe me into learning RPN - I
chose to wait until AE came along.

Bob Swinney

I think it is more efficient for many calculations, if you can keep track of
what's on the stack. It's also fun when some engineer borrows it at a
meeting and can't figure out how to multiply two numbers.

I think it is more efficient for many calculations, if you can keep track
of
what's on the stack. It's also fun when some engineer borrows it at a
meeting and can't figure out how to multiply two numbers.

My point exactly. The engineer is unable to re-learn his math under
pressure (and he is math trained). So, the ordinary mortal is in for a ton
of confusion if he tries to figure out RPN. True, it makes lots of folks
break arms patting themselves on their backs over how smart they are - but -
the fact remains, RPN was introduced because of electronic limitations of
the time. Sphero explained it very well when he said that AE takes more
interim memory.

Bob Swinney

"ATP" wrote in message
et...
Robert Swinney wrote:
Greg sez:
Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will
comfortabley fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really
miss the HP42S that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs
and nobody makes one like it now.

Hey! No problem. I was never "comfortable" with RPN all along.
IMO, RPN was developed (HP probably)
to accommodate the shortcomings of early microprocessors. It takes a
helluva lot more processing power to enter equations "the natural
way". Again, and IMO, those that became "comfortable" with RPN were
deluding themselves into thinking they were some sort of math
geniuses for doing so. On the other hand -- I assume anyone that
could be "comfortable" with the awkward back and forth motion of a
slide rule might not agree. Now, before anyone jumps on me for that
statement - I have several slide rules and know how to use them.
Expertise with a slide rule did not dupe me into learning RPN - I
chose to wait until AE came along.

Bob Swinney

In my opinion, the HP-27 was the best pocket calculator of its day -- perhaps
the best of all time. It could do algebraic, statistical, and financial
routines -- all hard wired. Yes, it had a LED display, and needed to be
recharged often, but it could do it all. Mine won't any more, because the key
contacts have been worn out. I would pay dearly for the same capabilities in a
similar wonder machine with LCD display.

Bob doesn't understand RPN or push / pop a stack commands of computers.
RPN emulated the stack features and is a powerful tool for many advanced mathematic
routines.

Martin [ long time machine language writer, upgraded to assembly with less ability(language not me)
then to the lower levels of life of Fortran, Cobol, Forth, Basic (the extended version )
with two slide rules in his current desk. ]

Robert Swinney wrote:
Greg sez:

Yeah, but you can no longer buy an RPN calculator that will comfortabley
fit in your pocket (except used, for big $). I really miss the HP42S
that I lost years ago. It was perfect for my needs and nobody makes one
like it now.


Hey! No problem. I was never "comfortable" with RPN all along. IMO, RPN
was developed (HP probably)
to accommodate the shortcomings of early microprocessors. It takes a
helluva lot more processing power to enter equations "the natural way".
Again, and IMO, those that became "comfortable" with RPN were deluding
themselves into thinking they were some sort of math geniuses for doing so.
On the other hand -- I assume anyone that could be "comfortable" with the
awkward back and forth motion of a slide rule might not agree. Now, before
anyone jumps on me for that statement - I have several slide rules and know
how to use them. Expertise with a slide rule did not dupe me into learning
RPN - I chose to wait until AE came along.

Bob Swinney







--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

Martin, who presumes to know what I understand admits to having 2
sliderules - that is cool, and quite archaic, for a long time machine
language writer.

Bob Swinney
"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
. com...
Bob doesn't understand RPN or push / pop a stack commands of computers.
RPN emulated the stack features and is a powerful tool for many advanced
mathematic
routines.

Martin [ long time machine language writer, upgraded to assembly with less
ability(language not me)
then to the lower levels of life of Fortran, Cobol, Forth,
Basic (the extended version )
with two slide rules in his current desk. ]

From: "Robert Swinney"

I was never "comfortable" with RPN all along

Robert, I agree with you completely. I grew up with slide rules, log tables
and hand calculations. I have programmed processors from Litton, Intel,
Motorola, Rockwell, RCA and problably some others in everything from machine
code punched in through console swithces to Fortran, Forth et al. I'm well
aware of stack operations and how to use 'em but I don't like RPN calculators.
My first calculator was a four banger sold by one of the Litton divisions in
the early 70s but my first "real" calculator was a TI something. All I
remember is that it had an LED display and clickety-clack buttons and I thought
it was nothing short of miraculous. I tried an HP for a while and never like
it. I traded it to a friend for something and went back to TI. I still have a
little solar powered TI 30 that I use some but my main one is a Casio fx7700g
and of course Mathcad. Maybe it's just my internal logic but to me RPN is just
exactly what it says. Backwards.

Richard Coke

I suppose my comments re. RPN and pomposity caused this thread to degrade
into 2 camps. I should have known that would happen. It is always easy to
attack another's position when you suspect there will be many allies. In
case my earlier assertion was, well, errrr, maybe a bit strong, let me state
it again in terms that will appeal to the majority of posters here.

Reverse Polish Notation: Method of entering math phrases into a calculating
device. The method is somewhat arcane and difficult to follow for those
with ordinary mathematical proclivities. It is, however, "very efficient"
for those with pre-existing mathematical training. Mastering RPN provides
great feelings of satisfaction, no! pride for those that learn to use it --
errrr, make that "learn to use it well". RPN savviness yields another click
on the lock of the great Math inner sanctum. In general, those that beat
their breasts about how conversant they are with RPN, remind one of the very
tired childhood phrase, "I know something you don't know".

Bob (I'll stick to AE, thank you very much) Swinney

Is that HP 32 reverse polish notation. I have used a RPN HP since about
1977 and using the common ones really screws me up. My HP 11C from 1982
is still going strong and only on the 3rd set of batteries. I lost it
once at a college and 1st lecture back the following year the lecturer
asks if it belonged to anyone so I got it back. On speaking to the
technitions at the college who found it they said it looked like a real
good calculator and would have kept it if they could figure out how it
worked.

Aaron Kushner wrote:

A few weeks ago, someone suggested using the HP32SII calculator for
its fraction capabilities. Thanks for the great suggestion! I've
had that calculator for seven years and never realized it could do
fractions. I was making 12 drawers for cabinets last night and used
the calculator extensively.

Too bad those calculators aren't made anymore. Very sad.
Evidently, those calculators are one of the few pieces of
electronics that seem to have gotten more expensive as they've
aged. I can't give away the Sparc Center 1000 in my garage - it
was a $120,000 box at one time.

Regards,
Aaron

David Billington wrote:
Is that HP 32 reverse polish notation. I have used a RPN HP since about
1977 and using the common ones really screws me up. My HP 11C from 1982
is still going strong and only on the 3rd set of batteries. I lost it
once at a college and 1st lecture back the following year the lecturer
asks if it belonged to anyone so I got it back. On speaking to the
technitions at the college who found it they said it looked like a real
good calculator and would have kept it if they could figure out how it
worked.

Yes, the HP32S is RPN. I purchased a HP41C in 1981 and have been
using that daily as I was more still more comfortable with it
than the HP32. After finding the fraction feature on the 32S, I
think it will be seeing more use. And my HP 11C stays by my
bedstand for those back of the envelope kind of problems that
keep me up at night ;-)

Also, there are several HP RPN emulators for Palms and Windows CE
devices. I've got an HP41CX emulator on my Palm, but the only
problem is that it lacks the wonderful feel of the real HP
keyboards.

I'll have to look into the HP33S. Wonder if I can still sell the
32 and 12C on ebay while the mark is still hot for those.

See http://www.rskey.org/hp.asp and http://www.hpmuseum.org/ for
good info on all the HP calcs.


-ask

Aaron Kushner writes:

Too bad those calculators aren't made anymore.

Yes. At one time years ago they were in the clearance bin at Wal-Mart for
$10. Should have bought more. Hands off mine!