I wish they would re-release the HP50-g, I had one somewhere but it got lost and I _loved_ that thing!
HP re-releases classic computer science calculator: The HP-16C
31–40 of 140 posts
Re: HP re-releases classic computer science calculator: The HP-16C
#32The beauty of an RPN calculator was that nobody asked to borrow it.
Re: HP re-releases classic computer science calculator: The HP-16C
#33Re: HP re-releases classic computer science calculator: The HP-16C
#34But the 15c 'Collector's Edition' had some issues, and I wonder about the build quality and reliability of this new one, too. Plus: my guess is you can get an original working 16c on eBay for less than this is going to cost.
Honestly, it pains me to say it but I'd recommend a SwissMicros DM16L instead: https://www.swissmicros.com/product/dm16l
Re: HP re-releases classic computer science calculator: The HP-16C
#35It's always interesting that they use ARM chips to emulate the original firmware.
if that's true, it seems really wasteful honestly. why not reimplement the functionality using a native instruction set rather then emulating some other processor?
I doubt there are competent and cost-effective engineering teams in existence who could exactly match HP's numeric libraries in a $150 calculator that's guaranteed to sell a tiny number of units.
Re: HP re-releases classic computer science calculator: The HP-16C
#36I'm a lifelong fan of HP calculators. I have a 15c in front of me right now that I've had since the mid-ish 80s. Still works perfectly. But the 15c 'Collector's Edition' had some issues, and I wonder about the build quality and reliability of this new one, too. Plus: my guess is you can get an original working 16c on eBay for less than this is going to cost. Honestly, it pains me to say it but I'd recommend a SwissMi…
Re: HP re-releases classic computer science calculator: The HP-16C
#37I'm a lifelong fan of HP calculators. I have a 15c in front of me right now that I've had since the mid-ish 80s. Still works perfectly. But the 15c 'Collector's Edition' had some issues, and I wonder about the build quality and reliability of this new one, too. Plus: my guess is you can get an original working 16c on eBay for less than this is going to cost. Honestly, it pains me to say it but I'd recommend a SwissMi…
Why would that pain you to say it? (Honest question, not leading.)
Re: HP re-releases classic computer science calculator: The HP-16C
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would that pain you to say it? (Honest question, not leading.)
Because I'm such a longtime fan of HP models.
I have a 50g that I haven't used extensively, and a DM42n here on my desk at work (which I still don't use extensively, but aspire to).
Re: HP re-releases classic computer science calculator: The HP-16C
#39I bought a 15C in the 1980s, and have enjoyed it ever since. It is like a rock. Despite being treated roughly over the years, nothing is wrong with it apart from some dents in the metal parts and my name, scratched on the back. I suppose I've replaced the batteries a couple of times, but that's it. This thing just refuses to die.
The main thing is that the keys still work like on day 1. And I've never seen a calculator with keys like this, with such feedback that you never need to worry about double-presses or missed-presses.
I just love the thing. If it died, I'd buy one of these new versions in a flash. But I think it will outlast me!
Re: HP re-releases classic computer science calculator: The HP-16C
#40They are doing this also for the science version, the 15C. I bought a 15C in the 1980s, and have enjoyed it ever since. It is like a rock. Despite being treated roughly over the years, nothing is wrong with it apart from some dents in the metal parts and my name, scratched on the back. I suppose I've replaced the batteries a couple of times, but that's it. This thing just refuses to die. The main thing is that the ke…
This is also the thing I'm most suspicious of with all these retro remakes - it's the physical hardware aspects that get screwed up so often.
If they get this right it would be legitimately surprising.