Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HP re-releases classic computer science calculator: The HP-16C

hpcalcs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 140 posts

Re: HP re-releases classic computer science calculator: The HP-16C

#21

Post by layer8 »

If this uses similar parts as the HP-15C Collector’s Edition in 2023 (which seems likely), then be advised that it doesn’t match the quality of the original in terms of display, key feel, and key labeling (colors). The back side of the 15C CE is also pretty ugly in my opinion [0] compared to the original [1].

[0] https://commerce.hpcalc.org/images/15c-ce-back-medium.jpg

[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/HP-15C_C...

Re: HP re-releases classic computer science calculator: The HP-16C

#22

Post by bigfishrunning »

wslh wrote: post #19

It'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?

Re: HP re-releases classic computer science calculator: The HP-16C

#24

Post by ndiddy »

I have one of the originals. It's useful if you do low-level programming a lot, and in a pinch you can also use it as a standard calculator. The biggest limitation is that the screen can only show 8 digits. In binary mode, this can be awkward if you're working with variables that are more than 8 bits. The calculator has functionality for scrolling around the number that's being displayed to try to work around this, but it's still a little annoying compared to newer calculator designs that can show more digits at once.

Re: HP re-releases classic computer science calculator: The HP-16C

#26

Post by fmajid »

layer8 wrote: post #21

If this uses similar parts as the HP-15C Collector’s Edition in 2023 (which seems likely), then be advised that it doesn’t match the quality of the original in terms of display, key feel, and key labeling (colors). The back side of the 15C CE is also pretty ugly in my opinion [0] compared to the original [1]. [0] https://commerce.hpcalc.org/images/15c-ce-back-medium.jpg [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm…

The originals (I still have my 1987 HP-15C) used silicon-on-sapphire technology, normally used for space, that ensured the amazing battery life. The keyboard domes had a complicated fabrication process to ensure optimum feel. The keycaps were double shot for durability. No modern calculator is going to be made to that standard, it would cost at least $1000.

Re: HP re-releases classic computer science calculator: The HP-16C

#27

Post by jtwaleson »

maplant wrote: post #13

I wish they would re-release the HP50-g, I had one somewhere but it got lost and I _loved_ that thing!

Ugh same. I had a 49g and a 49g+ in high school. The 49g broke down and the other got robbed when my student room got burgled a couple years later.

Learned a lot of RPN programming on those things!

I saw one in the wild a couple months back but had to say it didn't live up to my memories. Super slow and clunky interfaces compared to our modern touch screens.

Re: HP re-releases classic computer science calculator: The HP-16C

#28

Post by layer8 »

fmajid wrote: post #26
layer8 wrote: post #21

If this uses similar parts as the HP-15C Collector’s Edition in 2023 (which seems likely), then be advised that it doesn’t match the quality of the original in terms of display, key feel, and key labeling (colors). The back side of the 15C CE is also pretty ugly in my opinion [0] compared to the original [1]. [0] https://commerce.hpcalc.org/images/15c-ce-back-medium.jpg [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm…

The originals (I still have my 1987 HP-15C) used silicon-on-sapphire technology, normally used for space, that ensured the amazing battery life. The keyboard domes had a complicated fabrication process to ensure optimum feel. The keycaps were double shot for durability. No modern calculator is going to be made to that standard, it would cost at least $1000.

I’d pay that much, but alas.
Post reply on HN