folta@tove.cs.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) (09/09/90)
>>7. Tactile feedback from the keys. They have better spring-back than >> some earlier TI calculators, but not as good as HP [where it has >> seriously degraded in all machines after the HP-41, especially the >> left-shift key on my 48!] > >Agreed!!! I think the 48SX is better than my old 28C. The 28C was so >bad that I had to watch what I did and could not just trust my >fingers. Thats really bad I think. I have used my 28S only a few times because the keys are so mushy. If I type at full speed, I lose digits, and if I type very slowly (as when looking back and forth at a book), I get repeats. The difference between my 41C and my 28S is like the difference between a Porsche and a Yugo. (My 12C also has a very good feel.) It's strange to being saying this about an HP calculator... My freshman year in college I switched from TI to HP, and I swear that I didn't make a single mistake on the calculator the entire year! The RPN and the great keyboard gave me extreme confidence. But the 28S is so bad, I end up doing everything twice to double-check it. I tried one 48SX and it felt 28S-like. I will try another, but if it is as bad as the 28, I will stick with computers and forget calculators for anything fancier than my 12C can do. -- Wayne Folta (folta@cs.umd.edu 128.8.128.8)
michael@astro.Princeton.EDU (Michael Woodhams) (09/10/90)
In article <PEDZ.90Sep7132723@bigben.mpd.tandem.com> pedz@bigben.mpd.tandem.com (Perry Smith) writes: >>7. Tactile feedback from the keys. They have better spring-back than >> some earlier TI calculators, but not as good as HP [where it has >> seriously degraded in all machines after the HP-41, especially the >> left-shift key on my 48!] > >Agreed!!! I think the 48SX is better than my old 28C. The 28C was so >bad that I had to watch what I did and could not just trust my >fingers. Thats really bad I think. > >pedz I've just done a quick comparison of the calculators ready to hand, and the HP48SX seems about the same as the HP65, and both are better than the TI59. The TI still has adequate feel, however (IMHO). What annoys me about the 48SX keyboard is it's appearance. What ever happened to the wonderful HP keys that lasted from the 35 until at least the 28[C/S]? Why did they change to the boring, cheap looking keys? It's like Rolls Royce making cars without the silver grill. To whoever is out there in HP who has influence over these things, please give us back the old keys. (I also thought the book arrangement of the 28 looked very good because it allowed so many more keys. Menus are nice, but dedicated keys are better. However, I've never actually used a 28, so it might not be as wonderful as it looks for all I know.)
jdege@ (Jeff Dege) (09/10/90)
In article <2361@idunno.Princeton.EDU> michael@astro.Princeton.EDU (Michael Woodhams) writes: >In article <PEDZ.90Sep7132723@bigben.mpd.tandem.com> pedz@bigben.mpd.tandem.com (Perry Smith) writes: > >(I also thought the book arrangement of the 28 looked very good because >it allowed so many more keys. Menus are nice, but dedicated keys are >better. However, I've never actually used a 28, so it might not be as >wonderful as it looks for all I know.) The book arrangement was great on a desk stand, but for handheld use, I left it folded, and was forced to keep turning the thing over to reach the keys I needed. Like everything, it hand pluses and minuses. Personally, I though the case of the 28C/S had a cheap feel. The 48 has a much more solid heft...
rrd@hpfinote.HP.COM (Ray Depew x2419) (09/11/90)
michael@astro.Princeton.EDU (Michael Woodhams) laments the loss of the great- feeling keys of the HP "Classic Calculator" days ... >>>7. Tactile feedback from the keys. They have better spring-back than >>> some earlier TI calculators, but not as good as HP [where it has >>> seriously degraded in all machines after the HP-41, especially the >>> left-shift key on my 48!] >> >>Agreed!!! I think the 48SX is better than my old 28C. The 28C was so >>bad that I had to watch what I did and could not just trust my >>fingers. Thats really bad I think. >I've just done a quick comparison of the calculators ready to hand, >and the HP48SX seems about the same as the HP65, and both are better >than the TI59. The TI still has adequate feel, however (IMHO). >What annoys me about the 48SX keyboard is it's appearance. What ever >happened to the wonderful HP keys that lasted from the 35 until at >least the 28[C/S]? Why did they change to the boring, cheap looking >keys? It's like Rolls Royce making cars without the silver grill. To >whoever is out there in HP who has influence over these things, please >give us back the old keys. (Sorry about including all the >>> lines, but they're important to the discussion...) IRON-CLAD UNDERWEAR DISCLAIMER: I used to work in HP Corvallis, but I never had anything officially to do with calculators. Some of my best friends are calculator gurus, though. Take the following with a large helping of salt, knowing that it's all based on observations and MHO. The introduction of the new rounded-style keys (and case, didja notice?) coincided roughly and unintentionally with the introduction of the Ford "jelly-bean" body style. Sleek, rounded aerodynamic styling replaced sharp corners and boxy lines in many different fields, not just automobiles and calculators. Part of HP's motivation for the new styling was to set the new generation of HHC's apart from the old generation. Part of it (IMHO ) was to set the new generation apart from all the non- HP HHC's that were copying HP's styling. (Remember, looks imply quality to many people. Not to c.s.h readers, of course ... :-) And part of the motivation (again, IMHO) was for manufacturability. The rounded cases, with the rounded keys molded INTO the cases, popped out of their molds much easier than the old-style cases. The rounded corners minimized any heat distortion problems they may have had in the past, and actually increased the life expectancy of the cases by eliminating stress-concentration points. Now, when *I* first saw the jellybean keyboards, my first reaction was "Yuck! Toylike! Cheap!" (Sound familiar?) I was used to feeling the sharp corners of the keys on my 41CX, and there were no corners to feel on the new keys. But you know, after using a 42S and a 42CX for ... um ... quite a while now, I can honestly say that I like the jellybean keys better. Maybe I can list some reasons: 1. Short throw. (The keys, not the HHC!) The 41 keys have to travel about twice as far to make contact as the 48SX keys. Your mileage, of course, may vary. That may not mean much by itself, but to a ChemE doing hundreds of keystrokes on one part of one problem, it can definitely make a difference. No more sore wrists, etc. 2. No loose keys. If you take the 48 apart (DON'T! I'm sure none of you have ever even CONSIDERED such a thing ;-) you will see that the keys aren't loose as they were with the 41, but really are a one-piece integral part of the case. That means no keys to fall out, or wobble, or anything. Also, as long as you have the case apart (WHAAAT?), look at the backs of the keys and notice that they're still triple-injection- molded, just like every calculator since the original HP-35. That means the legends and symbols on the keys won't ever wear off. They're part of the key, not just painted on. That's an extra touch of quality you won't find on most non-HP machines. 3. Touch typing. When I get going fast and furious on the keyboard (like when I wrote my DRAW program for the 42S), I'm too busy looking in the display to see what keys I'm punching. I depend on my fingers to know the keys' exact location and to hit them "just so". On the 41, with its square keys, occasionally my fingers would hit a key corner and miss contact. It was annoying to have to stop, look at the keyboard to reorient myself and get back to it. With the rounded keys, even a corner hit is enough to make contact, and I can punch keys even faster than before. 4. Styling. I admit it. After a while, the jellybean keys really do grow on you. I keep my 41CX around for sedimental purposes (also because the clock is still accurate :-), but every time I pull it out and look at it, it looks old-fashioned. And the 41's keys feel positively TINNY compared with the short-throw, quiet-click keys of the 48. I'm converted. If you're making noise about the jellybean keys but you haven't bought one of the new HHC's yet, then remember that the world keeps turning, and better ideas do come along. On the other hand, if you're making noise about the jellybean keys and you DO own one of the machines, then just give it a little time. It took me about a week of punching keys to finally decide I liked them. *************************** Now, if you're offended by what I said, or feel like these remarks were snobby or condescending, I apologize. They certainly weren't meant to be. I really am proud of HP calculators, and I have some idea of the quality built into the machines, the quality that doesn't show on the outside. I'm sorry if the pride comes across in the wrong way. Please remember that I DON'T MAKE calculators. I just use them, same as you. Nothing in this note is HP proprietary. It's all stuff that was previously published by HP, or stuff that could be discovered by any HHC owner, or stuff that any visitor to HP Corvallis would notice while walking the halls (escorted, of course). Regards Ray Depew HP Colorado IC Division rrd@hpfitst1.hp.com -------
rrd@hpfinote.HP.COM (Ray Depew x2419) (09/11/90)
OOPS!
ERROR ERROR ERROR
> But you know, after using a 42S and a 42CX for ... um ... quite a while now,
^^^^
No, I'm not leaking a new-product announcement to the world. I'm merely
short-circuiting neurons again. I meant to say "a 42S and a 48SX ... ".
Can't even blame this one on vi!
Apologies to anyone who got their hopes up...
Regards
Ray Depew
HP Colorado IC Division
rrd@hpfitst1.hp.com
-------
----------