hp33s vs. hp 35s

I have not used a 33s, but I do like my 35s.

I have big fingers, and the keys are big enough, and they are far enough apart for my liking. I have only seen a 33s once or twice, and the keys looked too close together for my taste.

I haven't done any programming on mine, but there are alot of programs out there for them.

I'm not a great fan of either, but given the two, I go for the HP-35. I have only poked around on a 33 a couple of times and don't own one. I have an HP35, but prefer my older machines such as the HP44, the HP48, and the hp15C

I like the 11c and the 48, but they are not permitted for the exam. I'm going with the 35s. Bigger buttons and a more familiar layout...

35 hands down

I have both and the HP35 is far better than the HP33 but it still has features that could have been done better.

The store function is on a shift key which works but a bit of a pain. The biggest dislike is that the polar>rectangular function is a bit hard to implement, it is not assigned to a key. That isn't a problem if you write a routine our use it under program control. The HP35 is very easy to program (so is the HP33) like the old HP41 keystroke program days, no program language to learn.

You might look at the HP50 and some programs if you want a replacement for the HP48. The HP33 and HP35 have no input/output and must be programed by entering everything on the keyboard. It took me about 5 days, an hour a day +-, to put all of the D'Zign programs into my HP33, now the batteries have died and I will probably have to do it all again if I wish to use it.

Tom Wilson

>.......now the batteries have died and I will probably have to do it all again if I wish to use it.
>
> Tom Wilson

I have 2 33s, both programmed with different routines. The same routines I used back when I took my tests.

About a month ago one of them was completely dead. Now I have to reprogram it, but at least its the one with fewer programs. I put batteries in it so I could at least use it as a calculator until I get around to typing in all the functions.

Last week I grabbed the other one to run a quick BB Int-x and D*****T if it wasn't dead.:-@

Now I have 2 to reprogram.

Don,

I don't know if the 33 and 35 are similar enough but I have a word document that has nearly all of the programmable functions that a surveyor would need for the 33.

Let me know if you would like it regardless of the calculator you choose.

I think that the only reason that these calculators exist is because of NCEES. They have certain requirements for their tests, and one of them is to greatly reduce the effectiveness of the calculator being used.

I used to think that the purpose was to hamstring the test taker, but now I think that the reason is to keep the questions from being recorded, limit the information that can be stored, and eliminate the ability for examinees to communicate using their calculator.

Therefore, as a calculator for actual work...I am not sure why someone would buy it. The entering of programs is so tedious, and for adding and subtracting and trig functions, you can get a $5.00 calculator...Except it wont look as cool as a 35s (and, Yes, that is important.)

That said:

I prefer the HP-35s, but I think it has more known "bugs" than the 33s. I know my 35s doesn't do check sums correctly when I try to check my program entries.

The interface of the 35s is more pleasing to me than the 33s.

The 35s "looks like an hp", which is a benefit to some (I like that.)

Don't know about the 35, but the 33's enter key is in the wrong spot for EVERY other HP I've ever used.

Other than that, it has some pretty slick stats on it.

Rob if you would, shoot me that word file. I have to re-program my 33 as well.

Jason

I sent you an email so that you could reply. I can't send a WORD doc through Beer Leg.

HP 35 over the 33 by a mile.

I GAVE my 33 away, I was so disgusted with it. After years with the 32Sii, 41 and the 48, it just seemed ..... clunky? Bought a 35, and even though it isn't a 32, it's close. Only reason I began using the 33 and the 35 is for testing, just so it isn't "new" to me, AND I have to have RPN, I don't even know what an "=" sign is! Got a 49 in the arsenal, compliments of doing some cold weather testing for John Evers, don't much care for it either. Side note: just bought a 41cx w/ the rechargable battery pack (no cord) for $1 at a Salvation army. Pulled the N bat pack out of the 41c and voila! New calc. (Now, what to do with 3 41's, a 35, a 49 and 5- 48's?) 🙂

-JD-

HP 35 over the 33 by a mile.

If I could find a print out hand held 'puter like my HP41CX I'd be happier than..............

Derek

HP 35 over the 33 by a mile.

My collection presently includes a 15C I have used since high school (~1987) after my sister in college handed it down because she got an HP28C. An HP48gx that I got in ~1993 while I was in college, I have a couple of HP41's (that I bought to take the exam in 1995), and an HP82240B thermal printer. I also have an HP35s. Ironically, I could use the HP48gx on the Florida exam in 2001, but I had to get an HP35s to take an exam last October.

I still hate my HP35s, but it is apparently better than the HP33. One of my co-workers is rumored to have thrown his HP33 out the window on his drive home after his exam. He was SO digusted with it after using it on the exam he felt it deserved to meet asphalt at a high rate of speed.

Having used an HP48gx in college, I thought it was silly that I had to antiquate myself to using the HP41 with a survey pac to take the exam in 1995. In college, I actually re-coded many of the HP41 survey pac programs to run on the HP48gx with similar cryptic prompts because I couldn't bear to carry the HP41 dinosaur around to learn to use it. While cleaning out my garage not to long ago, I ran across the printouts of the various programs for the HP41 survey module, cryptic as they were. I don't recall whether they were the recoded set for the HP48, or the originals from the HP41. Hadn't seen them in 12 years, but knew imediately what they were. 🙂

For those commenting that they lost their programs on the 35 when the batteries died. I believe you can replace the batteries one at a time and preserve the memory, if you treat bateries as preventative maintenance items, replacing them before they are dead.

I recommend the 35s because I have an easier time seeing the decimal point on the 35 than I do on the 33. Also, the buttons on the 35 feel more like an HP than the 33 does.

Just my 0.02

Miguel

As to the display, early 33s' had a problem (invisible decimal point) but that has been fixed for years so unless you were buying a used one, not a problem. As far as I can tell the 35s display and the 33s are the same.

Also for some people who learned to use polarrectangular from the keyboard, the HP-35s does not have those. For that reason I would use a 33s for a test, not wanting to rely on programming for everything.

I am surprised no one mentioned that.

The 35S would be more powerful to program since it allows more access to memory registers and also better branching to sub programs, whereas the 33s was severely constrained by the limited number of 'labels'. But if you're not programming, there isn't that much difference.

There are several annoying things on the 35s. Since there are fewer keys more functions have been moved underground to menu selections piled on other keys. So it often takes several more keystrokes to do simple things. A similar example is the program access via the XEQ key.

On the 33S and my earlier similar calculators you can put a routine on a letter label like "A" "B" "T" and so forth and run them with a simple 2 keystroke sequence XEQ A. Now the new method while adding much flexibility in programming requires more keystrokes since you have to enter XEQ A 000 or at best XEQ A ENTER. Keyboard layout is also radically changed.

For years many HP programmable calculators had 5 keys wide at the top and special significance could be assigned to A B C D and E. This goes back to the HP-65 through the 33S. Now there are only 4 wide on the top row with special arrow and function keys being placed to the right. Oh well, they are all different.

If you are going to go into a test with a calculator you are not familiar with, it will not really be the calculators fault. If you learned and drilled yourself on how to use the 35s then it would be best. If you were more familiar with the older line of HP calculators absent a program, I think you would find the 33s easier to master.

Personally I would not want to rely on programming at all, but my ability to solve basic problems from the keyboard. For that reason if I had to do it today, I would use a 33s. Looks should not be a factor over ease of use and familiarity. If you have used a 41c or a 15c or many of the earlier generation of HP I think the 33s would be easier to pick up and tackle a problem with once you figured out where the functions are.

But in the end, is the 33s still for sale?

- jerry

PS some of the above is by way of saying that the 33s in it's later form with the fixed decimal point display is not a junk calculator in spite of it's funky chevron keyboard layout. It is in fact a pretty good little calculator for the money.

PPS while the NCEES requirements may be irritating, the calculators were not designed to meet it, but the requirements simply reflect what was available on the market that fit the NCEES concepts at the time. I have not revisited the thought process, but issues relating to testing the applicants knowledge versus the depth of their pocketbook come to mind as things I would guess were related. Back to one of my above comments. If you had to rely on someone elses canned solution to solve any basic test question, you are probably not going to have my sympathy nor would it appear NCEES'

Good points Mr. Wahl. I personally don't like not having a polar?rectangular key.

To me, the biggest slowdown is to have a calculator you are not familiar with. I especially hate having to spend time looking for the key I need.

That's why I'm looking now.... I need to know it by june....the 35s has been ordered.

Rob :

Could you please send me an email with this word document.. please!!!! my email is [email protected]... thanks