HP 33S Scientific Calculator (F2216A) by Hewlett Packard
|
Our Price: $54.99 Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $39.95 (click here) Category: CE See more digital camera details and other models |
|---|
Digital camera reviews of HP 33S Scientific Calculator (F2216A)
Digital camera Review: Decent RPN calculator
Summary: 4 Stars
I'm a long-time user of HP RPN calculators and have been lusting for a new non-graphing scientific model for some years. I avoided this one initially because of all the bad reviews about defective keys and the goofy v-shaped keyboard layout, but finally got one several months ago (March 2006).
Quality-wise, the only problem I've experienced is the calculator won't lay flat on my desk - the feet are uneven or the case is slightly warped, so it wobbles and clunks when I hit the keys. Other than this annoyance, it works fine. I've had no problems with keys not registering properly (in sharp contrast to the lousy HP 10B2 I bought and returned awhile back) or with the decimal point being too small. It works reliably and the CPU is very fast.
Feature-wise, this is just a rebadged 32Sii with the addition of a few minor features, like more memory and constants, which are quite nice. However, being based on the 32sii, it has two severe drawbacks: poor complex number handling and no matrix capabilities. In RPN mode, it is only possible to input two complex numbers on the stack, and the calculator does not keep track of the fact you've entered complex numbers. It simply sees four numbers (two real and two imaginary numbers). Compared to predecessors like the HP 42S and the 15C, this is a major drawback. Also, like the 32Sii, complex number functions are very limited; e.g., no y-root-x functions or hyp-tan functions.
The keyboard: This has two problems, in my opinion. First, the goofy v-shaped layout not only doesn't look professional in the workplace, but it makes the calculator look intimidating to new users -- not a smart thing when RPN acceptance in the marketplace is not strong (unfortunately). The other problem is that the key legends are hard to read quickly and accurately. First, they are *very* cluttered. Second, the alpha legends are at the *lower* right of the keys, whereas all other legends are above the keys. It is counter-intuitive and cumbersome to visually scan keys to find a function you need quickly. HP should either adopt the old style keys of the 15C that had a slanted bottom edge on which extra functions were written or put more functions on menus so there's less on the keyboard.
Over all, it's not a bad calculator. But, the assembly quality is not quite what it was in the past, and the user interface is cluttered.
Digital camera Review: Departure From Classical HP Models
Summary: 2 Stars
HP33s is such a huge departure from their classic model it really renders this calculator almost useless. One becomes so prone to making errors that you sometimes feel like trashing it and using a TI. The enter key location is in an area you would not expect (bottom of keypad). And it's much smaller than any other earlier HP model. I get the sense they (HP) was trying to appeal to the scientific calculator user and the RPN users but it does not work...it's a horrible compromise. I own 2 HP32 model and this 33s model does not come anywhere close to that calculator. The key entry requires pounding to make sure the input is made. So many times I've looked at my final answer and said "what the heck is going on". Obviously, while not looking at the output screen for each and every input, you're prone to making an entry mistake and never know it. I regret the purchase only because I was expecting more functionality and a return to the RPN root--neither was achieved. My recommendation (long time HP user and fan)..SAVE YOUR MONEY.Digital camera Review: Devoted to HP no longer.
Summary: 2 Stars
Twenty years ago when I was an engineering student everyone had an HP and for good reason. They were more expensive but they were quality. Now they are expensive junk. I have a couple of old HP calculators that work great. However, I'm finally reviewing for the PE and am being forced to choose from a limited number of calculators to use on the test.
Since HP is still the only calculator with RPN and based on my past experience there was no other choice for me but HP. The younger students in the class tried to persuade me to buy the cheaper Casio but I wouldn't listen.
What's important in a calculator: 1) User interface and 2) capability. The 33s fails on both points. With respect to the user interface, the un-readable decimal point is now famous and the key pad is terrible. The keys will click even when nothing has been entered into the calculator. You can't rely on touch. You have to keep a close eye on your display or you'll end up having to enter everything again.
With respect to capability HP left out things as fundamental to a scientist/engineer as a polynomial root finder or the ability to square a complex number. I'm guessing that this was a marketing decision. I suspect that if you get a version with a special engineering package it will have some of these capabilities but I'm not going to spend $175 to find out. Besides, I've already given HP the last dime of mine that they will ever see.
Digital camera Review: Disappointing
Summary: 2 Stars
The decimal point problem is real, but I'm getting around this by setting the display for using scientific numbers with 1 digit before the decimal point.
The more troublesome problems are the computational errors. When converting from cartesian to polar coordinates, the calculator often returns a wrong answer if the starting x value is small. After I discovered this on my own, I eventually found it online as an obscure addendum to the manual. A related problem occurs when performing calculations with complex numbers. The answer may or may not be in error by pi. I called HP and they agreed that the algorithm is defective, but refused to refund my money or do anything about it. It looks like HP's approach is to sell off all their inventory of calculators as is, defective or not, and then get out of the calculator business.
This is disgusting. What happened to the old HP that always want to get it right?
Digital camera Review: Disappointing Calculator
Summary: 2 Stars
I have used HP calculators since the very beginning in the early 70's. They were always the top scientific calculators until the early 90's. The best calculator for some time has been the TI-89.
However, what strikes me about the HP 33S despite the difference in appearance and extra capabilities is how much it is like the old HP 15C which was a great calculator when it came out in the early 1980's. I am convinced that this calculator uses much of the same architecture as the HP 15C. I think they used the 15C design and simply made improvements.
This is the problem with HP. I do not think they have been serious about calculator design for years. The HP 48 had serious design deficiencies (it was a lousy programming caclulator) and went for years without improvement. In fact the HP 42 of the late 80's was in many ways superior as a scientific calculator to this (the 33S), but for some reason was dropped.
I could go on for pages about the deficiencies of the 33S but basically I think it is obsolete. It has good qualities but it simply is not much more than the HP 15C of twenty years ago. Personally, I am finished with HP calculators. Unless they recommit to calculators in a serious manner, I regard them as history.