Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 6-10 of 139
 Devoted to HP no longer. October 6, 2005
Joseph E. Sneed III (Alabama)
15 out of 16 found this review helpful
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.
 Quirky retro key layout, but better than anything in its class. February 18, 2007
L. M. Jordan
15 out of 15 found this review helpful
My HP 10C needed to be retired. It's taken alot of abuse since the early 80's. My daughter was kind enough to let me borrow her HP 48g+ (practically new because she's been using a TI-83 Plus in math/engineering). Well, the 48g+ is a little much for my needs (and it's a brick), so I decided to find a comparable replacement for the 10C. I was disappointed to discover that there were no longer any HP scientific models in this form-factor (10C, 11C), only the 12C which unfortunately is a business calculator or other unacceptable algebraic units. I first noticed the 33s at a local Fry's Electronics, but the chevron layout of the function keys did not thrill me. However, this was the only RPN calculator in this class, so I took the plunge.
I devoured the well written manual (355 pages) in two days, keying in many of the examples and creating some of my own. It does an excellent job of covering the scope of the 33s's functionality, with emphasis on equations and programming. Its support for an unlimited number of equations is a different (better) solution to the expression history offered on some algebraic units. The two line display shines when navigating through the equation list and program store. The 33s is far superior to my ancient 10C in terms of the number of functions offered, the size of persistent store and programmability. Although for real programming tasks I'd use a desk-/laptop system, it's hard to beat the convenience of this light-weight, pocket-sized, programmable device.
My two nits:
[1] The equation editor is primitive compared to $15 units: No cursor positioning, simply deleting from and appending to the end of an equation. If you want to change something near the start of an equation, you'll need to delete up until, insert, and reenter what you just deleted. The cursor keys languish unused.
[2] I do not like the chevron-patterned key layout. It is hard to read the secondary and tertiary options above the keys. My eyes want to scan left-to-right horizontally. The key layout makes this very tedious. One must read angularly down then up, or vertically. Once I memorize the layout, this may no longer be a problem, but right now, while I'm learning the new keypad, it is irksome.
A lot of calculator in a handy form-factor with a quirky retro key layout.
Addendum (8/2008)
I had to replace the two button batteries after only 1.5 years of ownership. And I haven't been using the calculator all that much. I'll be watching to see how long the next set of batteries (>$6.00) lasts.
Disappointing and not for the presbyopic August 9, 2005
H. J. Ploehn (Columbia, SC USA)
14 out of 14 found this review helpful
I read all of the Amazon reviews and concluded that this was the best value in HP scientific calculators using RPN (and wanting a durable keypad unlike the HP 48/49 series). I thought the unreadable decimal point issue (see others) was overblown, and I liked the idea of pre-programmed physical constants. Thus I was quite disappointed when it turned out the display is SO INFERIOR. Not only is the decimal point unreadable, but the pixelated numerals are absolutely unacceptable. My $10 TI calculator has a better display. Moreover, accessing the physical constants requires scrolling through a menu with nearly unreadable symbols, and you have to have the manuals to interpret the symbols unless you happen to remember the value of the physical contstant that you are seeking. I can get the number out of a textbook faster.
I am an engineering professional and have preferred HP calculators for over 20 years. I have used cheap (but functional) TI calculators since I lost my last HP about 8 years ago (I am only now getting over the loss). I resolved to get a new HP with RPN because I am tired of using the algebraic-entry TI in the office and my wife's old HP 12 (RPN) at home. I returned the HP 33S to Amazon and will now but an old-style HP 12 financial calculator (and wait for the Qonos).
Disappointing March 2, 2005
dabotofus2 (L.A.)
13 out of 13 found this review helpful
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?
 What a shame July 15, 2004
12 out of 13 found this review helpful
I recently received a 33s. I've found the display completely unusable, not only is the decimal point ridiculously small; the numbers are not spaced as well as earlier models, exacerbating the problem. I don't see how anyone is the design group at HP could have found this acceptable...sent it back the same day.
|
