[alphabetter]

I am intrigued by the support for the 28S these days. I still have my 28S (with working battery door) from when I was at University. But, while I was impressed by it's potential, I never loved it as a device to use and I've stuck with my older FX-7000G as the calculator on my desk.

As explained here (edit - not my site, but I agree with the POV): http://www.ganjatron.net/retrocomputing/hp-28s/index.html

"I must say I have mixed feelings about this calculator. All this sophistication comes at the expense of ease of use. I find the HP-28S aggravatingly clumsy to use, and it's not because of RPN. For starters, the clamshell design, while ideal protection, is awkward -- you'll find yourself constantly flipping back and forth because keys on both sides are frequently used in typical operation.

Another major problem is that the HP-28 is, for the most part, not keystroke programmable; most commands are indirectly accessible through menus (over 20 of them)."

Not having the ability to import from exteral storage (the IR link is out-only) is also a big minus.

[mturmon]

That’s a good review of the 28S. I had the same issues with mine, To the extent that I’m not sure where it is now!

I later got a 32Sii which is simpler, more focused, and better as a desk calculator. I had a 41cv for many years and loved it even more.

[heelix]

I was gifted an HP 28S that was given as a bit of swag when our lab picked up an HP mass spectrometer. The odd battery size was a challenge back in those days. That silly thing absolutely saved me on a physical chemistry exam where I could get something close enough that the calculator could do the integration. My trusty 48G is still on my desk. Incredible how solid these were compared to the HP of today.

[SomeHacker44]

You can get a modern HP-41 from Swissmicros which just launched its DM-41X. I just received mine and it is a very nice device.

[goatinaboat]

I have one too, it’s superb. Love that a business exists that is doing this.

[monkpit]

32sii gang represent

[dhimes]

I have the 41CV app on my iphone and it's wonderful.

[fsflyer]

I also have 15C from my early University days and my 28S from graduate work, both still working. I got the 15C used from a junior EEE student that was quitting the program. I think it's on the 3rd set of batteries in 35 years. It got used several hours a day for the first three years.

The 28S burns through three N batteries every two years, even when it doesn't get used much. That may have contributed to the battery doors wearing out on the 28S. Mine is still in great shape however, as spent most of it's life on a desk rather than thrown in a backpack with heavy books that the 15C endured with aplomb in it's case.

The 28S was at work and the 15C at home. Now that I'm working from home and they both are on the same desk, I find I pull out the 15C unless it's complex enough that I want the four line display on the 28S. And if it's slightly more complex than that, a spreadsheet is probably the better tool.

[jjav]

I have a 28S and a 50G. While the 50G is more powerful (newer), the 28S is my favorite.

For programming custom functions the full keyboard is a lot more convenient. The 50G is too cramped, so it was hard to get into programming it, just too inconvenient whereas the 28S was a joy.

Love the clamshell. When using it for programming I lay it flat on the desk fully open. When using it purely as a calculator, flip it backwards and use handheld.

The build quality (except the battery door of course) also feels better. The 50G keys don't have the classic HP feel anymore.

The only real complaint I had of the 28S was not being able to save code between battery changes. I wish it had a backup battery to keep memory while changing the main batteries.

Still have my 28S and still use it most days, although sadly don't find much reason to program it anymore.

[mschaef]

> I intrigued by the support for the 28S these days. I still have my 28S (with working battery door) from when I was at University. But, while I was impressed by it's potential, I never loved it as a device to use

I came to the higher end HP calculators with the 48SX, which was essentially v2.0 of the 28S. Aside from the 48's larger display and single keyboard, the two machines operated essentially the same, and my experience tends to align with yours. (Even if the 48 addresses the specific concerns you mention about direct access to common features, bidirectional I/O, and the split keyboard.)

For me, the I way I'd put it is that these machines were better pocket computers than they were pocket calculators. Everything was just a touch too slow and overwrought to be as quick as you want a pocketable tool to be.

In HP's defense, these machines were designed in the mid-1980's as a sort of next generation calculator architecture. They developed a higher level programming language (RPL) and a suite of tools for the purpose of getting themselves a solid foundation for continued work after the HP41 series (which was pushing the limits of HP's traditional SW/HW processes).

So the The first RPL calculator in this new series was a business model (19B) very similar to the slight later 28C and 28S scientifics. Notably the 28S was sold in parallel with the 41CX, largely, I think, because HP recognized the appeal of the 41 and the fact that the 28 wasn't in a place to be a full replacement. The 48 was the combination of the two lines, learned from the issues of the 28, and was intended to replace both the 28 and 41 series.

So like I mentioned above, the 28 really the first try at a high end scientific based on RPL and the 48 is the second. And for better or for worse, this is where funding for further development became highly marginal. There was a 48GX that doubled the clock rate and bundled the formula library, but my understanding is that that was really the last major development of the platform by the original engineering group, and they didn't ever really do a third version. (Which is probably where they'd have gotten it fully right, based on experience with other HW/SW products over the years.)

One place people might argue with this narrative is that there were, in fact, two follow ons in the form of the HP49 and HP50. These bundled in additional open source libraries developed by the community (MetaKernal, IIRC) and at least one used an ARM CPU running emulation of the old HP Saturn CPU used previously. Neither were built to the same mechanical standards of the previous models, and I don't believe there was much continuity in the engineering teams. (The follow on work was done at least in part by members of the open source community that HP hired to briefly form a new calculator engineering group.)

> and I've stuck with my older FX-7000G as the calculator on my desk.

I use an emulated HP42S.

[Pinus]

I, too, have a 28S that rarely sees the light of day. Instead it is my older, and much less advanced, HP-10C that gets occasional exercise.

The 28 and 48 series sat in a kind of awkward spot between pocket calculators and "real" computers. The programming language is essentially Lisp turned backwards, but for any task where you actually need that capacity, it must have been easier, even at the time, to just use a PC (in the wider sense, not just IBM PC and clones). The 48 had better communications facilities, so I imagine it might have been useful where pocket carry was actually necessary (it seems to have been popular with surveyors, for example, and I have seen them hooked up with a cable to a total station).

[Jtsummers]

The language is basically a hybrid forth-lisp. I liked it, sadly my HP-48G bit the dust a while ago and was not recoverable (water damage, lost a lot of things).

And it may have been easier to use a PC, but PCs aren't portable. The calculator could easily move with you. This is not a trivial matter when moving between desk and lab and the field. With today's laptops and smartphones a calculator like that is less useful compared to the alternatives. But in the 90s and 00s it was definitely handy.

[mschaef]

> it must have been easier, even at the time, to just use a PC (in the wider sense, not just IBM PC and clones).

Agreed.

It was probably a tradition dating back to the fact that HP did the original pocket calculator, but even through to the 48's, HP did literally all of the engineering. Everything from the physical design of the device down to design and fabrication of the custom CPU and other semiconductors. There was just no way that business model was going to stay competitive with PCs over time.

(While I'm reminiscing, however, I would've loved to see the RPL software running on a machine based on the HP100LX chassis and a faster CPU... Much bigger display, a workable clamshell design, and RS232/IRDA/PCMCIA expansion.)

[roter]

I use a physical HP42S ~1989. I've lost count of the number of batteries replaced over the years. Doesn't have an excess of functionality beyond what I need and fits easily in the hand. Only piece of hardware that I would grieve.

Edit: Reminds me of about 10 years back when a box of HP calculators was found in a local warehouse. Somebody went around taking orders and high-tailed it down there.