What HP32SII improvements (in DM32) would you like ?

General discussion about calculators, SwissMicros or otherwise
Linus_Sch
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun May 09, 2021 9:33 am

Re: What HP32SII improvements (in DM32) would you like ?

Post by Linus_Sch »

redglyph wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 1:38 pm
Loading programs separately and keeping the current label system wouldn't really replace the convenience of having multiple programs in memory and meaningful names, I think. Some users would have to frequently reload the programs they need, and it would prevent them from building on other existing programs / subroutines.
Good point about combining different existing programs/subroutines.
redglyph wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 1:38 pm
On the other hand, if users want to keep their programs when loading a new one, it would mean a load operation that adds the program to the existing ones (or overwrites them) instead of erasing the whole catalog first. That would be the most convenient approach and I don't think it makes a big difference from a programming point of view, except maybe additional verifications (enough memory, overwriting existing programs).
That would need to check for label collisions, and maybe collisions in usage of variables and flags. Easy enough to check but trying to resolve it if a collision is found can be a fools errand.
Linus_Sch
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun May 09, 2021 9:33 am

Re: What HP32SII improvements (in DM32) would you like ?

Post by Linus_Sch »

J-F Garnier wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 2:39 pm
I agree with Bob, SM should refrain to add (and us to ask for) too many extra features. The DM32 should not be a DM42 clone.

In my opinion, the DM32 should keep the simplicity of the 32S/SII, and add some improvements, keeping the spirit of the 32SII programming model.
I agree... mostly. To me the spirit of the programming model of the 32sii assumes that you only really have one program in it, and most of what we're discussing with regards to this significantly steps away from that. A big change no matter how it is done.

Which is why I think it makes more sense to allow multi-character labels in addition to single-character labels, rather than just doubling the number of global labels with lowercase or dots or something. The latter seems more like over-extending a concept that just doesn't hold anymore.

Local labels 0 to 9 and .0 to .9 sounds good to me. Note that my vote is on displaying the latter set with the dot and not as 10 to 19, so that it matches what I key in. Scratch variables with the same names goes hand in hand with this and sounds good to me.

For line numbers definitely let go of using the dot and the comma though, just add the third digit when needed and let them go to 999. I'm not sure yet if the close emulation of the original display is used also in programming mode, if so, I guess this is non-trivial - but then so is any extension to the global labels. I vote for showing the global label outside of the emulated display, somehow, and using the extra character thus gained for the third digit of the line number. (although my preference would be a programming mode that lets go of emulating the old display and shows me more lines at once, maybe as an option, maybe in the future)

I do want compatibility, in the sense that I want to be able to do on the DM32 exactly the same as I do on the 32sii. But there are 6 extra keys, which gives a little room for additions. Please use those keys for all additions, don't hijack anything.
J-F Garnier wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 2:39 pm
Improvements we should not ask for:
- complex mode à la 42S: the way SM chose to emulate the 32SII display prohibits to display a full complex number on a stack level,
- nor the 15C complex mode, it would completely break the 32SII experience. It would be no sense to mimic the 32SII keyboard/display as close as does the DM32, and introduce such an incompatibility.
- matrix: definitively not. If you need it, use the DM42 it will be much more comfortable !
- of course no infinite stack, local variables or other "Plus42" features.
I agree again. I'm not knowledgeable about the complex number handling, but if it can't be done with non-conflicting additions, it shouldn't be done - in the DM32 software. This platform does allow for other software. Maybe someone will adapt the 43 software to fit the primary keys of the DM32, for having a non-confusing advanced alternative at hand when needed.
Boub65
Posts: 231
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:34 pm
Location: Rabat, Morocco

Re: What HP32SII improvements (in DM32) would you like ?

Post by Boub65 »

Now about the DM32 targeting a "new" population of users not already aficionados of HP RPN calculators...
I think it is very difficult, and I will explain my position..

DM41X price is 229 CHF
DM42 price is 199 CHF
DM41L price is 129 CHF

Based on the fact that DM32 will have a keyboard complexity similar to DM41X (two colors shift + alpha) I think that the price sould be similar to DM41X and will not be lower than DM42... so let suppose that the price is around 199 CHF...

Do you really think that a "non HP RPN aficionado, born after 1980" (up to 40 years old), will buy a calculator that has such a "gross" display (look at the WP43S display just to compare), with no way to display messages other than using an "equation" and a flag (weird isn't it ?), using .0-.9 for 10-19, reading A.01 and A,01 istead of A101 and A201, with limited complex, no matrix, etc.. etc... and for 199 CHF ? I really don't think so...

So, the price should be looooooower than 199CHF (at the level of DM41L or 149CHF maximum) or the "non HP RPN aficionados born after 1980" will just buy the extraordinary WP43S for just a bit more (249 CHF?).

May I remind you that the competition on this market segment is Casio at 50$ or Ti at 100$ with all the "power" features that seam not "simple" enought for DM32!

I don't speak about us (HP RPN aficionados) of course, that will buy any thing that SM throws at us... :D :D :D

Just my 0.02c about adressing a new market segment.
Sincèrement, Sincerely, 73,
Boubker

DM15L, DM41L, DM42 #00855 (domes upgraded), DM41X #00707
HP48SX (with dark screen), HP42s, HP32SII (1990 with fraction bug), HP41C/CV
TI-89 titanium, CASIO fx-cg50 and Numworks (to play with micropython)
J-F Garnier
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 5:37 pm
Location: France

Re: What HP32SII improvements (in DM32) would you like ?

Post by J-F Garnier »

Linus_Sch wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:45 pm
o me the spirit of the programming model of the 32sii assumes that you only really have one program in it, and most of what we're discussing with regards to this significantly steps away from that. A big change no matter how it is done.
Well, the 32S/SII were designed to have a few programs (saying one program would be exaggerated). In 384 bytes, i.e. 256 steps max., less if you use variables, you can't do much more.
For instance, a 32S user (like me) could reserve LBL A to LBL F to 6 possible main programs (short of course) , LBL X, Y, Z to scratch pad programs, and the rest for 'local' labels (loops, jumps, local sub inside the programs).
Now, we have much more program space, and (hopefully) a way to backup them. So we can extend (a bit) this model to a maximum of 26 (or ideally 52 with lower case LBL) programs, each using internally local numeric labels for loops, jumps, and local subroutines.
Local labels 0 to 9 and .0 to .9 sounds good to me. Note that my vote is on displaying the latter set with the dot and not as 10 to 19, so that it matches what I key in.
I disagree, it should be displayed as 10 .. 19 ,as are already doing FIX/ENG/SCI and SF/CF/FS?.
For line numbers definitely let go of using the dot and the comma though, just add the third digit when needed and let them go to 999.
SM will have to find a solution to fit a 3-digit line number in the same 12-place display as the 32S/SII :)
A option may be to get rid of the alpha character (the name of the program) when the line number is >99. It will not happen so often, I guess, the DM32 typical use should be for writing short programs.
I.e. A00 A01 ... A99 100 101 .. 199 200 ..
It was almost never happening to go beyond 99 steps on the 32SII (except to deliberately test the feature), so it would not really break anything, and it could now happen for DM32 power users.

J-F
Boub65
Posts: 231
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:34 pm
Location: Rabat, Morocco

Re: What HP32SII improvements (in DM32) would you like ?

Post by Boub65 »

J-F Garnier wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 9:28 pm
SM will have to find a solution to fit a 3-digit line number in the same 12-place display as the 32S/SII :)
SM have all the space they want with the display if they drop the "gross" HP32SII font...

"Backward compatibility on the display" is something I still don't understand for any thing different than HP41CX... especially if you target a new market segment...
Sincèrement, Sincerely, 73,
Boubker

DM15L, DM41L, DM42 #00855 (domes upgraded), DM41X #00707
HP48SX (with dark screen), HP42s, HP32SII (1990 with fraction bug), HP41C/CV
TI-89 titanium, CASIO fx-cg50 and Numworks (to play with micropython)
Linus_Sch
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun May 09, 2021 9:33 am

Re: What HP32SII improvements (in DM32) would you like ?

Post by Linus_Sch »

Boub65 wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 9:38 pm
J-F Garnier wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 9:28 pm
SM will have to find a solution to fit a 3-digit line number in the same 12-place display as the 32S/SII :)
SM have all the space they want with the display if they drop the "gross" HP32SII font...

"Backward compatibility on the display" is something I still don't understand for any thing different than HP41CX... especially if you target a new market segment...
Does the leading minus ever show up in front of a program step? If not, that can be the needed space.
User avatar
Walter
Posts: 3070
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 11:13 am
Location: On a mission close to DRS, Germany

Re: What HP32SII improvements (in DM32) would you like ?

Post by Walter »

At the time the HP-41C, -32S, and -42S were launched, they were addressing different groups of users with clearly different demands. Now, OTOH, the people discussing the DM41X, DM32, and DM42 and their features here are all the same. What SwissMicros didn't succeed so far (observing this forum) is directing their three DM models to separate target groups: DM42 for power users, DM41X for nostalgic, and DM32 for menu haters, for instance. This lack of separation leads to the trend (observed in this thread) to pimp the DM32. A marketing challenge IMO. YMMV
WP43 SN00000, 34S, and 31S for obvious reasons; HP-35, 45, ..., 35S, 15CE, DM16L S/N# 00093, DM42β SN:00041
Linus_Sch
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun May 09, 2021 9:33 am

Re: What HP32SII improvements (in DM32) would you like ?

Post by Linus_Sch »

Walter wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 10:50 pm
At the time the HP-41C, -32S, and -42S were launched, they were addressing different groups of users with clearly different demands. Now, OTOH, the people discussing the DM41X, DM32, and DM42 and their features here are all the same. What SwissMicros didn't succeed so far (observing this forum) is directing their three DM models to separate target groups: DM42 for power users, DM41X for nostalgic, and DM32 for menu haters, for instance. This lack of separation leads to the trend (observed in this thread) to pimp the DM32. A marketing challenge IMO. YMMV
I have not bought the previous models and I will buy the DM32. For a non-primary calculator I don't like menus (unless they are single page with zero submenus). (And my primary will always be the 50g, unless a DM48 somehow comes to fruition maybe.) So to some extent they have indeed succeeded.

Additionally, I thought the 42s mostly targeted the same users as the 41 before it. It lacked hardware expandability, that moved to the 48sx, which indeed sold at the same time as and targeted different users than the 42s and the 32sii. Your point still stands: these three DMCP calculators are a bit too close... then again, I'm only really interested in one of the three, so maybe not?
dlachieze
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 12:20 pm
Location: France

Re: What HP32SII improvements (in DM32) would you like ?

Post by dlachieze »

Walter wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 10:50 pm
At the time the HP-41C, -32S, and -42S were launched, they were addressing different groups of users with clearly different demands.
And different budget ! When I purchased my 32S in 1989 I considered the 42S but at that time couldn’t justify spending for it.
Walter wrote:
Wed Sep 28, 2022 10:50 pm
Now, OTOH, the people discussing the DM41X, DM32, and DM42 and their features here are all the same. What SwissMicros didn't succeed so far (observing this forum) is directing their three DM models to separate target groups: DM42 for power users, DM41X for nostalgic, and DM32 for menu haters, for instance.
The Pioneer family was segmented following the traditionally good / better / best approach.
  • People on a budget would pick a good calculator (10b for finance, 20s or 21s for science/statistics).
  • People wanting a better one (either because they need it or to show they can afford it) would choose a mid range one (14b for finance or 22s for science on the algebraic side - 32s/32sii for the already declining RPN side).
  • People wanting the best pocket calculator and/or show they deserve one would pick the 17b/17bii for finance, 42s for science and RPN or the 27s if they are or want to be technical managers.
This was working with the calculator market at that time. Nowadays the RPN calculator market is a very small niche. And as you noticed such segmentation does not exist anymore, we are all RPN nostalgic, and can afford a pretty high priced RPN toy (serious people do serious calculations on computers). Furthermore there is no economy of scale possible that could lead to a low priced RPN scientific calculator (the latest one was the 35s introduced 15 years ago) to target new users and divert them from TI/Casio.
DM42: 00425 - DM41X: β00066 - WP43: 00042
Linus_Sch
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun May 09, 2021 9:33 am

Re: What HP32SII improvements (in DM32) would you like ?

Post by Linus_Sch »

Getting back on topic, I was reading through http://www.finseth.com/hpdata/hp32sii.php and checking that my 32sii does not have the fraction bugs, and I found this:
It would be nice if leaving out the denominator when entering a fraction used the denominator value stored in /c.
I agree, this is a minor but certainly nice improvement. And I think it would make sense to include this in the DM32, it doesn't break anything.
Last edited by Linus_Sch on Sat Oct 15, 2022 9:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply