Why don't they have covers for the TI 85 and the TI 92? Those are the two calculators that I have and I would love to have them for these two calculators. Couldn't they make them for those calculators? Anybody else have this same opinion?

The reason they offer covers for the calculators that they do is because all those calcs use the same cover design. Hence, one cover fits all those calcs, which means TI only has to make one cover in several different colors instead of several covers in several colors.

--
Phil

That's because the calcs that they are offering the new covers for are all pretty much have the same covers which means TI can use the same moulds to make the covers and cuts down on costs

And that also means that the 73, 83[+], 86, and 89 can all share covers too. I had a Ti-86 cover on the 83 that I had, and that looked pretty neat. But the 83 cover on the 86 looked really bad.

It seems to me that TI has found some easy money, since it probably costs them pennies to punch out the slide covers.

What about the new case the TI-82 comes in? Seems like the new TI-82's would be able to use the translucent covers, even though the old ones (which most people own) can't.

Also, keep in mind that the 85 and 92 are slowly being phased out in lieu of the 86 and 92 Plus, respectively.

--BlueCalx

The TI92+ is exactly the same size and shape as the TI92.
Also, why are they phasing out the TI85? Why not just re-shape it like they did with the TI82? The difference in price between 85&86 is about the same as that between the 82&83, as is the difference in functionality.

Actually, I'd say that the 85 is (still) being phased out, but the 92 is gone - they ONLY sell the 92+ now. . .

Still, the cover for the TI 92 and the TI 92 Plus is the exact same. I have a TI 92 (wish I had the TI 92 Plus...doh) and would like to have a different cover for it. I don't see why they don't just make covers for the TI 92s and 85s and so on...

One word: ingenious! This is the greatest idea EVER in the history of TI-calculators. With my new Translucent Cases on my TI-89, I do not have to look in the back to see if it's my calculator, anymore. That is truly amazing! Also, I'll be the CHIEF nerd in school with my fellow geeky friends envying my new transclucent case. huhhuh.. You know what's a great idea? Match your TI-calc with your clothing to create an awesome camouflage effect! Although I might get beat up for being a psychotic geek, but that's me you know. Too bad that TI didn't make a rainbow colored one with a gold 16K frame around it. My next mission is to get a built in magnifying glass for my TI-89. Wish me luck.

P.S. For people who take this seriously, I'm just being sarcastic. No offense but I rather save my four dollars for lunch. ^_^

iMac-style? I think this is a response to HP's new HP 49G with its translucent blue case.

Personally, I think it's kind of cool, and I don't own 1 Britney Spears CD.

I wouldn't buy one. It doesn't match the calculator. It makes little sense (in my opinion) to buy one. HP designed their calculator to integrate with a translucent case, but I think TI's would look bad.

However, that's just my opinion.

You don't own a Brittany Spears CD or even a translucent calculator case? How can you survive?

Well, I own a translucent case, but it wasn't made by TI. It's for my HP 49G, and it was supposed to be that way.

As for the Britney Spears CDs, NOPE. Not one.

I even use my expensive PC for MORE THINGS than just email and word processing.

The way I see it, the black and blue cases look good, so I'll buy all six and sell the other four off at 5 bucks a pop. That way I get two cases essentially free and a $4 profit. Hey, consumer ed really DID pay off! :)

--blue

Exactly what I was thinking. There are many guillible people in my school that would buy the ugly colors like purple, so it shouldn't be too hard.

Andrew

I am doing the same thing because I know that no one in my Calc. class (all of which own a 83,83+,86,or a 89) will be willing to pay a pretty penny for this pretty case.

why only 5 bucks? Any wannabe would easily pay 10!!!

Like the Commercial says. Think different :P

If you want to know whats the next Imac Wanna Be is, Check out the URL Link.

For anyone who hasn't checked that URL, I highly recommend it! =)

-Miles Raymond

iMac is the best computer ever released. The new 333 MHz Models blow away the fastest PIII. By the way, translucent plastics are cool. E-Machines and Future Power may have made evil Windows-based clones, but the iMac is far superior to any computer (except Blue/White Power Mac G3s and iBook.) Pentium III=snail on morphine

whytookay

Don't be making fun of my computer or I'll send my Homies to beat the xxxx out of you!

I didn't want to post anything but this one called my name. I think mac-users have become confused about the term megahertz. If somthing runs at, lets say 333 mgz, it means it can process 333 lines of assembly code per millisecond. That is not going to differ between mac/pc. (A 333 iMac is always going to be slower than a 400 pc). I have nothing against macs (i still have my IIe so i can play number munchers), but it's when mac-users start the pc bashing using issues they dont understand, you have to step in.

First, 333 MHz does not mean 333 millios assembly instructions per second on any modern microprocessor. Most (the ones designed to be as fast as possible) can execute several instructions per clock cycle, depending on che cpu (executions units and implementations) and the instructions (complex ones, like division, can have only one execution unit, while simple ones like addition can have several). This means that even if only one instruction can be *initiated* per clock cycle, some others may be running at the time. Scheduling instructions is one of the big, cool problems you must solve to make a successful cpu.

Second, many cpu's now support SIMD (Single Instruction Multiple Data) that, like the name says, can do what used to take several instructions in just one sweep.

And third, the iMac, by using pure RISC assembly on the PowerPC, could probably use more task-specific code than the CISC Pentium III (I know it uses a RISC core, but the language is still CISC). But don't quote me on that. :o)

<Phew> Too much thinking too early in the day...

A MHz is a MHz do the math!
400 is greater than 333!

Any one who has a Calculator on hand can check it for me.

By the way I-Mac's are VERY ugly!

You are incorrect. A MHz is a MHz, which is obvious, but the clock speed of a processor is not an indication of it's processing speed (processor and processing are two different things). For example, a 75 MHz Pentium runs faster than a 100 MHz 486.

333 MHz is the speed of the clock. The clock synchronizes message sending between the parts of the processor by telling the parts when it is OK to send the next bit of data. This makes sure that the message doesn't lose bits or have bits repeated, which would lead to unexpected operation or processor crashes.

The measurement you are referring to is MIPS (millions of instructions per second) or MFLOPS (for floating point operations). MIPS is closely, but not directly, related to clock speed. For example, the fastest instruction may require two clock cycles (in a 333MHz processor, it would run at 166 MHz). Other instructions may run at other speeds, such as three clock cycles (111 MHz), and so on.

well ill send my homies to stop your homies from hurting him and his homies.

homies, ha
adam

Macintoys are more user friendly than pc's, and are easier to maintain, but they're no match for a custom built pc!! But that's besides the point, I thought this was about calc's trying to be like mac's, not people comlaining about a problem that will never go away! We can argue about pc vs. mac in speed, looks, and grandmother appeal, but that isn't what this site is about! (Unless TI starts making Hand-held I-macs *cold shudder*) but n e way, back to the bashing!

Ok, its time to put you in your place. The iMac is definitely not the best consumer pc
ever made. It is definitely not the fastest, the least expensive, or the most versatile.
The only reason I would ever touch a computer with a G3 cpu is to do the graphics
work I do on a daily basis. I can take a $900 dollar box, and having running
screaming fast with a Celeron 366 running at 550 Mhz. This is all while screwing
Microsoft (except for gaming, with the TNT2 card in the box) and running on Linux.
So if you ever feel like popping off another comment on how the iMac is 'superior' to
anything, be warned that I will post a very technical comment on RISC CPU's and
their use in iMac's, N64's, and microwave ovens......

You can't exactly say that iMacs are the best because some people like them, some people hate them. The iMac setup is very simple. It only takes a few steps to setup and power-up, but is lacks a few things which draws from its strong potential such as a floppy drive which most people still use whether it's constant use or occasional use. About the G3 being better than the PIII, no one can truely say which is better because computer analysts found that the PIII is slower in some computers and faster in others.

Note: I AM NOT A WinDefender! I am, if you may, a computer nerd who "sleeps around". None of this is my opinion. I just state the facts.

If the G3 isn't faster the the PIII then i can assure you that the G4 is faster. it can beat the pants off any PIII. Using Intel's own testing system the 500Mhz G4 was about 2.9 times faster than the 600Mhz PIII. Beat that! The G4 is technically a supercomputer because it can perform more than a gigaflop (ooo, cool word. it means 1 billion instructions per second). the G4 can perform up to 4 gigaflops making it the first personal computer that is classified as a supercomputer. ha!

sorry for the off topic post.

']['om

GFLOPS is a measurement of floating point performance (billion floating point operations per second). The correct measurement of instructions per second is MIPS (million instructions per second). Even this is not an indicator of which chip is better. For example, a chip might take 4 seconds to do something using 4 instructions (1 instruction per second), while another chip might take 2 seconds to do it using one instruction (.5 instructions per second). Which one takes the least amount of time ? Does that same one have the most instructions per second ?

sorry, thats what i meant

I know its off subject, thanks for accepting my apology... Now as far as this "best computer" goes, don't rush to conclusions. The NEC Z1 (see link) does everything an iHack better (yes, it has a 3.5" drive), and the 4 USB ports and 15" LCD is a nice touch. And yes, it has rounded corners. If I stumble across $2500, I know what I'm getting.