I don't care how much of a waste it is, I'm gonna get one,(an 84+SE that is). Not only will it be better for programming (faster) but OH GOD will Billy be jealous (He's the one who optimizes all my programs...)!!!!

Just for that, I am going to buy him one, to rub it in your face.

-W-

The 84+se is no faster than 83+se. (It is faster than the 83+, however.)

MWM

wil VTI ever support these...?

Okay, I a going to type slowly, incase you cannot understand.

T h e 8 9 t i i s t h e s a m e. I t j u s t h a s m o r e R O M.

However, the 84/+ will have to be added. If not, I will smirk at the owners.

-W-

Why will it have to be added? It is compleatly compatible with the 83+. The only difference is the USB port and the clock. (By the way the 89ti is different from the 89 also in that it includes a USB port.)

MWM

Depends how much difference there actually is in the emulation to get it to start up.

Have to add the rom signatures. If you want correct hardware emulation, it'll take more than just a rom add with memory size for the other ports/etc.

(check url)

I'm in the middle of reclassing the core before the main cross-platform port begins for the new gui.

My only complaint on the ti-89 titanium is that they didnt change the internal processor clock speed. It still stuck at 12 mhz (i dink).

I wish they have increase the speed and the use memory =]

edit.. user memory...flash mem im ok with

Im not completely sure about this, but its seems to me that the new ti-84+/silver ed and ti89 t/e both have covers that slide off the bottom... now we can hold it by the case without the calc slipping out and hitting the floor (calcuators nightmare). Also, notice that some people are saying that these calcs are pretty much the same as their older counterparts... well you guys for got the built in usb port... and btw, why havent they put a backilght in these new ones yet?!??!? i mean yeah, it would take more batterry power... but seriously, who cares... id want it just so i could program in the dark... hmm.. if they do that, they also have to have a transparent body so you can see the keys too... also, i wonder if you call and beg TI-cares alot.. perhaps they would send a pre-market version of all three new calcs just so we can see what it is like... hehehe ...

The sliding off is a HUGE problem for me. My school's TI-83+s almost slide out of the case at a very shallow angle. My 89, after so much use, slips aut way too often. Strangely, my much older 83+SE doesn't slide out. My sister's 83 and my 86 almost never slide out. Maybe there's a slightly different polymer in the old and new style cases.

My newer TI-89 (the one that was stolen) had a good case- it never fell off. My older TI-89 that I have now, it's case always falls off. The solution? Either don't carry it by the case, or carry it upside-down.

Oops, I made it sound like I was saying that the case itself slid off. But you knew what I meant.

The sliding out is due to the way those cases are designed. In the case of the 83 (and the 89Ti) there is a slight-and very flexible-bulge near the top of the screen. This prevents it from sliding out inadvertently. When TI made the newer cases, they eliminated the bulge and added shiny plastic around the screen (which made me, as a fingerprint freak, go nuts). The 89Ti eliminates all this.

The 83+SE case has some additives in it-thus, it is Silver Edition, not Clear Edition.

Heh, I'm a fingerprint freak too ;)

Me too, when it involves my calc.

I hate people who don't keep that clean. It really bugs me. I have to go and clean it for them if I ever use it. I mean how can you mistreat your faithful TI calc like that?!

The poor things...

My 86 stays in its case really well, but my 83+ slides out of the case with the smallest pressure or incline (well, I guess the fact that I got it used, with many scratches, could explain it....).

Whee, I have a V200, so I don't have to worry about that kind of stuff. But, either way, because of the way I hold my other calcs, they never slide out.

More RAM would break nearly all assembly/C programs. Even AMS itself, and probably some FlashApps too.

And by the way, the address mapping for FlashROM is also used up with 4 MB (2.7 + the space needed by AMS). Again, adding more breaks most assembly/C programs.

ok more ram=bad...=[
but dey stil shud increase da clock speed... o well

ok more ram=bad...=[
but dey stil shud increase da clock speed... o well

Even if it's paged, like you said above? There's no different way to access it, and it doesn't default to 1?

For some reason, my HW1 TI89 has araound 300kb of RAM....

why r they reducing it?

I wish they would put in an FPU already. Or maybe upgrade to a 68040 ;)

The 68000 can't support an FPU, so they'd have to upgrade to at least a 68020 to even use one anyway (I think).

What does FPU stand for?

(F)loating
(P)oint
(U)nit

A section of a processor that can do non-integer math operations in hardware, instead of having to emulate it, much more slowly, with software.

What do you know of the 68000? Do you know if a 68000 would trap (cause an exception on) FP instructions if a program tried to execute them?

If it does, then I would think that an FP instruction could be performed in software by examining it in the Illegal Instruction exception handler.

I'm wondering about this because I'd like to (possibly) write an OS kernel for the TI-89/92+ that allows assembly programs to use single FP instructions instead of calls to FP functions (as well as other stuff like dynamic libraries etc.). This would probably simplify (and standardize, such as to IEEE) compilers for the calc.

Of course, I may be completely wrong.

Actually, according to someone I know, the 68K series are so fast because most of the functions are part of the hardware instead of software.

You mean no microcode ROM?

This would require them to change much of how the AMS works. They use the A (1010) and F (1111) line emulators for their own purposes. Both newer 680x0 models and FPUs use them for actual instructions.