TI-83 Series POTY Tied

Basics	Archives	Community	Services	Programming
Hardware	Help	About	Search	Your Account

Home :: Archives :: News :: TI-83 Series POTY Tied

TI-83 Series POTY Tied
Posted by Michael on 31 December 2005, 01:22 GMT

It turns out that at the instant when we ended the TI-83/83+/84+ POTY poll and began the first 68k poll, there was a tie for the winner. Thus we now enter the "terrific ticalc.org tiebreaker" poll. Voting is even more fun than being able to use awful alliteration in news articles! For this poll we have taken the two TI-83/83+/84+ programs that were tied with the most votes. The winner will be the TI-83/83+/84+ POTY.

Reply to this article

The comments below are written by ticalc.org visitors. Their views are not necessarily those of ticalc.org, and ticalc.org takes no responsibility for their content.

Re: TI-83 Series POTY Tied
Denial
And the loser will be the TI-83, TI-83+ SE, TI-84+ and TI-84+ SE POTY?
Reply to this comment	31 December 2005, 01:34 GMT

Re: Re: TI-83 Series POTY Tied
saubue (Web Page)
<quote> The winner will be the TI-83/83+/84+ POTY. </quote> I guess you only mean the TI-83+ SE, TI-84+ SE POTY...
Reply to this comment	31 December 2005, 01:56 GMT

Re: Re: Re: TI-83 Series POTY Tied
Michael Vincent (Web Page)
That was edited after his original comment. Not that it matters since the two programs are for the TI-83 Plus (Emu8x for the TI-83 Plus Silver Edition and above). So there really is no plain TI-83 POTY.
Reply to this comment	31 December 2005, 01:58 GMT

Re: TI-83 Series POTY Tied
Brian Gordon
Awful indeed! x_x
Reply to this comment	31 December 2005, 02:41 GMT

Re: Re: TI-83 Series POTY Tied
Derrick F.
Last second vote too.
Reply to this comment	31 December 2005, 02:57 GMT

1st Useful Input
coinmanz (Web Page)
This article's discussion (5 posts thusfar) seems pointless, so I'll give my 2 cents: 1. Isn't this the 1st ever categorical POTY tie breaker? Where's the excitement!?!? 2. Emu8X is more useful than a card game anyday. Take 'em for what they're worth :)
Reply to this comment	31 December 2005, 11:35 GMT

Discussion.
Zeraz (Web Page)
There's no need to be useful. I guess more people are playing games than using other programs on their calculator. I would vote for the program that you use more often. In my case that's Wizards ;)
Reply to this comment	31 December 2005, 12:17 GMT

Re: 1st Useful Input
Sebastian Schmied
A crashing calc emulator is of no worth to me.
Reply to this comment	31 December 2005, 15:00 GMT

Re: 1st Useful Input
artraid (Web Page)
I voted 'no opinion', having none of these calculators nor tried any of the programs. However, don't you think you're being disrespectful to the author of Wizards by discarding his effort and his game?
Reply to this comment	31 December 2005, 15:31 GMT

Re: 1st Useful Input
tdavis07 (Web Page)
I never could get emu8x to even build, always got an error with the Java stuff
Reply to this comment	31 December 2005, 16:04 GMT

Re: Re: 1st Useful Input
Michael Vincent (Web Page)
See the URL for this post (question #1). That might fix your problem.
Reply to this comment	31 December 2005, 17:00 GMT

Re: Re: Re: 1st Useful Input
tdavis07 (Web Page)
perfect, no error this time, thank you
Reply to this comment	31 December 2005, 21:02 GMT

Re: 1st Useful Input
James Montelongo
Emu8x is definitely an achievement, but I don't really see it as being more useful than wizards. CABAMAP is more useful, so is DAWG, but since the 84+ already does most if not all of what an 86 and 83 can do I can't see it as being more useful. Wizards is a game which basically nullifies usefulness(unless you entertainment as something important). I put my vote towards wizards. Michael you are already a Calc Mega Star, let someone else be in the spot light.
Reply to this comment	31 December 2005, 22:24 GMT

Re: TI-83 Series POTY Tied
gondorf
I voted wizards because I have never been able to afford anything higher than an 83 plus so emulators dont work for me. yeah 7 calcs and not one can emulate. wizards is a great game but it gets repetitive after a while. maybe in the next version it will be a lot more difficult and take longer to beat
Reply to this comment	6 January 2006, 01:11 GMT