Virtual TI anyone?

ummm... no

i just got mine yesterday from global. i still havent found out how to make the assembly programs run faster. does anyone know how to?

This is the program's job. I don't think you can do anything to make it go faster. Perhaps a new version of MirageOS or an Ion module could be made that would allow one to toggle the speed for assembly programs.

There is rumored (actually, stated uppage) to be a system call that toggles between the standard 6MHz and the much faster 15MHz speeds. Simply find this call, add to your favorite programs, recompile (if done in assembly) or convert to binary (if done in hexadecimal machine code), and send to your calc.

thats what i figured, i was just asking if anyone knew where or how i could find it. apparently the developer has a choice of toggling the processor speed, according TI's faq asking if apps run faster. TI says that old apps will run at the unoptimized speed, but if the dev. wants, they can use the extra speed (implying that there is obviously something done by the application to raise the speed). if i find out what the equate of the call is, i shall post it....

The call is b_call(_SetExSpeed). Equate 50BFh.

Inputs: A contains the speed to set

01h for 6 MHz
02h for 15 MHz
FFh for fastest possible speed

130$ is a lot of money for a new version of an old calc?

well, it has 1,500,000 bytes of memory, 1.5 times faster ( or 2.5 im not sure ), and preloaded apps that normally you have to buy online. all that easily brings the price up $30.

I'd still rather spend a few extra bucks for an 89.

I am begginning to hate TI.
The TI-89 is better than this stupid new thing by a ton.


O, on a related note, i was doing some speed tests on HW 1 and HW2 TI-89's, and i found that the HW2 ran 30% faster than the HW1 under most conditions, although the HW1 was slightly low on battires.

That is so true, the SE costs the same as the 89, but it is severely inferior! They should make a super duper version of the 89 with more memory, more flash, apps, and other stuff. But wait, they have, it is called THE TI-92+!!!

Damn straight, man! This 83+ SE bullshit disgusts me. Does TI think we're stupid or something? I have a TI-89, and i dont care if the 83+ SE has 10 MEGs of rom, the 89 still whips it's sorry ass!

Well, actually they do think we're stupid! Or at least most of us. Have you ever looked at these calc users in your school? 9/10 of them are dorks, they don't know anything else except playing games and adding 2+2
So, 1.5 megs of Flash sounds like calculator heaven!; imagine how many games you can fit!

The average calculator user has NEVER opened their manual, and most either stick them in the back of a closet with their computer documentation or toss it out with the packaging. It's amazing how utterly stupid some questions are. I have literally been asked how to add before (and this was on an 83!). I think I'm headed towards another rant, so I'll stop on that.

Tons of games would seem to fit, but that would mean that Joe Average Jr. would have to *gasp* open his manual to find out how to use more than about 24KB of it (the RAM, not the 1.5MB of Flash ROM). Assuming junior does find out how to archive (and more importantly, unarchive), the number of games is highest for a given amount of memory, becuse, like its 4 predecessors (81-83+), it has a pathetically small 96x64 pixel screen, meaning smaller graphics, and therefore smaller file sizes.

Pardon me, but did you say that the 92+ has more memory than the 89? I do not believe so. My 89 running 2.05 has 185K ram and 728K flash rom. It may be possible, but I don't believe so.

Acctually, you are correct. The TI-92 Plus is exaclty the same as the 89, except it has Cabri Geometry preloaded on the calculator. Speed, memory, and capabilites are all the same. And acctualy, you can download Cabri Geometry for the TI-89 and it is exactly the same as for the 92+, so all in all, the 89 is no different than the 92+. (except for the shape difference.)

Thank you for the confirmation. I just get very annoyed by people who insist their calc is superior just because the case looks different (Rounded case 82, anyone?).

Typically, if someone mouths off about their 92, I just have the professor (college profs are great for this) check them both. Usually, the prof either says they are totally equal, or the 89 is better due to its small size, or the 92 is now banned from his class due to similarities to a laptop.

In short, I absolutely love my 89. The 83+ I have is a decent backup in case CAS calcs are banned in a class (Physics 3070 at Toledo), and they make a very fine tag team.

Knight/Rocket 4c.

Same here!!! I love my 89 and prefer it over every other calc. Of course, I have my 83+ for backup.

If you ask me, anyone who is willing to pay $150 for a calc, should be able to use it on what ever they want.

I just read your comment, and what I got out of it was "if I have lots of money, I should be able to do whatever I want with what I spend it on." What about those who cannot afford fancy calculators? This is a serious question.

That is true. I didn't mean it like that. All I know is I love my 89. You can just disregaurd that last statement. :)

While the 89 is the most advanced because the 92+'s system had to be compacted into the standard vertically aligned case, the 92(+) does have one difference. The screen on the 92(+) is much larger (120x240, IIRC). However, that means that it has to take longer to complete a graph, so it works out to be as much of a potential disadvantage as an advantage. Also, the 89 runs effectively the same hardware as the 92+, except on fewer milliamps (89 uses AAAs, 92(+) uses AAs).

quick correction, the 92+ screen is 128*240, not 120

My TI-92 Plus wasn´t pre-loaded with geometry. My old 92 was.

That is an ignorant statement about the 92+. The only advantages that a 92+ has over an 89 is the size of the screen (useful for some stuff), the qwerty keyboard (bans the calc from the SAT, AMATYC, etc. tests), and the geometry app (which you can buy for the 89, and is useless above the eigth grade or so). Everything else is precisely the same. All I have to do to port my 89 programs to the 92+ is change a bunch of constants to adjust for the larger screen size and different keyboard layout. Everything else is exactly the same.

Whatever, I used a TI-92+ once and it had more total memory than my HW2 TI-89. So whether it was a mutant or a counterfeit it still had more memory.

I would be willing to bet that the 92+ had a newer AMS version than did your 89. I upgraded my 89 from 1.05 to 2.05 and the memory went up by almost 300K.

Knight/Rocket's 6c.

According to specs, the HW1 68k runs at 10.5MHz, while the hw@ 68k runs at 12MHz. The difference in battery power merely exacerbated the inherent speed difference.

Actually, HW1 is closer to 10 MHz, not 10.5 MHz. HW2 also uses a gate-array buffered LCD that greatly reduces the number of times that the calculator reads from RAM, which means that other operations that need to read from or write to RAM should be faster. Most all tests I've performed and seen show about a 20% speed gain.

Thanks for the info. I knew TI had changed something in the LCD configuration between the versions, but had no idea what it was. as for clock speeds, I was actually going by what I had heard from various nodes of the TI community. I have never done any performance tests on a hw1 89, but that sounds right from speed differences between a hw1 and hw2 89 that I discovered at one math competition this year.

That sounds like a "Dilbert" comic strip where Wally got congratulated by his boss for "moving over 100,000 bits of data to a mobile backup facility"--he saved his resumé to a floppy disk.