[A83] Re: NimbusOS

To: <assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org>
Subject: [A83] Re: NimbusOS
From: "Scott Dial" <scott@scottdial.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 02:04:19 -0500
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <02ac01c233a6$afc8b7f0$3e891581@BSTERNERL>
Reply-To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org


I only wish to point out that shorthand usually shortens things, not
extended them by an extra character.

I have a TI-83.
I have a TI-83-.

Now which one is shorter?

Clarification of being an 83 is only required if you make the
assumptions you suggest below.

83, 83+, 83+SE (or even 83SE)

And of course I know the various notations, social interaction requires
it. Hell, I'll even take claim to being the first schmuck to say "83-".
But if we are going to argue that it is more accurate, then I have
issues with the use.

--
Scott Dial
scott@scottdial.com
AIM GeekMug : ICQ# 3608935

-----Original Message-----
From: assembly-83-bounce@lists.ticalc.org
[mailto:assembly-83-bounce@lists.ticalc.org] On Behalf Of Brandon
Sterner
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 1:44 AM
To: assembly-83@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: [A83] Re: NimbusOS


Oh come on people... Don't tell me you don't know the various notations.
People generally use 83 to generalize the group of TI-83, TI-83+, and
TI-83+SE.  Now that just sucks to type out everytime.  When we want to
make
sure people know we're talking about a specific calc when talking about
hardware differences, we say regular 83 or 83-.  83- is just a very
quick
way of writing stuff.  This is just a fricking mailing list, not formal
documentation for a program.  I see no reason to feak out about
shorthand.

Brandon Sterner

References:

[A83] Re: NimbusOS

From: Brandon Sterner <bms9019@rit.edu>