Re: A85: In order of apperance...
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A85: In order of apperance...
TGaArdvark wrote:
>
> > Note that the 85 was introduced _VERY_ shortly after the 81 and 82.
> > I'm not totally sure about where the TI-80 was in the sequence.
>
> Would you STOP THAT. I told you the order and you aren't listening.
> I have been around since before ticalc.org existed and soon after the
> release of the 92. I have seen most of these calcs come out. I even
> checked with TI about the order to make sure I was right. The order is:
>
> 81, 85, 82, 80, 92, 83, 86, 92+
>
> This order is official and true. If you don't believe me, ask TI.
Okay, I'm sorry. You're right. The 85 did come first; the 82 was
supposed to be an improvement over it.
Whoever wrote the original thread just put the calcs in numerical order
and said that that was the order in which they were introduced. _THAT_
is NOT true. The order above is correct. :)
BTW: I've been around since before ticalc.org existed, too. WAY before
ticalc.org existed. I was one of the authors of UShell, Phil Montgomery
was the other. We were working on the shell for a while, but a final
version never got released, due to its incompatiblities with ZShell.
Note that all this occured WAY BEFORE all the shell competition that
exists now. ;)
Just a bit of TI-85 history for you. :)
Cheers,
--
~Keith
tsk3000@Prodigy.Net
http://pages.prodigy.net/tsk3000/
References: