Re: A89: Re: Re: Archive on HW 1.00/2.00
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A89: Re: Re: Archive on HW 1.00/2.00
Forgive me for re-asking a fairly common question. How do you identify
whether your TI-89 is hardware v1 or 2?
TIA
Wesley
On Sun, 12 Dec 1999, Bryan Rabeler wrote:
>
> The thing is, what Scott said is true. Us HW1 users weren't cheated, at
> least not directly. The problem is that TI implemented Flash ROM into their
> graphing calculators so that users could feel confident about buying a new
> calculator, because after the "bugs" were worked out, they could simply
> flash the ROM and everything would be fixed. Then TI goes and fixes the
> only thing that flashing the ROM can't fix, the hardware. Now there are
> essentially two versions of the TI-89 out there, and they aren't necessary
> compatible with one another. And as time goes on, there will be many more
> HW2 calcs vs. HW1 calcs, and HW1 calcs will be going "obsolete".
>
> TI didn't lie, they were just very sneaky. If they wanted to be really
> nice, they could offer a trade-in program. But they won't do that, they
> have no reason to. First, it would cost a lot of money, because they can't
> do anything with the HW1 calcs but throw them away. Secondly, TI has no
> obligation do to this, and because of the fact that a majority of TI-89
> owners don't know the difference about HW1/HW2, the minority of us who do
> know the truth don't make a difference. We are just a drop in the bucket.
>
> Bryan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Serial" <Serial@earthlink.net>
> To: <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 1999 5:58 PM
> Subject: A89: Re: Archive on HW 1.00/2.00
>
>
> You sound like a defensive Ti Employee at a press conference. Or bill
> clinton perhaps.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Scott Noveck <noveck@pluto.njcc.com>
> To: <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
> Sent: Sunday, December 12, 1999 1:38 PM
> Subject: A89: Archive on HW 1.00/2.00
>
>
> |
> | Now, getting back on topic - let's see the list get a little productive. .
> .
> |
> | Opinions are going to differ on whether or not TI cheated us. I accused
> | them of doing just that in one of my emails to Paul Fischer, and he had a
> | good point - in TI's opinion, none of us with HW 1.00 were cheated.
> |
> | Instead, TI gave HW 2.00 buyers a "free upgrade" of sorts -- were TI
> really
> | out to cheat us, new 89s would not sell for the same price with a more
> | expensive 12 MHz processor. Paul compared it to car dealerships -- all
> they
> | do is stick on a new number for the model year, and they can change the
> car
> | all they want. And they don't tell you everything that has changed.
> |
> | The ONLY reason TI is getting flamed like this from us is because of one
> | poor marketting decision - whether a calc is HW1 or HW2 is not distinctly
> | obvious at first glace. If "HW2" was written on the calc and noted in big
> | print on the box. If they called it the 89+ or the 89-2, we would not
> | complain. It's all psychological -- humans, as a whole, tend to look at
> how
> | they were cheated rather than how they were pompered.
> |
> | Regardless, the issue could go either way. There's simply no point in
> | complaining -- what's done is done/ Realize that what you say will have
> no
> | impact on TI whatsoever - the problem is corporate marketting, which will
> | not change its ways for any reason other than greed. If you're going to
> | complain, do it amongst yourselves so that those of us who understand its
> | futility don't have to look at it (yes, I get the digest version of the
> list
> | and have to scroll past it to read other messages - not just delete it =)
> |
> | -Scott
> |
> |
> |
>
>
>
>
Follow-Ups:
References: