Re: Why are TI Calcs so inferior?
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Why are TI Calcs so inferior?
Goatchild, in case you haven't been in the computer industry for very
long, there is a thing that we call RAM, (Random Access Memory), that
used to cost well above $50 a MB (megabyte). An average PC's HDD (Hard Disk
Drive) has a 14ms (millisecond) access time, RAM, like is in the calculator,
usually runs about 70ns (nanoseconds). BIG
difference. It's not that you can just shove a processor in calculators
and make them run, you have to build around it. And to put a 126x63 (if
my memory serves me right), program the math functions, and make it fit
in the palm of your hand, I think is pretty damn good for your money.
Remember, it's just a calculator, personally, I see very, very little
purpose for color. If you want to try to build your own bigger, better,
faster, stronger calculator, go ahead, just don't complain to the rest of
us about it.
On Thu, 14 Nov 1996, Goatboy wrote:
> I've been looking over the tech specs for all the TI calculators, and
> I can't argue that these calculators are spectacular. They are the
> most ingenious pieces of equipment for school use and such. However,
> they're hardware is very inferior. The hard disk so to speak only is
> about 30K. The processor runs at 6MHz? It only has an assembly
> language, not something better? My gosh, on today's technology, hd
> space is 6 *cents* a meg? And hard drives are the size of a TI calc.
> If u shrink down the hd to that of a mini cassette, and put it in the
> TI, u could get about 1/3 a gig. And you could probably do better,
> because I've seen a mini cassette for the computer that holds a gig,
> and the drive it goes in to is only 1 cm bigger on each side. And the
> chip? The 486 chips are like $30 bucks nowadays, and they run at
> 66MHz. AMD chips are $75 for a 133MHz version. And the display screen.
> I've seen sony watchman that were smaller and they have a color screen
> at 320x200.
>
> Basically, what I'm saying is with today's current technology and its
> cheapness, TI could probably come out with a calculator that could
> outperform my computer (mine is a 486 DX2-50) for the same price as
> their 92, and I don't know why they aren't trying.
>
References: