Re: Why are TI Calcs so inferior?
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
On Thu, 14 Nov 1996 18:39:07 GMT, lcappite@sprynet.com (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.
Totally different technologies. It's nonvolatile static ram. Regular
computer ram (simms) is not the same, and it's not even close to a
hard disk. Computer ram is a form of DRAM (dynamic ram), which uses a
capacitor to store each bit. Static ram, on the other hand, uses
(about) 6 transistors to store a bit. The latest chip manufacturing
processes only allow for about 1 to 2 million transistors on a single
chip, so that's why high-capacity static ram is so expensive. If
someone were to come up with a way of making static ram as cheap as
hard disks, a new age in computing would result because NO ONE would
even think about buying the "slow" hard drive. Static ram can be kept
intact on very low power, whereas dram requires refresh circuitry and
takes up too much power.
This is also why a modern pcmcia 2mb ram disk costs almost $200.
Static ram is very low power, no moving parts, extremely fast (easily
10 times faster than the fastest hard drive) and very small. You get
what you pay for!
>The processor runs at 6MHz?
People take computing power for granted these days. At 6MHz, the Z80
processor can execute over 1 million 8 bit additions in ONE SECOND.
The Z80 was designed in the early 70's!!!! If a human can do one 8
bit addition per second in their head, it would take over two weeks of
nonstop adding to do what this $0.50 cent chip can do in one second.
Now, compare this to your average pentium and all of a sudden we're
next to nothing.
>It only has an assembly language, not something better?
The only reason good languages come out for a platform is because it's
a PLATFORM. That is, there's enough support and it's used so much
that it's profitable for a high level language (such as C++) to be
developed for it. Frankly, I doubt Borland will ever even look at a
TI calculator!
>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.
They have 'em: pcmcia hard disks.
>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?
You're talking about a serial access tape drive, far to slow for
practical purposes (even for an 8 bit processor). Calculator
manufactuer's want to avoid anything that's mechanical, i.e. disk
drives and the like. Something that moves all of a sudden does the
following things: very easily damanged, consumes a lot of power,
consumes a lot of valueable space, and requires special support
circuitry just to access it.
>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.
>
These chips require so much support circuitry that it's mindboggling.
On the other hand, simple 8 and 16 bit processors are practically a
computer in itself, and that's why they can fit so much into a
calculator and not have it be $1000. A motherboard isn't just a place
where the processor goes. You've got the DMA controllers, math
coprocessor, bus controller, interrupt controller, voltage converters,
bios, dram refresh circuitry, cache-ram controler, interface cards,
and the list goes on and on and on. Now, fit all that on a 3" by 5"
pcboard with a pentium processor and sell it for under $200, and I
guaruntee that tomorrow you'll be a billionare. Compare this to the
TI-85, and all it has is just the processor, the lcd controler, the
keyboard and link I/O, various logic chips, and the memory. That's
it!
>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.
They have them too: pda's. Take the palmbook 386 or the (as yet
unveiled) IBM pc110. They're about the size of the TI-92 (slightly
bigger), color screen, 486 processor, full size keyboard, and
everything else. Now for the bad news: the PC110 costs upwards of
$1500. Just because you can get a 486 chip for $25 or a 200 meg hard
drive for $30, it doesn't mean that you can design and manufacture the
product for $200. New product development takes so much resources and
so many factors that it will inevitably cost a bundle. You could
literally write a whole book describing the design and development
process of a piece of computer hardware. The misperception is further
enhanced because of how computer prices drop. Just because those
older newtons are only $200 right now, it doesn't mean that another
company can take the SAME product and manufacture it for sale at $200.
The market value of a computer product goes down much faster than
companies can handle if they wanted to build it themselves.
-Mel
<pre>
--
The TI Memory Expansion Homepage
http://pilot.msu.edu/user/tsaimelv/expander.htm
</pre>
References: