Re: Backwards advancement...

To: CALC-TI@LISTS.PPP.TI.COM
Subject: Re: Backwards advancement...
From: Neil Padgett <padgett@MCMASTER.CA>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 06:52:10 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)
References: <33E7ACF0.8A95C7DD@worldnet.att.net> <5s8ene$bbi$1@mycroft.westnet.com>
Reply-To: Neil Padgett <padgett@MCMASTER.CA>
Xref: paladin.american.edu bit.listserv.calc-ti:15679

Jeff Kalikstein <jk@westnet.com> muttered:

<Fox Possession <kitsune@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<: be horrified to find that the thing's slower than my trusty 85.
What's
<: with TI?
<
<You have to realize that when you are dealing with portable devices,
speed
<is not the top priority.  Faster processors usually take up more
power,
<and therefore drain batteries very quickly.  A 80286 could probably
be
<purchased for not much more than a Z80, but it would kill your
batteries.

[sig clipped]

Maybe so, but perhaps a newer processor design could be used. For
example an ARM RISC chip, or something similar. New low-power chips
are coming to the forefront in palmtop computing experiments. The
question is -- are they any good for what a calculator does?

Neil Padgett

References:

Backwards advancement...

From: Fox Possession <kitsune@worldnet.att.net>

Re: Backwards advancement...

From: Jeff Kalikstein <jk@WESTNET.COM>

Prev: Re: Questiiion questiion questiiion-Ti85
Next: Interrupt limitations?
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread