Re: TI-85

To: CALC-TI@LISTS.PPP.TI.COM
Subject: Re: TI-85
From: PHC <paulhc@NETWORKUSA.NET>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 08:34:36 -0500
Organization: PHC Inc.
References: <Pine.3.89.9708201821.A18435-0100000@bluestem.prairienet.org> <19970821061501.CAA12144@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Reply-To: PHC <paulhc@NETWORKUSA.NET>
Xref: paladin.american.edu bit.listserv.calc-ti:15957

MattC0022 wrote:
>
> i dont know if this makes any sense but wouldnt the newest ones have a
> higher number, and arent the higher the number the better, like
> 80(oldest), 81,82,83(if they make it) 84, (if they make it) , 85,86,etc
> and finally 92(newest)  maybe i am wrong but who really cares

Actually, it is based on the power of the calc.  I think the calc's were
produced in the following order: 80, 81, 85, 82, 83, 92, 86.
--
PHC
paulhc@networkusa.net
http://members.aol.com/agentphc/

Follow-Ups:

Re: TI-85

From: Mike <smofam@pacbell.net>

Re: TI-85

From: "Thomas J. Hruska" <thruska@TIR.COM>

Re: TI-85

From: Niklas Brunlid <e96nbr@EFD.LTH.SE>

References:

Re: TI-85

From: Elwood Gruschow <gruschow@PRAIRIENET.ORG>

Re: TI-85

From: MattC0022 <mattc0022@AOL.COM>

Prev: Re: TI-85
Next: Re: TI serial link I need it!
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread