Re: TI-85

To: CALC-TI@LISTS.PPP.TI.COM
Subject: Re: TI-85
From: Niklas Brunlid <e96nbr@EFD.LTH.SE>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 21:41:13 GMT
Organization: Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
References: <Pine.3.89.9708201821.A18435-0100000@bluestem.prairienet.org> <19970821061501.CAA12144@ladder01.news.aol.com> <33FC43EC.FCF207A3@networkusa.net>
Reply-To: Niklas Brunlid <e96nbr@EFD.LTH.SE>
Xref: paladin.american.edu bit.listserv.calc-ti:15971

On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 08:34:36 -0500, PHC <paulhc@networkusa.net> wrote:

>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.

No, the 80 came somewhere between the 85 and the 83 on your list. I
believe it is (was?) supposed to be a slimmed-down version of the 81,
to be used earlier in the school years than the rest.

References:

Re: TI-85

From: Elwood Gruschow <gruschow@PRAIRIENET.ORG>

Re: TI-85

From: MattC0022 <mattc0022@AOL.COM>

Re: TI-85

From: PHC <paulhc@NETWORKUSA.NET>

Prev: Crank Power?
Next: Re: Crank Power?
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread