Re: No TI-86. TI-85 or TI-83?

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: No TI-86. TI-85 or TI-83?

Bernard Domroy wrote:
>
> I cannot begin to say how much I disagree with major portions of this
> response, primarily because 99% of the motive behind Jeff's choice has
> absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of a calculator.

Correction: it has nothing to do with *your* definition of the purpose
of a calculator.
>
> Resolution: Who cares what the resolution of the screen is?  If you are
> looking at a graph, it looks nearly identical.  Jeff is however correct in
> that there are more characters available on a line (16 on an 83, 21 on an
> 86).  So why is resolution so important?  Obviously for playing games, not
> the real reason for getting a calculator, I suspect.
>
> Features: No question about it.  The 85/6 has tons of built-in features
> that the 83 does not have.  For the most part, my students use two of them.
>  Root solvers and simultaneous equation solvers.  For the rediculously few
> quadratics one is asked to solve in school, this is hardly an issue.  I
> seem to recall seeing yet another in an endless list of TI-82 quad solvers
> on this list a couple of days ago.  How many simultaneous equations do you
> actually solve in your entire High School years, 20, 25?

I will be a Junior in High School this year, and I would have to
disagree with you on a few of these points. I have probably solved
hundreds of simuultaneous equations in the past two years and even more
quadratics. Not to mention that simultaneous equations are commonplace
on the SAT and SAT II: Math I or IIC. Perhaps where you come from.
things are done differently. Also, the 85/86 is lightyears ahead of the
Ti-83 when it comes to Calculus, which is also another vital part of
many students' high school life.

>
> On the other hand, the 83 gives you a full set of statisical and financial
> tools not found on the 85/86.  Yes, I know.  The 86 has ton's of memory and
> you can program them in.  I have not download the '86 asm financial
> functions that were mentioned in a previous post from King, but I don't
> think they are nearly as powerful as the built-in ones on the 83.  I may be
> wrong on this one.
>
> The real question in selecting a calc is "for what do you need it."  If you
> are a student who is primarily interested in using the calc for its
> intended purposes, specifically your math and science classes, I believe
> the the 83 is a much better choice.  If, on the other hand, you are
> primarily interested in asm programming and games, clearly the 86 is the
> better choice.
>
> As a teacher I would be interested in how many of the 85/86 functions you
> students actually use in your classes.  If you choose to respond, please do
> so privately to bdomroy@iepsnet.com.  We don't need to clutter up
> everyone's e-mails.
>
> At 06:53 AM 8/26/97 UT, you wrote:
> >Definitely get the TI-85. Although the TI-83 is newer and has a few features
> >the TI-85 doesn't, the TI-85 more than makes up for that with its extra
> power.
> >It does not have built-in assembly support, but this really isn't necessary
> >because assembly shells exist. The higher resolution is just one of the many
> >features the 85 has over the 83. For an exact listing of every feature of the
> >83 and 85, go to http://www.inlink.com/~dafek/ti-files/columns/calcdesc/ .
> For
> >further recommendations, go to
> >http://www.inlink.com/~dafek/ti-files/columns/compare/calcrecm.htm .
> >________________
> >
> >Jeff Tyrrill
> >http://tyrrill-ticalc.home.ml.org/
> >http://ti-files.home.ml.org/
> >
> >

--
Joe Davison
mailto:lithuania@geocities.com
http://members.tripod.com/~Mario_64_World/
References: