Re: Why Ti 80 etc. ?
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Why Ti 80 etc. ?
Th TI-80 does *not* have a Z-80 processor in it. Here is a table of TI
processors:
>From TI:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
The processor chip and speed for our graphing calculators:
Chip Speed
TI-73 Z80 6Mhz
TI-80 Proprietary 980 KHz
TI-81 Z80 6Mhz
TI-82 Z80 6Mhz
TI-83 Z80 6Mhz
TI-85 Z80 6Mhz
TI-86 Z80 6Mhz
TI-92 Motorola 68000 10Mhz
TI-89 Motorola 68000 10Mhz
If you have any further questions or comments please feel free to
contact
us at your convenience. Please copy this message in your response and
send
directly to ti-cares@ti.com for faster service on replies.
Kind regards,
Christopher Palomino
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
>----------
>From: Ray Kremer[SMTP:rkremer@BRADLEY.EDU]
>Reply To: Ray Kremer
>Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 10:07 PM
>To: CALC-TI@LISTS.PPP.TI.COM
>Subject: Re: Why Ti 80 etc. ?
>
>To build on what you said: The TI-80 through the TI-86 all use
>the Z80 chip, hense the name. The 73 probably does, too; in fact it
>should really be the TI-80 and a half, but TI can't really do that.
>The 89 also breaks tradition with its 68000 inside. They call it the 89
>to reflect that it is the size of the other 8x calcs, but they could have
>called it the TI-90 just as easily. Note again that the "92" has no
>relation to the processor type, they just picked that number to set it
>above the 8x calcs.
>
>>It has to do with the processor the 8x series of calculators use. the
>>82,83,85 & 86 all use the z80 microprocessor. Whether or not that is the
>>case, I'm not sure. I'm not sure if the 89 will use Zilog's z80 or
>>Motorola's chip. But, I would almost bet money that's why. The 73 may just
>>be placed lower to illustrate that it is not meant to be a better calc, and
>>probably is not a better calc than most of the 8x series.
>