Re: The Repulsive Design of the 89
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The Repulsive Design of the 89
Oh, Come on! Who cares if the casing feels comfortable or not!
I am getting tired of this lame debate, so please, stop flooding with
this lame matter.
Geo_Plus
-----Original Message-----
From: ToddEStan <toddestn@NOSPAM.VISI.COM>
To: CALC-TI@LISTS.PPP.TI.COM <CALC-TI@LISTS.PPP.TI.COM>
Date: 17. mars 1999 19:18
Subject: Re: The Repulsive Design of the 89
>I have an 85 and an 86 and really don't notice the difference between
>the casing. The 86 does look a lot like the 83 though (the coloring of
>the plastic). I like the dark casing of the 85 over the 82 though - the
>grey makes the 82 look cheap, IMO.
>
>I do think the 83+'s white buttons make it look uglier than the old 83,
>but maybe that's because I am not used to it yet. Personally, I think
>it is interesting that TI has kept the same basic design of the graphing
>calculator the same since the 81, with the exception of the 92. With
>the screen, the 5 'menu' buttons, the 4-direction keypad, and all the
>other buttons like 2nd and ALPHA in the same place. I wonder why they
>haven't changed it?
>
>About the only design complaint on the 89 I have is the small text can
>be hard on my eyes.
>
>Todd
>
>Steve wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone else find the unnecessary 'curviness' of the 89 case
repulsive?
>> This applies to all the newer TI calcs. What is wrong with straight
lines? I
>> especially dont' like the curved bottom. If you want to prop the 89 up,
>> there's no flat surface to rest on. And why? And how about the
meaningless
>> dip in the display area below the menu keys? What is that for? And why
have
>> that whole dark area around the display? To show that the display is
>> different from the rest of the calc? We can see that already, don't need
it
>> shoved down our throats.The 81-82-85 cases were simpler, less
distracting.
>> So they wanted to change something for the new series, but not all change
is
>> good. There are three principles at work : creation, preservation, and
>> destruction. change exists in the first and the last, but often change
for
>> the sake of change is just destruction. It is only controlled, purposeful
>> change that gives rise to creation. And once something is created, if
it's
>> good you don't change it, you preserve it. So in my opinion if something
is
>> to be changed it must have a PURPOSE. Let me state it this way:
>>
>> 1. Change for the sake of change = destruction.
>>
>> 2. Change with purpose and utility = creation.
>>
>> That is, each change must justify itself by providing something other
than
>> itself alone. If this is done then by definition creation has taken
place.
>> If however the change provides nothing but the change itself, then by
>> definition the only thing that has happened is the destruction of that
which
>> was changed.
>
>--
>
>Spam filters in place. If you are accidently blocked, remove nospam.
>
Follow-Ups: