Survey posted 2004-05-18 23:48 by Jon.

Contribute ideas to surveys by sending a mail to survey@ticalc.org.

Whoa! So people have successfully made their own, other than PedroM? Awesome!

They lied. It's like voting for CowboyNeal.

I'm not lying.

Morvlon 3.00

www.oahat.org

$25.00

Coming Soon

How can we believe you when your www.oahat.org site doesn't even seem to exist?

I said it was coming soon. I haven't found a way to pay $44.95 for hosting. I could probably email you the site that is on my computer, though.

I was trying to use the PedroM source as a base for my own Unix-like system, Penix, but I lost interest and stopped working on it. :-/

Hey, you forgot 2.08! LOL I had that one on my calc for a while. Wait, I still might. *checks* Ahh, nvm.

Well, my first TI-89 had 2.05 (good OS). Now, I have 2.09 on a HW1. That combination doesn't exactly work too great (the clock stuff doesn't work :'() but other than that, most stuff runs fine.

Really? My clock is accurate to within a minute after a month after setting it. Granted, that's horrible for any other clock, but we're talking about a calculator!

The clock only works on HW2 TI-89s.

I've found programs (games) that access the clock functions will cause it to become a little behind

Also taking out the AAA batteries freezes the clock on my 89 until I put them back in.

I imagine they would. If you think about it, you're screwing with the clock on a low level (C/ASM clock stuff) and I think it could easily mess it up like that. Some games have screwed up my timers so the APD turns off the calc if it's idle for about 10 seconds. That's just weird.

Yeah, I heard the work great. Only problem is the HW1 models don't have the clock crystals in them. :\

In case you didn't notice by now, that should be "they" :) Sorry

Whoa, I didn't notice that.

I thought that 2.09 was the last one, so I voted >2.09, as I thought it was >=2.09. Oops. I have a 2.09 v200.

I have 2.05 on my Ti89 and I don't intend to change it unless it has signifigant math changes. So far I don't think there are many new math functions so what's the point to change it? Why Texas doesn't improve it's capabilities with built-in functions?

Ahh, but don't you just LOVE being able to type in sec(x)? No? I guess 2.09 is for people too lazy to write 1/cos(x) and so forth. And I still do it that way, even though I have 2.09... heh

My TI-89 is an I386, so I have to use PeDROM <Wink>.

I just realized...I'm the only one, according to this survey, who uses 2.03. I wonder if that's a good thing though...