Survey posted 2005-04-19 18:01 by Jon.

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

Whatever one's faster and easier to program.

I'm trying to learn assembly for the 89. But the list seems to be down!

How does one determine the type of a file?
How does one enlarge a file and append to it?

I know the basics of files in C, but not ASM. No one seems to use the mailing lists anymore (last time I checked), and there have been no archives for ages.

Feel free to ask any asm questions on the tigcc message board.

z80 68k, pfft. Come ON TI! Give us something POWERFUL!
6-15Mhz isn't much and the current calcs don't exactly graph complex equations fast (especially CAS). Sure, there's some ez80s @ 50Mhz but I'd like to see an improved resolution for the LCD and 100Mhz+ processors so that we don't have to wait for the calc after entering a command. A color screen would be vey useful but not for gaming purposes.

As discussed in the past, they're just calcs, not PDAs... Besides, a 100 Mhz processor together with a higher-resolution, color LCD would double the price and halve the battery life. (When will these hardware n00bs learn? *sigh*)

Keep the 68K processor, keep the resolution of the TI-89 Titanium, and add a color screen would satisfy me. Color would allow an easier to understand graph screen (and make games much better).

That would be the 68k. :-)

Because it has C? I never did 68k ASM, all I ever got into was z80.

I would like to see a calculator with one of these. (Link ^^)

Same language that I have started using, at an incredible speed. :D
...Too bad the LCD would have problems if you processed too fast. Time to upgrade the LCD too!

good idea, more programs for 83+'s anyway, so why not just get a faster cput, concept behind the se, and it worked great... if its basically the same cpu most asm should still work on it, and if not, minor updates may need to be made, not as big as porting the whole application... also i would like to see the screen updated as well, with way more pixels like a 89, but still with the support to run the old mode so that old programs would still run correctly, ie running 192x128 pixels instead of 96x64 so that apps that need the old screen size could just run with a pixel being equivilant of a group of 4

The faster CPU and larger LCD will drain your batteries at least 2x as fast.

<Off Topic>
Should I get an 83+SE or an 84+SE? The 83+ SE looks better and is lighter, but the 84+SE direct USB link is good too.

84+ SE

Personally, I think they look cooler (primarily because i never liked 83+SEs), but that's beside the point.

1. All 83+ SEs are now secondhand: they aren't manufactured anymore.
2. Clock on 84+/SE.
3. A fraction of an ounce is miniscule, unless you're planning to take it backpacking.
4. Newer OS updates. (What if they add something new? Case in point:HW2 89 & 92+ can't load AMS 3.01, while v200s can.)

1) i really don't need a clock
2) the clock will sap your battery faster and keep your calc running when its off (it already does this to maintain ram)
3) secondhand calcs are cheaper

This really only leaves a direct USB link as a possible advantage and since it doesn't work with TiLP and my TIConnect refuses to uninstall, it doesn't really matter.

Note: my TI Connect doesn't supprot the direct USB link either

I like the clock feature. I wish my silver had one. :'(
Cool idea: usb thumb drive for 84's and 89Ti's!
It would require a usb adapter, but it would be worth it.

I've thought about that before. would be awesome. 512K of Archive. Rejoice-Rejoice!!!

don't you mean 512MB?

84+SE. Thats what I have. Its awesome. 1.55Mb of Archive.

The 84+SE isn't shiny and its definitely not silver though... If I bought one, I'd have to erase "Silver Edition" and replace it with "Gray Edition"

BTW, calcs should only cost $40-$50 U.S. but TI charges an outragous $80-$120 U.S.

Ooh yeah, TI could add all kinds of extra stuff with those SPI and I2C interfaces... *drools* A Z180 or Z380 would also work, having the same backwards compatibility along with the expanded addressing range, extra speed, and added registers.

There's not even a working GCC port for that CPU, and it's still 8 bit like the Z80. I really don't see how an eZ80 would be better than a 68k.