Survey posted 2000-03-25 19:17 by Andy.

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

This is a tough choice!

First, there is "Support for a color display". That is what I voted for because with a color display would come a faster proccessor to give the calculator the proccessing power to calculate (250?) colors at once on the screen. So, you would kill two birds with one stone. (And for the non-violent of you; break two rocks with one hit). Anways, color makes even bad programs look good. How do I know? Read an article about the new color Palms! Although the programs are good, the color screen makes up for anything that the programs lack. Black text on white is always easier to read than an LCD screen. So, your color could make up for resolution issues, too!

Next, there is "Compatibility between all ROM/hardware versions". This is an interesting issue. Compatibility can be obtained between these with hardworking authors of programs who are committed to keeping their programs current. But, this is a lot of work and authors (understandably) do not have the time to be constantly optimizing and updating their code. Of course, I can't imagine TI making their ROM updates compatible with previous ROMs, because the word "impossible" comes to mind. Programmers might utilize aspects that are unique to only one ROM to make their program run better or differently. TI can not account for this. Although compatibility would be cool!

In addition, "Large memory size" would be nice. But how large is large? One meg? Making memory larger brings up seek time problems that can only be solved by overhauling memory functions, making a new calcultor, and probably boosting battery power so you more memory could be possible. Of course, it may not be neccesary to add more battery power. I know IBM has a hard drive out that is the size of a quarter. So you have a hard drive the size of a quarter on a TI calculator; what would that do to price? Overall, I think memories are big enough right now.

"High resolution": everybody agrees that this would be great (although maybe not THE most important thing) in a calculator. But, doesn't a color screen make things better? I believe that high contrast could make up for the lack of resolution. As aforementioned, I still believe that with a color screen would come better resolution, otherwise, what is the point of color?

Finally, we have "Fast processor". You can never have enough speed, can you? But is it neccessary? If the caclulator has low resolution and a non-color screen, why put a screaming processor in there? Its like stereos - the amplifier (compared to the proccessor) is important, but the speakers (compared to the screen) make the difference in the end.

If I were to set priorities, I would first increase the quality of screen output, and then boost the proccessor. For any of these changes to take place, I think I new calculator will have to come out. So what do you guys think?

amicek

You just about wrote a novel, but I agree with most of it!

Thank you!

amicek

I'm agree too , but I think we must think about the
Ams , it must take advantage of all these features .
I posted something in the begining about color , mem , etc .

I kinda wish TI would completely rewrite the TI-89/92+ AMS in assembly...same features but they would run hella faster. C is good and easy, but assembly is hella fast.

hella. =)

Try to find symbolically integral of any function in assembly language! Even in LISP it is hard job, in C harder, in assembly almost impossible. TI89 is still enough fast for it's main purpose. It solves equations, finds integrals and plots functions 1000 times faster than trained human.

And if you need fast program, you can write own complete in assembly without using ROM routines.

What they -could- do, though, is spend some time combing the generated assembly code and making optimizations to the routines...no compiler is perfect, and a good human with assembler experience can do wonders to the code.

...and then calculator became a pocket computer....

If you think about it, if any of these options are truly added, you have a pocket computer. And by many standards, calculators are already pocket computers.

amicek

So I can call my Game Boy POCKET a computer?

Think about what you said.

Pocket - used as an adjective - able to put in your pocket.

Computer - used as a noun - a device that does computations [evaluates individual expressions to find an answer]

Thus, accordingly... calculators have always been, are, and always will be 'pocket computers'...

-Killer2

Well, do you really think you can fit a 92 in your pocket?

Look...
I know people who can fit two 2-liter pop bottles in their (fat) pockets and not get noticed!

yeah, if you get one of those "punk" pants (that's what some people call them)...

I would like to point out however that in memory there are no moving parts, average simm or dimm you can buy now has 13ms seek time, that's over the entire simm/dimm. you can buy a *VERY* small 4/8,etc. meg peice that uses the same power, has more space, and probably faster seek-time. I'm afraid I don't really see time as an issue, any other factors (changing the rom) wouldn't be hard, it's all arbitrary. After all, it's not dependent on the processor, macs used the m68k for years.

I was kinda saying in order to expand memory drastically, you would need a form of a hd wouldn't you? I would like to know if I am wrong...

amicek

TI wouldn't necessarily HAVE to use a harddrive to allow for a larger amount of storage memory. Even using RAM with switchable power states can achieve large storage memory. The real question is 'how much RAM can the CPU access' before you have to throw in 'RAM pages'? Both the 86 and 83+ have this problem. I'm pretty sure that the 89's Motorola 68000 variant can access more memory than the old Zilog 80 CPU can, but there are still limits.

As to the harddrive, I really would like to see a CompactFlash slot on the back of my 89 [behind the LCD] so I can put in one of those phat IBM 340MB MicroDrives... You would never have to worry about which games you want on your calculator again! Just take them all!

-Killer2

Just to clear things up, the m68k can directly access up to 16 megs of memory. To access more, you'd have to use memory pages, and they slow everything down. That's the reason why the ti86 is slower.

that is about the only memory problem since you have to "Garbage Collect", but if your using a game pretty often just leave it unarchieved and it wont "Garbage Collect", ex.zelda(15k)and a little over 16k(16384)is 1 flash page on a ti-83+...

TI has to consider durability.

Thats why they use the Resistor Capasitor clock.

Can you say: "Sony Memory Stick"?

when you archive its put into Flash mem and deleted from ram, BUT when you UNarchive it it stays in Flash mem and is marked for deletion so when you "Garbage Collect" it deletes it from Flash.

not really. think of those old memory add-ons for the onld 386-486s that were 3 1/2 x 1/8 inches which where able to hold 4-8 mb.

think about the game gear made by sega. it uses a 3 line filter screen just like a TV!!!! use that and you got an almost unlimited color range at low battery power and is relativly thin!!!

Not to be picky, but the Game Gear is probably still using some sort of polarization technology (LCD, TFT, etc.) vs. the TV's emmission technology (CRT).

(Yes I know that the Game Gear was back-lit, but I think the display itself was still LCD of some flavor.)

do you really believe that technology was even possible at the time game gears came out??
do you even own a game gear like me??
answer those questions and we'll see.

do you really believe that technology was even possible at the time game gears came out??
do you even own a game gear like me??
answer those questions and we'll see.
oh, tft might have been around but i doubt they put it on the game gear which cost $100...:)

The reason the Game Gear looks split up into three-line pixels is the old LCD technology, where the pixels were (a) large enough to see clearly and (b) clearly divided into RGB segments. (They may still be, I haven't looked closely at one in a while.) It's not TFT, but it -is- an LCD, and with a rather limited range of colors (maybe 16.7 million total with a 256 color working palette? That's what I'd expect.)

another reans is the fact the screen wil act like a water droplet if you press hard on the screen, oh well didnt look at that until i wrote this comment, whoops.
(i havent played my game gear for about 2 years, i just remembered it, put it on here, THEN looked at it)

I think 250 colors for a calculator is a stretch--but don't go yelling about hardware being able to handle it. Just think of how hard it would be to program in 256-colors.