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

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

Hey, why not all of them? That would be the dream calculator, but why not just get an HPC.

Why not a laptop?

Forget about these! How about a better AMS for the 89/92 so the guys with HP49Gs can't brag that theirs can do all the stuff that ours can't (Conics, solving some equations, advanced trig, riemann sums, etc.)! It's embarassing to know that some cheesy 4 mhz Saturn can, via software, out-compute our 10 mhz 68k's!

However, for the next calculator, <DROOL> how about a PDA-type (ie., LARGE) display with a keypad/front cover? And a speaker/organizer so that TI users finally get all the geewhiz stuff that the HP users get. Since I'm in dreamland, how about optional (possibly third party) plug-in devices like full-size (à la Palm) keyboards, IR/radio links, printers, memory expanders, joy sticks, etc (some kind of SCSI-like port allowing us to chain devices together might not be such a bad idea either). Of course, then we'll need a faster processor, (since so much of this seems PDA-based, how about one of those RISC PDA Processors?) and more memory and of course, more resolution and color! </DROOL>

Just my coupla cents.

-Trekker

dream on...

Yo. i know TI's ARE better that HP's, and they may able to do SOME stuff the ti's can't, but did u see that 89 vs HP49 thing??? THE TI KICKED ITS ASS! IT HAS
A) better resolution
B) "pretty print"!!! making it easy to understand
C) user friendy menues, and everything is organized!
D) the TI is MUCH more accurate. alot of times the HP is way off
E) not only is TI more accurate, but a TI can do a prob in 3 seconds that and HP takes 3 minutes to do!
F) TI looks a helluva lot better. plus the HP has stiff, sticky keys that are impossible (well difficlut) to push
G) 89 has FLASH UPGRADABLE SOFTWARE. CAN U SAY THAT???
H) More games, a helluva lot more. like %100000 more.
I) More acessories are available for the TI. more websites, too
J) most schools give out TI's to use. So buying and HP is useless if you're in Algebra or Calculus, geomotry, trig, etc etc...
K) cause i said so, lol

that's all 4 today.... SHICK THAT'S A BIG LIST!!

~ChRiS~

First of all, the TI's resolution is not that much better. Second of all, the HP is much more accurate and has many more functions than the TI-89! Also, although the TI can solve simpler functions quicker than the HP, HP-49 can solve more complex functions much quicker than the TI-89!! The HP-49 also has flash memory and updates to its CAS are made every few weeks as opposed to updates to the TI-89 which take several months to a year! And if you don't know you better ask somebody!!!!!!

if the HP needed soo much upgrading wouldnt you figure it to be really buggy, thats why it takes so long for any of the ti flash calcs to be upgraded, there's less problems with them, and the HP is not faster than the 89, the 89 has more pixels which in turn requires some processor power, while the hp has a low-res lcd screen and doesnt require a lot of processor.

Since the 83 has its meager 26k of ram (even less than the 82's 29k), I voted for more RAM. With more RAM, there is more space to hold 'stuff'. But more RAM can be a double edged sword. With more ram, programmers will stop caring about size and make 27k guessing games.

I'm almost sure that anyone with a 92+ would vote for the compatiable rom versions. I have a 92+ with rom version 2.03 and I can't hardly do anything with it as far as programs go. Compatibility would definately be nice.

Hmm... A compatibility problems with the 92's. My 92 is version 1.11. It has some promblems taking forever trying to solve some symbolic problems. I killed the batteries twice. I gave up trying to construct cubic solutions. (A cubic program could still be written, but I was interested in the symbolic capability). A TI tech told me they were working on a solution to this. It is now known as the 92+ module. Which leaves the only incompatiblity to be the graphics screen size between the 92+ and the 89. From a ASM point of view the keyboard scan, I would think, would be a little different too. But I haven't bought the 92+ module yet. Nor have I bought an 89 yet. (On my list).
Maybe a set of surveys on calculator versions one has might be in order. Also a list of known "errors" between versions.

I own several TI calcs and program them all. Since I am still learning ASM I stick to BASIC for my programs. My largest barrier is speed. Just recently I wrote a Trig program to solve triangles. To debug the program I have to recompile the BASIC each time I make a change and recompile for the fist time. No big deal...until you have to wait 8 min 30 seconds for it to compile. Hey just the first time right? Anyone can wait the first time. But what about graphing? A simple compound Sin function can take over a minute to graph. With any trace accuracy you have to wait and wait. And then all the loops, For and Goto, they take forever! That's why I emu all my calcs. I could just use my calc for all my stuff if it were faster. So my vote goes for faster processor. No 6mhz, I am talking 66mhz at least. With faster processor comes faster ram and more of it. We all know that the ram on the calcs just plain stinks. I don't have any games on mine, yet I still can't get all my basic programs on at once. I hear there is a 10k limit; well I will hit that with a few of my programs if I am not careful. Ultimately if we use the calcs for what they are meant for - MATH then we don't need color screens or higher res. Sometimes I wish the screen were a little larger... but give us the speed we need first.

-Brandoni2

This is exactly why I voted for faster processors. If those of us that actually use our calculators for, of all things, math are being slowed down by the processor, that would be where I'd put my money for an improvement. All I try to do is graph a set of five trig functions, and it takes it multiple minutes to finish the whole screen, set on ZoomDec! If you are thinking TI-80,81,85,86 type calc, think again! It's on an 89!

I hear you, I wrote the Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? for the 86 and did it almost exclusively on my calculator. [Click on (web page) to find WWTBAM?]

Larger memory size. The programs I have written for work on my TI-85 (before the TI-86 was available) execeeded 22K, with varaibles and equations stored >27K. I had asked a tech at TI if there was any plans to give or create an 85 with more memory at the time. The answer I was given was no. The 86 wasn't announced yet. The 86 has enough memory for now. But I still use two 85's for work. Even though I bought my 86 to replace my 85. When I found out that programs type variables can not be transfered from the 86 to the 85. I just do my programming on the 85 only. Transfer to my 86, or using the graph link to my 92 (only the Basic Quadratic Solver at this time).

why bother using the 85 when you have a 92?

I have two 85's. Keep one at work. The other goes to and from work. The 92 will not fit in my tool box. And for the price of a rollaway (which could hold all my calculators) I could buy four 89 calculators. Most any programs written on the 85 can be ported to the 92 via the Graph-link. My 86 was to be my replacement calculator for my 85. But programms written on the 86 (or 92) cannot be ported over to the 85. Programs written on the 85 can be ported to the 86 (and 92 if one wants to).

why not just buy a good carrying case? they arent too expensive

it's not that hard to port stuff from the 86 to the 85 - for programs, i think you might find something at tifaq.calc.org

There really isn't an excuse for having so little RAM on a TI-83. Less than 30K? The memory expansion pack for the N64 holds 4 megabytes of RAM and could fit inside the TI-83s screen. Now, even 1 megabyte would be plenty. Games could be so much larger, and us programmers wouldn't have to cut corners all the time.

What I say you do is Get all of the above:
Have a color LCD screen with say, 2048 colors using Icarus Productions nifty ass program
Get a Really Fast processor, like the ones they use in CGB, or Handheld NeoGeos
Use the really small 1GB Hard Drives the IBM makes.
Install a Keyboard port, Monitor Port, and Infared Port
Put 4 Megs of cache in too.

Unfortunately, the power guzzled by this monstrosity would be equal to a Hydrogen Fuel Cell, and therefore would have to weigh ~10 pounds.

Just what I want for my birthday :-)

Akira

LOL! That would be awesome!
Teacher: "Hey! What's that?"
Student: "My new calculator..."
Teacher: "What model of TI is that?"
Student: "TI 30001..."

heheheh

How about something better and lighter called a LAPTOP?

Most teachers don't allow laptops on math stuff, so it you take a laptop and call it a "calculator" it is suddenly acceptable, and quite usable on tests and stuff.

L
La
Lau
Laur
Laura

The processor in CGB is only a 2.2 MHz Zyrix Z80. That's slower than even an 86!

The 83 is similar to the 85. And is one up from the 82. I would buy an 82 before I bought an 83. The 92 Graph-link supports 82/85 programs to port over to the 92. There exists an older TI translation program to convert programs between the 82 and the 85. Any programs on the 82 can be directly ported to an 83/83+. And TI offers for down load (83) statistics and finance ASM modules for the 86.

just go and buy yourself a ti-89, that would solve your memory problem

The calcs and the N64 expansion pack use (gasp!) different types of RAM. I won't go into a long explanation here, but the 64's RAM is designed to only hold information when the Nintendo is turned ON, while the calculators must hold information when they are using very little power.

Also, I noticed 83, 85, and 86 users all want more memory. TI won't make an "expansion pac" for old calcs; they might make an 86+.. but no matter how you look at it you'd need to buy a new calc. I did manage to start adding another RAM chip and a select switch to my 82, but I never finished the soldering [I got a 92]. That was over a year ago ;]