Results
|
Choice
|
Votes
|
|
Percent
|
Support for a color display
|
126
|
17.9%
|
|
Compatibility between all ROM/hardware versions
|
111
|
15.7%
|
|
Large memory size
|
196
|
27.8%
|
|
High resolution
|
121
|
17.2%
|
|
Fast processor
|
151
|
21.4%
|
|
|
Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
|
Robinett
|
If you really want a calculator that will blow the others away...:
10 Terabyte DNA Hard Drive (penny-size of course)
DNA CPU (capable of 10 billion+ MIPS)
Direct optical link for those hard to display graphics
SO THERE!!!!!
|
Reply to this comment
|
28 March 2000, 02:19 GMT
|
|
Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
|
taliessin penfound
|
I personally voted for compatibilty between rom versions.
In fact, im kind of thinking about trying to make my own AMS, but I dont really know 89/68k assembly, but it would be free, contain all the major features of ti's AMS2.03 and DoorOS, work on all the 89s,92s,and 92+s.
Someone slap me. I'm an idiot. But if only...
|
Reply to this comment
|
28 March 2000, 21:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
|
Aaron Hill
|
I personally feel that it would be best to keep the underlying O/S to a minimum of control. Why waste time with a overly fancy GUI (like Gnome, KDE, IE, etc.)? Sure it looks nice, but don't make it part of the O/S. Make it just another program that CAN be run, but not if someone doesn't want to. Providing helpful routines in the graphical system would be nice for programmers wanting to write more simple programs (kinda like using X or Windows APIs for help). But for those intense, really specific programs, programmers than just handle everything on their own.
If you do attempt to write your own AMS, please try not to make it larger than it really needs to be. Only include features that truly help people, and not the eye-candy. Make that GUI "Explorer" or "Window Manager" your second or third project after the new AMS.
|
Reply to this comment
|
30 March 2000, 15:21 GMT
|
|
Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
|
David Clausen
|
I voted for a faster processor, probably because i am content with my 96k (i think) of memory that i get with my 86 if I had an 85 or 83 or even my old 82, i would definately have voted for more space. I think along with a faster proccesor, a more powerful (as being able to do more things) would be nice. I think the z80 has about run it's course and it's time for a new one.
|
Reply to this comment
|
29 March 2000, 01:14 GMT
|
|
seriously, does anyone use a calculator for math?
|
PolarSmurf
|
(i have an 89)
for all of us that use our calculator strictly for math, and have ever head to wait for it to "conjure" up its 3d graphs, and rotate them and what not, a faster processor would be by all means best for speeding up the process. The calculator was made for math, why not use it for math instead of worrying about games?!? I've done equations that take couple mins to solve, and two to three times longer just to graph.
for people who use it for math, faster processor = less waiting time for answers
smurf
|
Reply to this comment
|
29 March 2000, 08:50 GMT
|
|
Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
|
JohnM348
|
I voted for more memory also but not for the same reasons most people want it for. I have a TI-83 that I do have loaded with galaxian and frogger but I also use it in college for math and science. I would think that with more memory larger and better programs could be written for it that would enhance the calcs abilities.
From what I hear and see from kids I work with( I am 29 and work with some kids who use the same calc in high school) and they tell me teachers are on the war path over the whole video game explosion on the TI's. That problem if anything will prompt TI to become more stringent and possibly make it impossible to produce "games" for the newer calcs.
In reality I would love to see all of the above features put into the calcs. I also would like to see more programs availabel for academics. whenevever I look for programs most of what I see are games. I'd like to find programs that mimic other features from other calcs so I don't have to go out and buy one of each model. Programs that allow enhanced graphing or chemistry calculations.
Just my thoughts from someone who actually uses thier calculator for something other than an "Game-Boy".
Johnny
|
Reply to this comment
|
29 March 2000, 16:57 GMT
|
|
Quantum Calculators
|
Ciaran McCreesh
(Web Page)
|
I want a ti86q. It will be a Quantum Calculator (I've probably spelt that wrong) with an infinite amount of QRAM that can do lots of things at once.
Seriously though, it would be able to calculate every point on a graph in the same time that it would take to plot one point. Cool eh? Just think, sooooper AI because instead of needing time for 100 bad guys you can spend 100 times longer on one bad guy. If you get my meaning.
Dr Ciaran McCreesh
Professor of Supreme Fantasising, Dream University
|
Reply to this comment
|
29 March 2000, 19:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Quantum Calculators
|
Cliff
|
This is totally off-topic by now, but...
Yes, quantum computers exist. No, they don't do anything useful yet. They work in some experiments where the superposition of multiple possible states is useful, but they don't do simple things (i.e. addition) and they're certainly not in any commercial form, or even a prototype circuit board. Most quantum computing thus far has consisted of scientists manipulating and nudging atoms in a scanning tunneling electron microscope.
OOH! That's what we need! A scanning tunneling electron microscope in our calculators! That way, we could play really small games of tic-tac-toe with individual atoms! Because, as we all know, TI only builds calculators to play games on.
[end sarcasm. Oops, did I forget to begin it?]
|
Reply to this comment
|
31 March 2000, 09:45 GMT
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.
|