Survey posted 2005-08-28 03:53 by Jon.

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

By the way, isn't there a program to make more RAM available for the TI-83/4 Plus SE? I saw there's 128K RAM in it, but only 24K available...

The rest is used for the operating system stuff.

That means no, by the way.

If someone could develop a program for more memory or ram...

If I'm not mistaken, Omnicalc (flash app) does that with its "virtual calculator" function for SEs (it gives you another 24k of RAM to use as a second calculator; can't combine the two, though...) It's definitely a possibility, I think....(of course, someone just has to do it....)

The problem is, with my trusty 84+se, after a couple hours of use with the "virtual calc" mode turned on, It refuses to show my memory. 2nd, mem, all, ERR: MEM. The only way to get rid of it, is to reset my ram. Other than that, Omnicalc works.

Yeah, I've had a similar problem; when I turn the calc off and on several times *interesting things* happen. Also, RAM clears seem to corrupt the stuff shown in the archive on the virtual calc. It's a good idea, but not very stable.

By the way, even when you get the ERR:MEM, you should be able to use 2:GOTO to scroll through parts of the programs list. Wherever the OS finds something corrupted it doesn't display it (the ERR:MEM) or it gives a huge value (>20000 bytes) for the variable size.

The TI-83 Plus has 32kB of RAM, of which 24kB are available for use.

The TI-83 Plus SE has 128kB of RAM, of which just 24kB are available for use too.

Why does the SE spend so much RAM to the OS?

It is usable, just not by the average user. I don't think the OS uses all of it; check out Omnicalc's virtual calc. That's one use of the extra RAM.

Yeah, especially since the OS isn't *that* different, AFAIK.

I MAY buy a 83 series calculator (ie. the 84+ SE), so I have every series that has a link port on each calculator.

If you have the money, get a ti 84+ se; best in the ti 83/84 line!

Yeah, indeed!

i bought a ti89 on ebay to add to my 83pse, since i'm going into calculus this year... no, i'm not going to use it to cheat... and because i really hate assembler, basic, and the slowness of z80's, and i love c and the speed of 68k's.

me too, but i got mine new and for cheap yay ebay!

Hey! Z80 assembly isn't so bad...Look at Phoenix, for example. Z80 basic, I agree, is SLOW!

i didnt mean i dont like the games made in assembler, i meant i hate programming in assembler.

yeah jeez..

I love C too.
Basic is like a gatway drug. I learned basic on my ti-81 and progressed to ti-89 BASIC and now I'm addicted to TIGCC C programming, and basic just can't get me high anymore...

Well, I wish I could answer "No, I'm building one", but that's just something I have sort of vaguely planned for the future, not a current project.

Yeah... The first 64-bit calculator!

Specifiactions TI-64:
AMD Athlon TI 64-bit 5+ GHz CPU (hehe)
1 GB RAM
1 TB Flash ROM
Color screen

Programming languages:
TI-BASIC v2, C, C+, C++, java, and much more integrated by default.

I/O ports:
Default mouse
Default keyboard
Default (LCD) monitor

OS:
TINUX v4.20 (TI-Linux)
Kernel 2.6.14

But this is only a dream...
A sweet dream...

A pipe dream...

Don't forget the backpack of cooling equipment that you'll have to take around so you don't burn the eggs on the built-in egg frying pan!

That should be a feature on the G5 Mac mini - coffee warmer on top.

Yeah good idea!

Open a restaurant: The Calculator

Daily menu! :P

If you used a slower processor (say, only a few hundred MHz (or underclocked a faster one)), it would not get so hot. & of course, there is always the Libretto (which is similar in size to the TI-92+, as far as I know), which demonstrates that it is at least theoretically possible. At any rate, it would be cool if they made a custom processor for their calculators (say, divide & multiply in the same time as add & subtract, & be designed to run TI-BASIC faster). Yes, I know they did that in the TI-80, but that was a long time ago, & was therefore too slow & limited.

Use water cooling; the cooling apparatus can be a lot smaller. In any case, this is now less of a calculator than a full-fleged pocket computer. Not that I would quibble over that if I had one in my hands!

Well, good luck stuffing that suitcase-sized calc into your pocket! :-)

What's with today's obsession with AMD processors? I know several people who refuse to use a computer if it doesn't have an AMD in it, and, in reading Mac websites, there are people decrying Apple for going to Intel instead of AMD. Doues it /really/ make that much difference?!?!?!?

AMD is almost similar to Intel, but:

AMD is cheaper and even better than Intel

IE Intel has a 3 GHz CPU, than AMD has a 3+ GHz CPU. The plus-sign means: comparable with Intel speed, but the real freq is lower, for example just 2,2 GHz.

My AMD is much slower though, just 807 MHz :P

It's just incredibly stupid of manufacturers to compare processors by clock speed anyways. MIPS would be a much more accurate measure of power.

Here: try this: it's just as unlikely, but is a little more realistic (I think)

IBM 50MHz PowerPC 601
10 MB RAM
20 MB ROM
Grayscale screen

Programming languages:
TI-BASIC v2, C, C++, Java (possibly a limited version)
or may I suggest Perl to replace all of the above?
(C+ does not exist)

I/O ports:
USB (with HW hub-handling capability)
TI-Presenter out
TI-link (traditional stereo headphone-like one)

OS:
TI-OS/AMS 4 (integrating Apple's old 68k > PPC emulator)

But I'd go for a full HW3 v200 successor (I want USB!).

Sounds good, except I would personally prefer the memory numbers to be powers of 2.

Also, a LISP interpreter would be really nice (although probably terribly slow)...so maybe a LISP machine calculator? :)

LISP??? What does that mean?

Lots of Irritating & Superfluous Parentheses :)
Seriously, though, it stands for LISt Processor. It is a programming language in which, among other things, functions can be stored in variables & passed as parameters.

A simple example of ANSI Common LISP would be:

(defun fact (x) (cond ((eq x 0) 0) (t (* x (fact (- x 1))))))
(fact 7)

Which would return 5040.