Results
|
Choice
|
Votes
|
|
Percent
|
Yes, of course. I must own all TI calculators.
|
67
|
13.7%
|
|
Maybe.
|
123
|
25.1%
|
|
No.
|
275
|
56.1%
|
|
I don't know what you're talking about.
|
25
|
5.1%
|
|
|
Re: Are you considering buying the TI-83+ Silver Edition?
|
Gregory Brooks
(Web Page)
|
Whut the hell?!? If it isn't more advanced, then I don't want it. Maybe if it were a Cache Muny Platinum edition with some ice in the grill.
Check this site and comment http://Harridans.8k.com/
|
Reply to this comment
|
7 January 2001, 17:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you considering buying the TI-83+ Silver Edition?
|
mstrmnd34
|
no way! THE 92+ IS MUCH BETTER!
i have an 89 (i bought it to run my 68k programs on the SAT Test), and I really hate it (although it is still better than the 83+ i had). The keyboard is horrible, and so any and all programing has to be done with Graph Link, which greatly complicates debugging. there is no reasonable way to type notes, and worse, the screen is so small that I really do wish I could bring a magnifying glass to the SAT because dialog boxes are displayed in tiny print. All in all, the 89 is basically the same as the 92+, but with a traditional style keyboard and screen, which is (inho) inappropriate on a 68k calc.
as for my 92+: I LOVE IT! as a matter of fact, I keep it in my pocket wherever I go (believe it or not)
the solve() function can easily simplify equations, and give equation answers to math problems which my teacher requires, and the rest of the CAS allows me to do all the things that I cannot do in Algebra, and much more. The games for it are even more impressive. Command and Conquer, a classic PC game can be played on the calculator, as well as a number of 3D high resolution games using the FAT engine. TI's numerous organizer apps allow me to easily manage my schedule, the Integrated Desktop allows me to keep only main programs visible, not their subroutines. TICT's ppg compressor allows me to shrink my programs (i did that to command and conquer), and the latest version of ttstart enables program compatibility with all AMS versions. In addition, I keep all the readme files for my calculator programs in TICT ebooks which are compressed...
The TI-92+ puts Palm Pilots and all other TI Calculators to shame...
and that goes for the V200 as well, since it doesn't fit in my pocket.
|
Reply to this comment
|
24 February 2005, 02:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hmmm...
|
Keith Raney
|
Well, the TI-89 will not do you any good if it isn't allowed in the school. And as for the TI-86, Just because it has advanced mathematical cababilities dosen't make it superior to the TI-83 plus. They can be programmed using applications on the 83 plus. Actually, the TI-83 Plus has the application cababilities, and the TI-86 dosen't. Applications can be used to program advanced funcions and procedures that TI didn't program in. The TI-86 has absolutely no fault tolerance, while the Flash ROM can be used to restore some, if not all, of what was deleted by the crash (given that you back up every once in a while). You can argue that the graph link will back up the files for the TI-86, but that is much more inconvenient. Finally, the TI-83 Plus is MUCH easier to use. I one both calculators, and I barely use the TI-86, simply because it is not nearly as easy to use.
|
Reply to this comment
|
16 January 2001, 04:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: hmmm...
|
phill
|
no offense to anyone meant, but the 89 is allowed on the SAT's. I don't know about the ACT's because I didn't take them, but, as of a year ago, there was controversy over whether 89s should be allowed, and they ended up not banning them. In fact, in one of the survey questions you answer when you take the SAT, ti-89 is a choice when they ask you which calculator you used.
They may have changed something in the last year, and if they did, I stand corrected. Otherwise, though, 89 are allowed on the SAT.
|
Reply to this comment
|
18 January 2001, 00:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: .
|
Mikey Wiseman
(Web Page)
|
YEA,MAMMOTH IS GONNA BUY ONE!!! I am going to buy one, considering my ti-83plus was STOLEN!!! And with all the extra apps space, archive space, and a cool new look, this is gonna be one kick butt calculator! And I can not vouch for how better or worse it is compared to a ti-86, or 89, because I have never used one, although the games do appear to be much better than what us ti-83plus users have (where is MARIO, ppl?? Sometime soon??). C ya later
Mikey :)
Oh yea, visit my website, WWW.angelfire.com/tx3/mikeymonkey
|
Reply to this comment
|
17 January 2001, 11:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The shinyness will be the best thing about it!
|
ericman2000
(Web Page)
|
Yeah. Well can your iPaq load the datebook in less than a second after you have unloaded it from memory (this is not deleting, this is going to your memory management screen and ending all tasks)? Can your iPaq store a spreadsheet app, wordprocessing app, and charting app in under 300 KB and still sychronize with MS Office on your desktop (see quickoffice at palmgear.com for more information)? Can you download a free C compiler (gcc for palm) and program it? Can you download a $30 compiler (On-board C) and program the thing on itself? Can you pick your software from a collection of 7811 titles (palmgear.com, Jan 12, 2001)? Can you plug in a phone module (Visor Phone, handspring.com) and have it work instantly, without glitches the first time and every time thereafter? Can your iPaq work with Linux or MacOS (palm.com has the palm desktop for many platforms available for download; hadspring is Windows and Mac ready right out of the box)? As for your games - I doubt you have a Wolfenstein clone available for FREE download (it is a really good clone too!). From my experience, I have seen most every Windows Powered or WinCE app ported to Palm OS or cloned (the good ones anyway). And most importantly - does your iPaq work with you, or do you work with it?
|
Reply to this comment
|
13 January 2001, 00:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The shinyness will be the best thing about it!
|
J22
|
To answer your questions, the iPAQ can do many of these things. You can download Linux for your iPAQ (yes, the same Linux you can run on your home PC), thus giving you access to all the software that can run on Linux. Can you download a free compiler? Of course, GCC. Can you download over 7811 software titles? Well, I don't know, but Linux has a lot of software. Can you plug in a phone module? Well, the iPAQ has the ability to use PC cards, thus giving it access to many already-available cards such as: GPS cards, cell phone cards, 2GB+ hard drive cards, wireless Ethernet cards, 56K modem cards, etc. Can the iPAQ work with Linux and MacOS? I don't know about MacOS, but it can RUN Linux :-) About games - Linux has DOOM available for free - not a clone, but the actual game. And think of the possibilities with MAME! With 32MB of RAM, a 206 MHz processor, upgradeable Flash ROM like the TI-89, a great screen, the ability to use PC cards, and Linux, the iPAQ is truly a Pocket PC - Real PC power in the palm of your hand. For strict organizing tasks, the Palm or Visor is cheaper, but I like the iPAQ more :-)
|
Reply to this comment
|
14 January 2001, 20:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: The shinyness will be the best thing about it!
|
brentes
(Web Page)
|
how do you call that advanced? Like the above comment, the clock speed has nothing to do with it... a mac 500MHz could beat a pentium 600MHz, because it has a different construction..
Plus, why does more memory make it more advanced. Last time I checked, any TI-83 couldn't solve an equation that's not quadratic.. it compares NOTHING to the TI-89's symbolic manipulation. It can do all kinds of stuff.. you should download the ROM to see for yourself. And, the new silver case just makes it less professional looking and more like a gameboy, which people (atleast at my school) would make fun of you for. Believe me, I used to have a hard head like you, until I got a TI-89. It is the most easy to use, most powerful calculator. I have the 83 too, so I KNOW what I'M talking about.
ps- With the 700K or so memory on the TI-89, I've never ONCE filled it completely up. I used to be an avid gamer too.
|
Reply to this comment
|
9 January 2001, 01:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: The shinyness will be the best thing about it!
|
ericman2000
(Web Page)
|
Amen! The 89 has all the functionality any math student needs without having to buy the extra apps (I know it comes with 4 free, but what if you delete them?) TI is promissing (when they arrive is anyone's guess). Plus, there is plenty of power under my little buddy's plastic case to get me through the thoughest problems. The 83++ will strain when you tell it to graph z(x,y)=x*0.85 + y*.15 (our semester test weights, by the way). And let's not talk about simplifying complex equasions.... Whew!
And for those of you who game, the 89 has 4-bit greyscale (8 "colors"), the 83, 83+, and 83++ has 1-bit (black and white) "greyscale." The 89 is also "smart" enough to unarchive something before execution (this is not from a shell, mind you).
David, you are really right -- who cares about a 386 with a deluxe tape drive when you can get the Pentium!
|
Reply to this comment
|
13 January 2001, 00:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The shinyness will be the best thing about it!
|
Robert Mohr
(Web Page)
|
It's not quite that simple:
TI-83+S TI-86
Display
64x96 64x128 screen size
8x21 8x21 characters on screen
Graphing
X/X X/ polar/sequence graphing
X/X difeq/slope & dir fields
X RK,euler,initial cond. list
Programming
X user-defined functions*
Memory
24K 96K user-available RAM
1.54M N/A ROM
Mathematics
X polynomial eqns
X simultaneous eqns
X bin,hex,oct operations
Statistics
999 6000 list length
10 9 regression models
X via WWW statistics application
Matrices
10 no limit # of matrices
50x50 80x80 size of matrices
Calculus
X inflection
Science
X physical constants
X SI/English conversions
Finance
X via WWW Finance Application
Other
X custom menus
X electronic upgradability
Note: these are only the differences between the TI-83+S and the TI-86. Things that both calculators had or neither calculator had were not included. The TI-83+S has not yet been added to the TI Graphing Calculator Comparison Chart, so I used the TI-83+ values and changed what I know of the upgrades made in the TI-83+S, such as the ROM that currently has enough space for three or four of every TI-83+ Flash App in existence. I did not mention the Silver Case, but that is one difference. I made this chart without the help of HTML tags (TICalc doesn't allow them, which is understandable), so if it doesn't turn out okay don't bite my head off. Just go to http://www.ti.com/calc/docs/gmtrx.htm for the complete comparison.
* This confused me at first, but with assembly programs you can add user-defined functions to the 86-OS. If you want verification of that particular result, go to http://www.ti.com/calc/docs/gmtrx.htm.
|
Reply to this comment
|
12 January 2001, 21:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The shinyness will be the best thing about it!
|
ComputerWiz
(Web Page)
|
You put x's down for the 83+SE for statistics, well if you cared to look brainiac it has both and infact they are built in and you dont have to waste the memory to have them.. 86 got thoes two features added, cause everyone loved them on the 83, ive owned/own a 82,82,83+,85,86,and 92 so i know the features pretty well (btw i currently own 83+,96,92)
Personaly i prefer the 92.. i like it when people look at it and say what the hell is that.. and it has some nice features that i find real useful in trig, but during my tests i find the 83+ very useful, cause im just used to it, i have most of the menus memorised, i believe the 83+SE is for people who are used to that series like me, hell i got my 92 not long ago (clearence at target for 40 dollars) and i have alot of problems with the stuff on that cause im not used to it, most people arnt willing to learn a new system, even if it is better, and many teachers dont even allow higher calulators to be used on tests, so i think this is a good alternative for people like that, dont bash it cause your 89 is better, we already know that, we already know that the 86 is better in some ways and the 83+se is better in others, so dont point it out thats getting tiring seeing everyone scream about how crappy this calc is, and for heavens sake pls stop asking for 86 pluses thats just as anonying as saying port this to the 86 or the 89 or that crap, ti makes money on the 83+se then good for them, if they dont too bad, you can tell them what you want but whats the use of bitching to the rest of the ti comunity on how crappy this new calulator is, when youvee have probably never used an 83 series calc for any length of time.. okie im done rambling
|
Reply to this comment
|
14 January 2001, 18:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The shinyness will be the best thing about it!
|
Matt Hockenheimer
|
I used to own an 83+, and currently own an 86 and an 89. Out of the 3, the 83+ has the least features, and the most annoying method of accessing them (crappy menu system). And you say the 83+S can make up for it's deficiencies with flash apps. Well, how much more do those cost? Just 1 of the non-free ones will get you over the price of an 86, and even all the free ones and a couple expensive ones added together won't surpass the 86, let alone the 89. And if you want more memory in an 86... Get an expander (it's at an independant web site, but I don't have time to look for it). It's just as good as 83+ archive memory, and offers more space. 89 doesn't have an archive problem, since you can run from archive much better in the 89.
|
Reply to this comment
|
13 January 2001, 05:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Are you considering buying the TI-83+ Silver Edition?
|
Free_Bird
(Web Page)
|
Okay, you 83-loving <censored>: this thing looks totally UGLY, and I think that many people will agree with me. And yes, it has much memory, but what are you gonna do with it? Fill it with TI's crappy Flash apps? Fill it with bad ports of 82,85 and 86 games? The 83s standard memory is more than enough to store the few cool and original 83 games. And even if you put all that crap in the memory, you still won't use it all. As a matter of fact, my 86 has enough memory to put everything I want on it and I still have 20KB left. So there. As for the higher speeds, this only means that most 83(+) programs won't work anymore. And FYI: all Z80-based TI calcs can easily be overclocked to 24MHz. However, this causes many problems (asm problems not working correctly unable to link), so most people wo do this add a turbo switch. I can only assume that this Silver Edition will have the same problems and no turbo switch. There. Advantages gone.
|
Reply to this comment
|
10 January 2001, 21:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ?
|
dleet
|
well, let's think about this.
Our mutual friends at TI, without even a thought of telling anybody, modifies the 89 to re-address its flash memory and to operate 2MHz faster. What happened? That's right, you needed to patch or re-write any and all ASM programs to operate on the new 'HW2' calculator.
Now, how do you expect the 83SE to address 1.5MB of memory with the same platform that was built to use only 184k? The majority of ASM programs are written with lower-level memory access, and that would be the very first thing affected by even the slightest change in architecture. Would there be another unpublished limit (as on the 89) which would apply not to apps but to asm programs? Would the shells we universally rely on be a match close enough to be ported, or would we need to rewrite them from scratch?
There are still far too many potential issues which could serve to further alienate this community from the corporate yahoos at TI. Sure, I may be able to simultaneously graph 4 functions in a matter of seconds, but it will still show up on that same crappy LCD. As for the shiny shellacking on the cover, it will make a nice vanity mirror before it chios away...
|
Reply to this comment
|
11 January 2001, 05:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you considering buying the TI-83+ Silver Edition?
|
Paul Marks
|
What do you mean "advantages gone"?
If you didn't finish reading the stuff at TI's site, it
comes LOADED with applications by ti (so you don't have
to buy them later). Then, also, myself being an ASM
programmer, as long as the bcall() functions are the same
then you can just add an interrupt handler that idles for
9 MHz and slows it down appropriately. Let me also
remind you that the regular 83+ is an 8 MHz processor
downclocked to 6 MHz. Yes, I agree that its ugly, but
for the features that it comes with for the small
incrimental cost of about $30, it is well worth it.
I mean, with 1.5 MB of ROM, you could almost hold every
file available for the TI83+ on ticalc.org with room
left to spare! :)
That is assuming TI is telling the truth this time,
because they also claimed "compatability" between
the 83 and 83+ and we all know that's not true :)
So its a gamble, whether its a good buy or not, but I'm
definitely getting one at least for just a programming
platform so i can program for everybody else that has
one.
|
Reply to this comment
|
12 January 2001, 02:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Are you considering buying the TI-83+ Silver Edition?
|
Robert Skalecki
|
The 83 silver edition says only one thing about the war between the 83 and the 86, TI is on the 83's side. To that end they created a supped up calculator that is still sorely lacking in advanced math functions and user interface. Out of the box, an 83 has only two relevent MATH features that the 86 doesn't, sequence graphing (which can be easily replicated using programs) and advanced statistics (which are available in asm version from ti's website). I can't possiblely list all of the useful MATH features that are missing on the 83, but I'll give you an idea: numeric differential equation graphing, eigenvalues / vectors, simultaneous equation solver, number base conversions, units conversions, numbers > 9e99, and more. Furthermore, the 83 has the dumbest menu system ever. If you want to access something buried in a menu, you have to cover up everything your working on. In the 86, you can bring up to rows of menu items and keep on seeing what you are working on. Besides that convenience, if you are going to be using the same item several times in the same expression, then you save key strokes because you only have to hit one menu button to insert it (this has great advantages when inputing ti-basic scripts). The menu system is just the most blatant problem with the 83's UI. TI also thought that it would be nice to hide all lower case letters and other special characters (how hard is it to implement a 'char' menu?). Additionally, there is no custom menu for users to place their favorite commands. Clearly the dumbest thing that TI ever did was to strip out all of the wonderful advances that they had made in the 85 and go back to the limited UI design of the 81 when they built the 82 (which the 83 only mildly improves upon). This error of judgement was only compounded when TI to the step to push the 82 (and now 83) as a userfriendly choice for highschools (TI's biggest market). As a result, ignorant teachers took the advice of ignorant marketers and recommended an inferior product with inferior userfriendliness (stupid menus). So of course all of those parents, not doubting the teacher's recommendation, bought the 82/83. I'm very passionate about this because that very effect caused my mom to buy an 82 (against my protests) all those years ago. So, in the end, TI's pushing of the 82/83 became a self-fulling prophecy and their most succesful calculator. So with the blessing of duped educators, TI continues to improve the hardware of a vastly inferior calculator design while leaving the 86 alone (they still haven't given us flash!). The fact that people still use the 86 so much even though TI has left it in the mud shows how well designed and useful (even beyond highschool math) it really is compared to the 83. TI seems to have forgotten that it takes more than mHz and marketing to make a good calculator. Luckily, many people in the TI community haven't. (I appologize for the length of this post, but it had to be said)
|
Reply to this comment
|
30 October 2001, 23:15 GMT
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.
|