Survey posted 2001-01-18 17:54 by Andy Selle.

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

I would like to see more usefull programs featured as well as games etc. Usually it seems that games and on computer deveolpment software get the most attention... and other utilities that would help that average user use their calc to its full potential.

Unfortunately, graphing calculators are thought of by most as glorified game boys, or a cheating device, depending on who you ask. When people see my TI-83/89, if they don't own a calc, they say "oh cool look! That's one of those graphing calculators, and they can get the coolest games! What games do you have on there? Can I see them?" Now that I'm in high school, this has decreased as most people have them. However, the air of being a game machine has stuck with TI graphing calculators.

When new programs are posted I typically don't even pay attention to which ones are featured. I just download the ones that look fun or useful.

-cava

yeah, i just look at the description and screen shots. but alot of files dont have screen shots or any kind of rating.

My friend keeps trying to get something featured; until he does, I won't totally agree with ticalc.org's system.

Exactly. I have tried many times, but my programs are never featured, even if they're better than previous programs which were featured.

I agree also. Far too few excellent BASIC programs aren't featured simply because they are BASIC, and don't offer all the fancy features assembly has to offer. Most of the featured programs are for the TI-89, while most calculator users favor the TI-83(+). Ticalc should have an option in the description to nominate or vote for a program to become POTM. I would like the POTM and a ratings system by the people, to make things more democratic and fair. That way we see which programs the majority of calculator users enjoy.

Most people that use this site have TI-89's.

A plurality, possibly, but not most.

no, a vast majority.

And you are basing this on what?

Although I agree on the idea that many highschool students have 83(+)s, not all of them use this website. A majority of the people I know and a survey I found indicated that most of those who use this website regularly have 68k calcs.

In addition, since 68k offers by far a great advantage in programming with TIgcc and in actually using files with a large memory, fast processor, and several other pleasing features, wouldn't it make sense for the better calculator to have the better program mention.

This statement that a vast majority of ticalc's populace has 89s must be completely unbased on reality.

For example, most of the users of this site are in high school, a fact which is widely supported by surveys of this site.

Using my own recent high school experiences, most high school students seem to have 83s, 83+s, or 85s. There is the occasional 82, 86 or 89, but the majority have either 83 successors like the 83+ or the 85/6.

Just thought you should know that your logic and statement appear to be seriously flawed.

Knight/Rocket's 4c.

The above stament would be flawed, because no direct link was established between calculator users and the website.
The students at your one highschool do not necessarily all use the website often. It is more common that highschool TI89,92(+) users would use the website rather than all highschool calculator owners in general.

you know back in the day when POTM was relatively new, that's how it was. There were separate categories for the different calculators and asm and basic subcategories. this is how i think it should be once again. and the ticalc.org staff might choose to impose new and more strict rules that don't allow them to make sarcastic P'sOTM, i.e., the Wacky Fun Random Numbar Generator.

Ugh, WFNG was the worst piece of programming I've ever seen (no offense to the programmer)... I mean, it's Guess! How hard could it be to add a high/low indicator? When I first got my TI89, the first program I wrote (two days later) was Guess, and it told the user if his number was too high or too low. It also said how many tries it took him after he got the number. There should be a section where everybody can "feature" their programs. That way, the people who write crap can get the attention they so desperately need, while the people who actually learn how to program can be recognized as well.
Just my 2*sin(1.5707963) cents.

Yeah, the anybody-gets-a-feature IS a good idea, but consider why it's impractical: Everybody that programs anything probably thinks their latest program is "da bomb"...everybody I know does. Let's conservatively assume 50% of programmers take that road, "featuring" their prgm?
Well, then roughly HALF the archives make the features, so basically the new "Featuring" is just the Archive of Confident Programmers. Then nobody goes there, and the Staff closes it up. Nothing accomplished. Plus, all the new files already make the main page anyway, so they're sort of featured, I guess.

Anyway, something should be done. Definitely, BASIC should get more, and 83+ should too (but maybe since my calc is 83+ and my language is BASIC, I'm biased.)

Good point... I was thinking this section could be like a message board, but there should be quality control. How about: before a programmer can advertise his prog on this message board, he must first obtain a 7.0 rating or higher in the review section. Although the people who write Guess clones and Drug War v17.2 Deluxe Special Edition won't get any attention, the writers who take pride in their programs will get a "reward" for their hard work, considering the majority of calc programs are freeware. As an added bonus, they'd be more encouraged to write even better programs in the future. Finally, this section should be divided up by calc, programming language, and genre.
I feel that this is the best way to ensure that hard-working programmers get what they deserve!
Just my ln(e^2) cents.

But all the progammers submitting their first progams which just display something on the screen or whatever get included with all the advanced progams. Those files should be part of the progamming section or some other file.

The TI89,92(+) calcs are what the majority has, so they get the majority of the progams.

Yeah, the TI-89 Asm games cat has 33/209 featured, and the TI-89 Basic games cat only 12/384 featured. Percentage wise, that's 15.789% for Asm and 3.125% for Basic. Sound fair? I think not. Featured programs should mean they are *relatively* the best, being compared to those in their own group.

A lot less quality progs are made in BASIC, so it _is_ fair they get featured alot less. Alot of ppl make crappy drugwars clones in basic, simply because they can. Asm takes a little more time and effort to make something, so we see less bad games.

Hey, what are wrong with 89's? I got 2 for going to national MathCounts twice, and I absolutely love them. Great games, awesome mathematical ability, tons of memory. From what I see out of 83+'s they aren't really that good.