Results
|
Choice
|
Votes
|
|
Percent
|
I do not own a calculator.
|
5
|
1.1%
|
|
No, only weirdos do that.
|
226
|
50.2%
|
|
Sometimes, when I'm sure I'm going to need it.
|
169
|
37.6%
|
|
Yes, always.
|
31
|
6.9%
|
|
Yes, I carry my manual, and I carry a copy of every other TI calculator's manual, too.
|
19
|
4.2%
|
|
|
Re: Do you carry your calculator\'s manual with you?
|
Robert Snyder
|
arne't I special. First time I have actually had first post.. and first person to be an extremist on the yes side. I carry around the 85, 86, and 89 hand book. I used to own all three, now my 86 is with my cousin, my 85 is missing and my 89 has died due to lack of batteries. But i carry around all 3 because thats what everyone has in my math class.. I dont even look at those 82 line of calcs.. I dont like them... I became hooked to the 85 line... now i love my 86 and hate my 89... even though the 89 has cool games... oh well..i'm too weird.
|
Reply to this comment
|
21 March 2001, 06:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Do you carry your calculator's manual with you?
|
Mike Ptyza
(Web Page)
|
Dude, chill, seriously. Every line of calcs (68k, 82/83, and 85/86) have their strengths, and weaknesses. It is hardly sensible to compare graphing calculators to PDA's. While calculators can have games, and the sort, their primary use is for mathematics classes. PDA's have more capabilities, and are generally not for math classes. Here's some news for ya: the Newton failed. Miserably. To call someone a "fag" and "gay" because they carry manuals is highly immature. Everyone has reasons for whatever they do, and it may or may not be pratical, so just back off. Just because someone uses a PC does not mean they "love" Windows, or even use it. Most of the time I am using Linux (Red Hat 7.0), but for games and such I do use Windows, but by no means "love" it. Let me address an issue here: Apple is no better than any other computer manufacturer, and in my opinion one of the worst. I have always been an apple hater. If you wish to continue this, either email me, or contact me via AIM. Just a tip for ya: inserting the word "die" at the end of your post isn't exactly helping your case.
|
Reply to this comment
|
24 March 2001, 05:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your an idiot!
|
Keith Raney
|
Look man, first of all, your post is contradicting itself when it says "diss 82-83-83+ series. " yet implies that the 85-86 series suck. First of all, I own an 86, and it is all the calculator I ever wanted. AND, it costs no where near the money that an 89 or a 92 plus does. Secondly, you say nothing but opinion when you say macs suck, and, hate to break it to ya, but PC is the better system. That is not an opinion, that is a FACT. The only thing mac is better at are graphics, but PC is catching up fast, and will soon surpass mac in all fields. Not to mention, PC is A LOT cheaper, and if you build it yourself (which is a lot harder to do with a mac), it is even cheaper. Also, I don't like Bill Gates, or Microsoft, but Windows is the second best operating system out there (unix is the best), and Windows is a LOT more powerful than you probably give it credit for. Especially WinNT. You can't break through the security if the OS is set up right (given that you don't discover the password). Windows ME is a really nice operating system, nice interface as well. Heck, even Windows 3.1 is comparable to MacOS. AND, I happen to be a "pc programmin" person, and I don't appreciate your comments toward people like them. Finally, in Robert Snyder's defense, Until you have read the entire instruction booklet and understand every function and how to use all of them efficiently on the TI-86, then don't start getting on someones back about carrying around a manual. got it?
|
Reply to this comment
|
24 March 2001, 06:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Your an idiot!
|
CobraA1
(Web Page)
|
Before you go blabbing about PCs being better ONLY at graphics, you will want to do some research into computer architechture. A 700 MHz Mac will run rings around a 1 GHz PC due to better hardware design. The weaknesses of the Mac tend to be the amount of software available and the price, but those are changing quickly.
The truth is that the x86 architeture is not very good. I think that Apple is doing a good job at catching up with the PC in the past year or so.
Take a look at how fast the iMacs caught on; the popularity of the Macintoshes is higher than it ever has been. MacOS X has just been released, and it looks cooler than anything Windows has :P. Comparable to Win 3.1? LOL. Take a look at Aqua and say that again.
I have to admit, though, Windows is doing a better job with stability and security with their NT line of Windows (Win NT/Win 2000). In the days of Windows 95, security and stability were laughable.
Darwin, the base of Mac OS X, has its roots in Unix, so this should be interesting, since you rank Unix as #1 on your list. Stability and security are excellent in Unix, but I still have a lot of problems with installation and hardware support (I've been playing around with Linux, which is very similar) :(.
Anyway, you might want to make sure you have the latest info before saying it sucks.
|
Reply to this comment
|
24 March 2001, 19:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apple, HA
|
Mike Ptyza
(Web Page)
|
I beg to differ about the following:
"A 700 MHz Mac will run rings around a 1 GHz PC due to better hardware design." Better hardware design, HA, that's a good one...
The x86 architecture has been around since the early 1980's, I would tend to think that if it has lasted thus far, that it would be quite good.
Another thing: I believe the previous post was refering to the older MacOS's (up to 9.1) being comparable to Windows 3.1. Unless you have never seen Win 3.1, you would know how true that comment is.
Sure, MacOS X is based on UNIX. Am I safe to assume that Apple was aware of how miserably their platform was failing? If you ask me, they realized that they couldn't churn out a successful OS themselves, so they pay people to write programs that allow older MacOS applications to run on a UNIX-based OS.
|
Reply to this comment
|
25 March 2001, 04:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PC, LOL
|
CobraA1
(Web Page)
|
----------
I beg to differ about the following:
"A 700 MHz Mac will run rings around a 1 GHz PC due to better hardware design." Better hardware design, HA, that's a good one...
----------
OK, I just heard that. Hoever, I WAS able to find a few pages with benchmarks, such as http://www.jc-news.com/parse.cgi ?pc/benchmarking/xplat/ppc-x86, and I'm hard pressed to find a comparison that shows that the PC is vastly superior than the Mac. In nearly all tests, the Mac performs at least as well as the equivalent PC. I'd like you to show otherwise.
----------
The x86 architecture has been around since the early 1980's, I would tend to think that if it has lasted thus far, that it would be quite good.
-----------
"Lasted" is correct. It's long overdue for an overhaul IMHO. We've got newer processors, newer protocols, stuff like Firewire and USB that are major advances, and yet the x86 architecture has remained the same. It wasn't designed for these technologies, yet it has to lug them around.
Did I mention that the Macs have been around for a long time also? And are making a comeback?
-----------
Another thing: I believe the previous post was refering to the older MacOS's (up to 9.1) being comparable to Windows 3.1. Unless you have never seen Win 3.1, you would know how true that comment is.
-----------
I HAVE seen Win 3.1, and have worked with it plenty. I'm also typing this message on MacOs 9.1. Cosmetically, MacOs looks better than Win 3.1 and 9x IMHO. Again, the PC looks no better than the Mac. And with MacOs X coming out, it is actually starting to look worse.
------------
Sure, MacOS X is based on UNIX. Am I safe to assume that Apple was aware of how miserably their platform was failing?
-----------
Yes, however, their recovery has been with the IMac, not with MacOs X. MacOs X was released less than a week ago!!!
Blaming the OS doesn't make sense.
It was the fact that Apple was more restrictive on teh application side (and Microsoft's HUGE advertising campaign) that led to its downfall. Now that they're much less restrictive, and pulling a few advertising campaigns themselves, so they're recovering nicely.
-----------
If you ask me, they realized that they couldn't churn out a successful OS themselves, so they pay people to write programs that allow older MacOS applications to run on a UNIX-based OS.
------------
It's not the OS, but rather the openness to allowing third party developers that is making them more successful. UNIX is the natural choice for open development, especially since so much has been done around Linux, which was designed open from the ground up.
One of the primary reasons for getting a PC has always been that there are more applications that run on PCs; hopefully with the new, more open OS, you will be seeing a lot more applications for the Macintosh.
|
Reply to this comment
|
25 March 2001, 06:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: PC, LOL
|
hackrman01
|
USB is not a Mac invented device. IBM spent a lot of money developing USB and Apple seems to be confusing the dumb-minded into thinking that they invented it. I mean, everything on a mac is USB, it is overkill. Speakers, Keyboard, Mouse and Floppy Disk Drive. The excessive use of USB kind of kills the resources. My school officals are stupid for buying IMAC's. A group of student reaserchers found PC's that were twice as fast and cheaper that the IMAC'd that they bought were. Microsoft is getting ready to release a new OS soon. It will be like a better version of WIN 2000. It will have easy networking and heavy error detection.
I am currently going through Cisco certification, and what are we learning to network with..... A PC!!!!! According to Cisco, when I have a job in networking, I will be dealing mostly with PC's.
When I was looking for webhosting, I only wanted hosting on Win 2k, advanced server addition. Pearl, Cgi, and ASP are so much better on an NT system. I say that it is better because it is really easy to set up scripts. You don't have to chmod, and you don't have to define perl paths. I love asp and I think that MSDB are so easy to use. I have nothing against mySQL or PHP, except that I have had more experience with ASP.
Well, I just wanted to get my comments in.
|
Reply to this comment
|
26 March 2001, 09:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: PC, LOL
|
CobraA1
(Web Page)
|
Networking? Go Unix, Linux, BSD, or something similar. If a security hole or a virus appears, the Open Source community will have a patch out in less than a week, whereas Microsoft will take forever.
Can you answer a question for me? Why does it take so much longer to load my profile on Win2000 than on NT? My school switched last year, and it's taking a good 10 min. before I can get to my homework! At least it's more stable; we had a lot of crashes with NT :(.
BTW, I'd rather have a guy who takes the time to set up networking properly on the computer rather than a guy who just wants things easy. After all, my homework depends on it.
Maybe I'm not completely on the ball as far as Macs go, but I do think that they're better than some people think; it logs on quickly for me, and it does everything I want it to. The only real major complaints seem to be networking; however, as they weren't really designed with that in mind, I don't see why it's such a major issue.
As networking clients, Macs don't seem to have any problems - just login with your name and password, just like the PCs. And I'm still waiting for the server to crash - hasn't happened on the mac side here at school yet.
|
Reply to this comment
|
27 March 2001, 03:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PCs and MACs
|
Keith Raney
|
Your windows problems are probably resulting from poor setup by whoever set up your system. PCs are very flexible in the field of hardware, the only downside is there are hardware pieces every now and then that will drag the system. The server at our house took over 15 minutes to sign on, but I pulled the video card and it signed on instantly. I would get a system administrator to take a look at the problem (given that it is high on the school's priority list). As for Macs and PCs, I just recognize that they both have their strengths and weaknesses, but I do think that PCs are slightly better than macs. PCs are faster (and yes to all of you techical down-to-the-wire chip analyzers, I have taken into consideration the chip archatecture). One of the main reasons is that PC chips can be overclocked very easily (I don't think that Mac chips can be, if I'm wrong, tell me, but don't blast me). And, PC stability is better (Windows is not the only OS out there, although Windows has been doing a pretty good job with their most recent release of Win2000). On the other hand, I am awed by the graphic cababilities of a mac. It gets really detailed, and detail is what counts. And macs are also reasonably stable. Anyway, I am flexible in the matter, I generally think that PC is better, but only by a small amount.
BTW, I am looking for a Mac that is reletivaly inexpensive so that I can learn to fully utilize a mac, the ones at school aren't very helpful mainly because I use them for about 10-12 hours a month. But I'm learning :)
|
Reply to this comment
|
27 March 2001, 06:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Do you carry your calculator\'s manual with you?
|
dkqwerty
|
Me PolarD. Me no can type.
First of all, try using English next time, which’s what the rest of us use.
Second, the homosexual slurs are really uncalled for (I mean, what's so wrong with being gay?).
Third, try keeping one idea through the whole thing. First you support 89s, then Palms, then 82/83/83+. Keep on topic (my English teacher would have a field day with your comment).
And, off the topic of this loser and back to the real topic, I carry my 89 manual with me if I think I may need it. This way I won't take up the room in my bag.
P.S. Can't Windows and Mac just get along?
|
Reply to this comment
|
24 March 2001, 19:24 GMT
|
|
1 2 3 4 5
You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.
|