Can i connect my TI 89 on my computer with a // cable???

Will the 89 ASM progs be compatible with 92+... IS it basically the same thing in an upright form?

The TI-89's ASM will have the same commands as the 92's (Like how the 83's and 86's ASM commands are similar) but the routines will be different, seeing as ASM is machine code, and the machines are different. I believe that the BASIC languages will be the same though, althou some things that the 89 uses (like the advanced mathmatics and geo software) will be able to be used by the 92+, but not the 92.

The TI-89 and the TI-92 Plus both have the Advanced Mathematics Sofware, but the TI-89 does NOT have the Geometry application.

I have two questions about the soon to arrive 89:
1)Judging by the ti-92, will the 89 have to compile BASIC progs before execution like the ti-86/85, or will it just execute like the 82/83? (I assume it will if you can manually type in instructions)
2)Also judging by the ti-92, will these BASIC progs execute any faster than the ti-86? I have always been frustrated with the slow execution rate, and maybe the 10 MHz processor will speed things up.

Right Right Right !
the basic programs on ti92 are SLOOOOOW !
and the processor is the same of the ti89, then if ti don't make something, they will not go faster.

I have a question: Will the TI-89 have built in support for ASM like the TI-86, or will we have to "hack" the 89 to have ASM on the calc? I have looked for this answer on TI's webpage and can't find it. I just wanted to know.
Pat

As TI announced the TI89 i mailed them to ask them this question,i can't exactly remember their answer (i've nuked the mail :[ ) but i think they said it would have built in ASM support...

Texas Instruments DID announce that it will have built-in assembly language programming. :)

The Ti-89 looks great. I hope it does come out in September. Hey, while I was here, I wanted to tell people about my web page. Check it out!!!

Will you be able to program assembly straight into the calculator or will it be one of those transfer deals??

It is more convenient to program on a computer and then transfer the result, because:

1) You get a superior developing environment.
2) If (when) the calc crashes during development you don't loose your source.
3) You can edit your source as "real" assembly (i.e. with mnemonics, macros, etc.) instead of editing it in hex numbers as you do on the calc.

A good on-calc assembler could of course fix all three points, with point 2 being the hardest.

I realize that other companies will come out with Flash upgrades, but I was wondering if anyone out there has the ability to and wants to make Flash upgrades in their spare time (like programming a project)? If ocding Flash upgrades is possible at home, would an ASM Shell build directly into the ROM be possible? Or how about an on-calc assembler? Think of the possibilities....

Taht would be pretty cool, but people could do some pretty screwy things to everybody's calculators. Viri and such (who would do such a thing?...)

Ugh... So many incorrect statements, such little time :)

Okay, the 89 WILL support native ASM. No ZShell/(CR)Ash hackjobs (Don't get me wrong, ASM shells are good, but a built in OS implementation is a bit more useful, since it eliminates the need for backups).
Game Boy ports? hmph. The Game Boy uses a heavily modified z80, NOT a 68k. Screen size means nothing, since that processor needs a decent 486 or better for emulation, although an overclocked 68k (with cooling system) MIGHT approach that speed. I doubt even that would be adequate.
Next, z80 and 68k programming are TOTALLY different. Zilog/Intel engineering concepts vary far and wide from those used by Motorola.
Next, built in ASM coding has been an option since the TI-83. The problem is that NO ONE is really insane enough to keep a list of the hex equivalents of all the opcodes. We like to program in something that's at least almost readable, and a massive hex string does not fit the bill.
And most importantly, TI's designs are still too closed. We need a system that allows direct bus access, with expandability through a module port, like the HP48GX allows. That way we can get a memory card to merge into system RAM, which is a much better solution, while giving us the ease of use that the TI has. I have to admit that the HP is more powerful, but the TI is far easier to use, and the 89 is comparable to the HP48.
Finally, the TI-84 was designed a while back. From what I heard, it was supposed to bridge the gap between the 82 and 85, but had a very buggy ROM, hardly worked, and was pulled off the market. Of course, I could be wrong, but according to all I've heard, the TI84 does exist in some form. I think that after the 89, TI has maybe one last z80 based calc to make, and that would probably already be a middle ground system, allowing a move straight to their next generation 68k based calcs. This is, however, merely conjecture on my part.

CK

i agree that native asm support is much better than asm shells.

the gameboy ports people were talking about are binary translations, not emulators. a 10mhz 68k would definitely be inadequate for gameboy emulation, but should be fast enough for a translated binary.

yes, z80 and m68k assembly is very different, which keeps programmers from getting the two mixed up.

i am "insane" enough to keep a list of all the z80 opcodes. the z80 is a very simple processor and i've already memorized many of the opcodes. (although i would never attempt that with the 68k)

yes, ti's designs are too closed. and ti makes very little asm programming information available.

i think i've heard of the ti-84, too. there was also a ti-88 which was a programmable calculator (not graphing). if ti does release another 8x calculator it will have to be the ti-87, and will probably be an improved version of the ti-86

I'm impressed. You said EXACTLY what the guy before you said. Pretty spiffy.
The only comment I would make is about the seemingly prevailing opinion that TI doesn't release enough info about asm programming, or that "[their] plans are too closed". I think TI does a perfectly good job at that. On the only platform I know about (the TI-86), TI released really good info and examples about how to program pretty complex math programs, the only thing these calcs are technically for (I know, preposition, i'm in a hurry). People are complaining that TI hasn't released any info about the 92+ ASM yet, and seem to think that it is owed to them for some reason. I find it nothing short of miraculous that TI's calculator department (a relatively small part of the company) hasn't completely buckled under the pressure of realeasing two calculators nearly simultaneously. With marketing, testing, shipping, and that ROM version 1.4 mess-up, TI has their hands full, probably over-flowing. I am positive TI will release all the information they intend to in the fullness of time, when they don't have much more important things to do. Anyway, this is what happened with the 86. In addition, if TI released too much information, they'd most likely find themselves in pretty hot water competition wise. Why release the secrets to your products? Especially when you're acknowledged by most to lead the field. I welcome comments on this opinion.

As far as I know, Fargo and Fargo II asm programs *should* run on the TI-89 without ANY modifications whatsoever. I mean, the processor is exactly the same as the TI-92(+), right? The TI-89 is basically a handheld TI-92+ sans QWERTY style keyboard and the geometry app. Everything else is the same, down to the CPU. So, why would anything need to be modified/ported, in order to get asm progs to run on the '89? Okay, granted, David Ellsworth might have to tweak Fargo II a bit to get it to work on the '89, but nothing involving tedious amounts of labor.

Different screen sizes between the TI-89 and TI-92 (Plus) is one of the major problems.

Also, Fargo and Fargo II only currently work on the TI-92, not the TI-92 Plus. The TI-92 isn't identical to the TI-89, like the TI-92 Plus (almost) is.

yes, I also thought about this...the screen size difference, that is. But once davidell ports Fargo II to the '89/'92+, couldn't he include routines in the '89 port which accounts for the smaller screen size, and redraws the graphics accordingly? I know this seems extremely simple, in fact, almost too good to be true, but...isn't it thus?

No!!! I can't believe what TI just did. I didn't notice the new TI-89 picture until just today, but the sight of it makes me want to hurl!! =)

They messed up when they changed the light-blue border around the LCD screen to solid black. This would be fine on an all black calculator like the 86, but not when you have LIGHT-BLUE buttons!!!!! Anyway, that's my only gripe.

Anybody agree with me?

who the hell cares what the damn thing looks like everyone else is talking about its functions & features and u want to talk about looks

Ken Ritzert

p.s. *slaps u in the face*

Looks aren't everything, sniff sniff.

Would you not accept a ferrari if it had a blue interior, or uh, something like that?

well, actually i would pass up a blue-interior ferrari for a the money. then i would get a 1999 Honda Civic EX, 5 speed. yup yup. anyway, being the idiot that i am i email TI about this and they said it would probably ship with a black LCD.

looks like i'm going to have to trade it in for a TI-83 ( a calculator with a light-colored LCD border)!