Re: Why are TI Calcs so inferior?
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
<Mel Tsai <tsaimelv@PILOT.MSU.EDU> had this to say>
> On Thu, 14 Nov 1996 18:39:07 GMT, lcappite@sprynet.com (Goatboy)
> wrote:
> >I've been looking over the tech specs for all the TI calculators, and
> >I can't argue that these calculators are spectacular. They are the
> >most ingenious pieces of equipment for school use and such. However,
> >they're hardware is very inferior. The hard disk so to speak only is
> >about 30K.
>
> Totally different technologies. It's nonvolatile static ram. Regular
Static RAM is NOT "none-volatile" and it is NOT the memory of choice for
calculators!!
> computer ram (simms) is not the same, and it's not even close to a
> hard disk. Computer ram is a form of DRAM (dynamic ram), which uses a
> capacitor to store each bit. Static ram, on the other hand, uses
> (about) 6 transistors to store a bit. The latest chip manufacturing
> processes only allow for about 1 to 2 million transistors on a single
> chip, so that's why high-capacity static ram is so expensive. If
> someone were to come up with a way of making static ram as cheap as
> hard disks, a new age in computing would result because NO ONE would
> even think about buying the "slow" hard drive. Static ram can be kept
> intact on very low power, whereas dram requires refresh circuitry and
> takes up too much power.
You are totally Wrong about the power consumption of power by the two
types of RAM. Static RAM consumes much more power then DRAM! That is the
reason that DRAM can be packed to high densitys on a single IC and Static
RAM can not even realize a fraction of this density because it would FRY
itself with the heat build up from all the power it consumes! And who
told you that static RAM is none-volatile? It is not!
Don't rave on about a subject till you are qualified!
Do you also know that static RAM is also used in computers? Main memory
is usually Dynamic RAM and cache memory is usually high speed static RAM!
> This is also why a modern pcmcia 2mb ram disk costs almost $200.
> Static ram is very low power, no moving parts, extremely fast (easily
> 10 times faster than the fastest hard drive) and very small. You get
Let's see....DRAM at 60-70 nanoseconds and a Hard-Drive at 10
milliseconds......where's the TI-85? That would be 142,857 times as
fast!
The reason that a calc is a rather slow device is that it's routines are
coded in masked ROMS, slow compared to DRAM, and it is an interpreted
language vs the faster compiled code run in DRAM on computers. The
computer requires a ROM BIOS for it's IO routines, but that is why they
use Shadow RAM to transfer the ROM code into and speed up execution.
> what you pay for!
>
> >The processor runs at 6MHz?
>
> People take computing power for granted these days. At 6MHz, the Z80
> processor can execute over 1 million 8 bit additions in ONE SECOND.
> The Z80 was designed in the early 70's!!!! If a human can do one 8
> bit addition per second in their head, it would take over two weeks of
> nonstop adding to do what this $0.50 cent chip can do in one second.
> Now, compare this to your average pentium and all of a sudden we're
> next to nothing.
>
> >It only has an assembly language, not something better?
>
> The only reason good languages come out for a platform is because it's
> a PLATFORM. That is, there's enough support and it's used so much
> that it's profitable for a high level language (such as C++) to be
> developed for it. Frankly, I doubt Borland will ever even look at a
> TI calculator!
>
> >My gosh, on today's technology, hd
> >space is 6 *cents* a meg? And hard drives are the size of a TI calc.
> >If u shrink down the hd to that of a mini cassette, and put it in the
> >TI, u could get about 1/3 a gig.
Lets include the rather large power supply, that is required to power the
drive and also the interface circuitry that is required and you would have
to go steady with the Eveready Rabbit to stay in batteries.
> They have 'em: pcmcia hard disks.
>
> >And you could probably do better,
> >because I've seen a mini cassette for the computer that holds a gig,
> >and the drive it goes in to is only 1 cm bigger on each side. And the
> >chip?
>
> You're talking about a serial access tape drive, far to slow for
> practical purposes (even for an 8 bit processor). Calculator
> manufactuer's want to avoid anything that's mechanical, i.e. disk
> drives and the like. Something that moves all of a sudden does the
> following things: very easily damanged, consumes a lot of power,
> consumes a lot of valueable space, and requires special support
> circuitry just to access it.
>
> >The 486 chips are like $30 bucks nowadays, and they run at
> >66MHz. AMD chips are $75 for a 133MHz version. And the display screen.
> >I've seen sony watchman that were smaller and they have a color screen
> >at 320x200.
> >
>
> These chips require so much support circuitry that it's mindboggling.
> On the other hand, simple 8 and 16 bit processors are practically a
> computer in itself, and that's why they can fit so much into a
> calculator and not have it be $1000. A motherboard isn't just a place
> where the processor goes. You've got the DMA controllers, math
> coprocessor, bus controller, interrupt controller, voltage converters,
> bios, dram refresh circuitry, cache-ram controler, interface cards,
> and the list goes on and on and on. Now, fit all that on a 3" by 5"
> pcboard with a pentium processor and sell it for under $200, and I
> guaruntee that tomorrow you'll be a billionare. Compare this to the
> TI-85, and all it has is just the processor, the lcd controler, the
> keyboard and link I/O, various logic chips, and the memory. That's
> it!
>
> >Basically, what I'm saying is with today's current technology and its
> >cheapness, TI could probably come out with a calculator that could
> >outperform my computer (mine is a 486 DX2-50) for the same price as
> >their 92, and I don't know why they aren't trying.
>
> They have them too: pda's. Take the palmbook 386 or the (as yet
> unveiled) IBM pc110. They're about the size of the TI-92 (slightly
> bigger), color screen, 486 processor, full size keyboard, and
> everything else. Now for the bad news: the PC110 costs upwards of
> $1500. Just because you can get a 486 chip for $25 or a 200 meg hard
> drive for $30, it doesn't mean that you can design and manufacture the
> product for $200. New product development takes so much resources and
> so many factors that it will inevitably cost a bundle. You could
> literally write a whole book describing the design and development
> process of a piece of computer hardware. The misperception is further
> enhanced because of how computer prices drop. Just because those
> older newtons are only $200 right now, it doesn't mean that another
> company can take the SAME product and manufacture it for sale at $200.
> The market value of a computer product goes down much faster than
> companies can handle if they wanted to build it themselves.
>
> -Mel
>
> --
> The TI Memory Expansion Homepage
> http://pilot.msu.edu/user/tsaimelv/expander.htm
>
Assume a vitue if you have it not.
/\/\/\/\/\/\
Wild Bill
/\/\/\/\/\/\
References: