ticalc.org
Basics Archives Community Services Programming
Hardware Help About Search Your Account
   Home :: Community :: Surveys :: Which z80 calculator is the most advanced? Why?
Results
Choice Votes   Percent
TI-83+/84+ SE 82 52.6%   
TI-86 59 37.8%   
No opinion 15 9.6%   

Survey posted 2004-02-09 21:45 by Morgan.

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

  Reply to this item

Re: Which z80 calculator is the most advanced? Why?
Morgan Davies  Account Info
(Web Page)

I thought I would end the age old debate right here, right now. What are the reasons you think the one of the above calculator is better than the other. And the all important question....WHY?? I am writing a paper my a class of mine on this very subject and I want your input! Yeah...I couldn;t come up with a better topic so... I'll be including some quotations from the replies as well as interviewing anyone who has AIM. Personal stories are very helpful!!! If you have some dire ambition to be interviewed becasue you have good experience with both of these calcs... contact me on AIM over the next week or so...maybe longer, it will depend. My AIM SN is: Morgazum85 Thanks for helping resolved this age old endless depate!

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 21:47 GMT

Re: Re: Which z80 calculator is the most advanced? Why?
Morgan Davies  Account Info
(Web Page)

Ok so we were having some difficulties entering in [enter] into posts for a while there, thus none I had in the above post showed up...

Contact me on AIM @ Morgazum85 if you want to be interviewed for an article I am writing about this issue. Make sure you have good experience and justification for your reasons...

believe it or not I will be very subjuctive and unbiased asI can..got to keep the professionality.

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:20 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Which z80 calculator is the most advanced? Why?
bizpile  Account Info

ummmmm.... did you mean 'objective'?

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 00:30 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Which z80 calculator is the most advanced? Why?
Memwaster  Account Info

Just remember that most people who are reading this have already voted. Don't use this as a way to convince them to vote a different way.....

I, however, have not, at 22:23 GMT+10 11-02-04, yet voted...

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 12:19 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Which z80 calculator is the most advanced? Why?
The Muffin Man  Account Info
(Web Page)

I'd love to compare the menu systems for each calc, but I don't have a ROM for the 86...or 84+ SE, any chance of getting one?

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 11:04 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Which z80 calculator is the most advanced? Why?
Rob van Wijk  Account Info

For the 86 that would be illegal (if you're asking for a ROM in this context, you probably don't have the actual calc), for the 84 it will (or at least, should ;) ) remain impossible to obtain it in the near future.

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 21:00 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which z80 calculator is the most advanced? Why?
The Muffin Man  Account Info
(Web Page)

Perhaps it's the fact that I don't have a link cable for it...

Reply to this comment    12 February 2004, 06:32 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which z80 calculator is the most advanced? Why?
parker bush  Account Info

Who is actually keeping track of who has illegall roms in the first place? I doubt if anyone actually cares as long as yo dont sell them or copy them or distribute them or edit them or anything else other than emulate them--or delete it(but youd have to have it in the first place)

Reply to this comment    13 February 2004, 00:42 GMT

PHIL'S COMMENTS- PART ONE
no_one_2000_  Account Info
(Web Page)

--==PHIL'S COMMENTS--PART ONE==--

Well, I'll try to make this comment a bit more constructive and helpful than the last one. Here are all my opinions:

o       The TI-86 is a powerful calculator. It is good, it can do lots of math, however, it lacks a Sequential mode, which to me, isn't that much of a big deal. However, an Honors Algebra 2 student, who is a friend of mine, had a TI-86 and wanted to use the sequential graphing mode. Everybody else in the class was using a TI-83+, and they could all participate in the class instructions, but he couldn't, because, to my knowledge, you can't do that on a TI-86.
o       The TI-86's menus are awful. I know, I know, this is the center of the debate right here, but honestly, they're horrible to use. I prefer the TI-83+'s menus much more, since you can see more options on the screen at once, and it just makes more sense, logically. You can see and understand what you're doing on the screen, and to the average TI user, the TI-86 menus are not only confusing, but frustrating, as well.
o The TI-83+ has flash ROM. The TI-83+SE has even more. The TI-86 has... none. Flash ROM on the TI-86 would be nice, but it's not there. (I know I sound awfully biased toward the TI-83+... and I am, so, hope that doesn't bother anybody too much)

(cont. in next post)

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 22:30 GMT


¤
burntfuse  Account Info

Ummm...the 86 does have a sequential graphing mode. Find FORMT on the graph menu.

Reply to this comment    12 February 2004, 21:26 GMT


PHIL'S COMMENTS- PART TWO
no_one_2000_  Account Info
(Web Page)

--==PHIL'S COMMENTS--PART TWO==--

o The TI-83+ is much more widely used and is still supported by TI. At any time, TI could make a new Flash APP program for the TI-83+SE, but since TI doesn't support the TI-86, the TI-86 is much less popularly used, and as far as mathematical deomstrations go, the TI-86 isn't used. The calculator for this is the TI-83+SE (and soon, the TI-84+SE). It's surprising, but not even the TI-89 gets this much attention. The most popular calculator is the TI-83+SE (soon to be the TI-84+SE).
o The TI-83+ may seem better in all of the above categories, but I will concede that the TI-86 has some pretty good games. The only reason I can see that you'd want a TI-86 is for the games. There is a nice collection of third-party software for the TI-86, which is, considered by some, to be better than the TI-83+SE's collection (TI-86 isn't full of BASIC junk either).
o Yes, the TI-86 has better math capabilities, but (as this is stated below), if that's your reasoning for getting the TI-86 over the TI-83+SE, then you might as well go up another step and get the TI-89 (the best calculator of all, in every aspect). :-D

So, those are my comments. I hope they are considered to be more useful than the other ones :) This also pretty much sums up the comparison/constrast from the two calcualators, from my standpoint. The TI-86 does have better math on it than the TI-83+, but IMO, if that's the only reason you're getting it, then you might as well just go for the ultimate calculator of all time- the TI-89. :)

Oh, btw, this report sounds interesting. Are you doing this for a school project? Will we get to read it? ;-)

--==end Phil's comments==--

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 22:31 GMT


Re: Re: Which z80 calculator is the most advanced? Why?
Justin Chang  Account Info

i think the ti83+ is the most advanced because it has archive memory. this is useful bcuz things get annoying when all ur mem is cleared on a ti86

Reply to this comment    12 February 2004, 04:24 GMT

Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
W Hibdon  Account Info

Two words, Flash ROM. Actually, that is a word and an acronym.... but nevermind. That and the menus suck. -W-

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 21:49 GMT

Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Morgan Davies  Account Info
(Web Page)

justification.....aaah! Come on you just can't say that it suck!

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 21:52 GMT


Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Cuddles  Account Info

I voted "no opinion" because I own none of the mentioned calcs and know little about them. However, a bit about the 86 menus... a friend of mine had just opened his box that day and upon activation of the first menu his calculator immediately "screwed up." I'm not sure of the specifics but half of the menus would not show up (by that I mean the bottom half, not some menus). I thought it was funny but he had to send it back because they wouldn't help him via e-mail with how to fix it.

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 00:35 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
The Muffin Man  Account Info
(Web Page)

Come On!
83+ SE / 84+ SE VS 86 W--T--F!?
So, you want to debate a couple of +1MB ROM calcs @ 6-15Mhz against a 6MHz calc with a 96K RAM...O-K
Using the 83+ personally and a few friends, I can easily say the freeze up as much as an 86 would. Usually because of bad Assembly programs!! or GAMES! :@
If the 86 has menu problems without any prior use of assembly programs then FINE, it has some serious problems but WHY compare it to "the best highschool calcs"?

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 10:57 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
The Muffin Man  Account Info
(Web Page)

+ I'd like to add (but I don't know how =P):
...I'd sooner buy a calc able to do calculus than a beast with kickass hardware specs that does " " when it comes to calculus and ACTUAL equations. (even though you can do equations on an 83+SE after about a hundred keys)
The fact that 83+'s can't recognise the individual letters and run it as a command is a set back, eg: "s-o-l-e-(" whereas you need to go to CTLG and get "solve("

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 11:29 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Chickendude  Account Info
(Web Page)

That wouldn't work on any other calculator, either. Unless of course you created a function 'sole()'

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 20:29 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
no_one_2000_  Account Info
(Web Page)

Hey- I haven't seen you here in a long time!

Haha, you're right, sole() doesn't exist :) But, for solve(), you're right, not being able to type it in stinks... but that's why I'm a TI-89 person.

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 22:34 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
The Muffin Man  Account Info
(Web Page)

Typos can hapen...
sole() sounds like a good command anyway =P

Reply to this comment    12 February 2004, 06:34 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Nick_S  Account Info

*user types "sole()" on homscreen*
*user sits back and watches the calc draw the bottom of a shoe*

Reply to this comment    26 June 2004, 06:25 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Memwaster  Account Info

Then get a TI89.

Kick-ass hardware specs AND can do calculus :)

Reply to this comment    12 February 2004, 06:41 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
parker bush  Account Info

indoubitably

WHY IS NOT THE TI89 AN OPTION?

Reply to this comment    13 February 2004, 00:45 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Mr.Z  Account Info
(Web Page)

The TI-89 is 68K-based, not Z80 based.

Reply to this comment    13 February 2004, 02:07 GMT

Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Jeremiah Walgren  Account Info
(Web Page)

And there's a whole lot of calculus stuff the 86 can do that the 83 can't. It's not until programs, which take up memory, are added that the 83 can even compare with the 86 in calculus. In the meantime, the 86 can retain it's memory for other things. *cough* games *cough* The menus on the 86 are better than the ones on the 83, because you can still see what you're doing while selecting something from the menu. But if you like the enter a menu and totally cover what you're working on, possibly forget entirely if you have a bad memory, then that's your preference.

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 21:54 GMT

Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
W Hibdon  Account Info

Umm, I don't see how it is bad that you cannot see what you were doing. You go into a menu to get what you need. You don't linger, see what is going down, have a little chat with the menu. You are in the menu for about a second, and that is the longest. If you need to see the screen while you are in a menu, are you sure you are in a class that warrents the advanced-ness of the 86?



-W-

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 21:58 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Morgan Davies  Account Info
(Web Page)

Hardly...the advantage the 86 has is that you can have a manu and a working screen working at the same time.

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:02 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
W Hibdon  Account Info

But why would you need to???? The 86 menus are slow!
-W-

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:05 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Morgan Davies  Account Info
(Web Page)

That 86 menus are not slow, what you are referring to is the first time you run an 86 program where the calc has to compile the "writeable tokens" which is another feature the 83+ lacks, thus you "have " to know your way around the calc very well to find everything or go into the catalog every time you want a comand.

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:11 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
W Hibdon  Account Info

I did not say the compiling was slow. The use of the menus are slow.

-W-

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:22 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Jeremiah Walgren  Account Info
(Web Page)

I know people who can use them rather speedily. (Faster than me on the 83 or 89, in fact.)

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:34 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
no_one_2000_  Account Info
(Web Page)

Bet I'm faster than them on a TI-89. :-D I can type VERY fast on my TI-89, even in complete darkness (I've done it before, I wrote a love note on my TI-89 once when I couldn't even see the keys).
I used to be very fast on my TI-82 (I could also type without looking), but now that I'm used to the TI-89 keys and not the TI-82 keys, I have to look when I type on the TI-82.

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 22:40 GMT

~
Morgan Davies  Account Info
(Web Page)

HOW??? Are you talking about the time it takes to display the menu or what?

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:35 GMT


Re: ~
W Hibdon  Account Info

No, i am talking about the face that it uses pages, and you have to cycle through the pages to get what you want. There is no pressing "6" to get the command there. This is why I cannot concieve of how the outragous claim made by Jeremi... (damn i cannot spell) can be true.

-W-

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:38 GMT


Re: Re: ~
Jeremiah Walgren  Account Info
(Web Page)

That's slow if one is unfamiliar with the 86 menu layout. My math teacher has no problems whatsoever using the 86 menu system, and often beats everyone in the class to doing something on the calculator. (Even those with different models.)

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:46 GMT

Re: Re: Re: ~
W Hibdon  Account Info

Just because you are fast at doing something, does not mean that another method is not faster. You use a faster system, you will go faster. It is like a street race. The guy with the fastest car wins. Until someone get's NOS, then the other gets blown out of the water.

And morgan says my arguments are lacking....

-W-

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:50 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: ~
Jeremiah Walgren  Account Info
(Web Page)

Well, TI's aren't cars with NOS now are they?

If someone who has never touched an 83 and myself were to race to see who could get something done faster, I'd win. I have experience with how they 83 works, the other person doesn't. In a similar fashion, if someone has experience with the 86 then they'll get stuff done faster than someone who doesn't have any experience.

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:56 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ~
W Hibdon  Account Info

Someone with 3 years expirence on an 86 will not be able to do things as fast as someone with the same amount on an 83+.

-W-

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 23:01 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ~
Matt Long  Account Info

I beg to differ. The girl who sits next to me in chemistry has had an 86 for about the same length of time I've had my 83+, and she's way faster. (And I know my way around the 83.)

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 23:23 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ~
W Hibdon  Account Info

I just don't understand how that could be possible. I mean, with the ability to press numbers on the 83+ to go right where you want, how could pressing the "more" key many times then an "f-key" be faster?

Howeverm she could be one of those few that can type faster on a calc than most can on a keyboard, and uses the typable-tokens.

-W-

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 23:56 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ~
nolekid  Account Info

The biggest advantage, which nobody seems to have mentioned it (though knowing my luck, someone said it down the page), is that a menu token can be entered more than once repeatedly. For instance, if you want to type several cube roots at once (where entering 3rt(x) is much faster than (x)^1/3), the 86 requires one less key press for every entry [e] of 3rt(x) (where e>1) than the 83. Multiple entries of submenued tokens require even more keypresses on the 83.

Of course, this is all mostly moot because there is rarely a time when repeated tokens are neccessary.

*I doubt if "submenued" is a word, but you know what I mean.

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 02:50 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ~
no_one_2000_  Account Info
(Web Page)

Well, I understand what you're saying-- if you use it a lot of times in a row, it would be an advantage, but x^(1/3) works just as well for me. By the time I'd be done fumbling around with the menu on the TI-86 (even if I was speedy gonzales with it) to find it the first time, I would have typed it by then.

P.S. Dont' forget the parenthesis around (1/3) in the exponent... your answer will get messed up

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 22:46 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ~
Pooner278  Account Info

Everyone keeps saying that you'd never use the same commands on a calc more than once. I have an 86, and from personal experience, it's vastly more efficient for programming than an 83. I've used both quite a bit, and I find my 86 much better. I can see all the programming commands while I'm typing, so I don't have to stop, hit PRGM, cycle through a few menus, then find the command I want. I can just hit the command, and maybe MORE once or twice, and I can still see what I was programming so I don't forget what I am doing.

Reply to this comment    12 February 2004, 01:13 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ~
no_one_2000_  Account Info
(Web Page)

That's probably it- I never use the menus or the catalog for my TI-89, I just type everything. And that still doesn't mean that the TI-86 menus are fast. I think your arguments are good.

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 22:43 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ~
no_one_2000_  Account Info
(Web Page)

But knowing your way around doesn't match speed... I know my way aruond the TI-86, and I think it's slower than... well, <insert something slow here>.

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 22:42 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ~
Jeremiah Walgren  Account Info
(Web Page)

Umm, if you'll notice I didn't compare the 86 and the 83. I was comparing the 83 with the 83 and the 86 with the 86.

I can do things faster because I have experience. Can you understand that simple fact or not?

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 23:53 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ~
W Hibdon  Account Info

Umm, why do i care what you were comparing? You were responding to me, and I was comparing the speed of the different models. You can be only so fast on the 86, and you can be only so fast on the 83. However, the 83 allows one to be faster than one on an 86.

-W-

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 00:09 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ~
W Hibdon  Account Info

you are just saying no to eveything that i am saying, trying to discredit me, and bring forth no real argument. If that is all you are going to do, then why even bother?

-W_

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 00:10 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ~
Jeremiah Walgren  Account Info
(Web Page)

Well, you keep on saying that someone is faster on the 83 than the 86. I don't agree, so naturally I'm saying no to everything you say.

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 03:19 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ~
W Hibdon  Account Info

Well, seeing that you have brought forth no justification, or real evidence, i am going to end this one, as i did the RAM part.

-Done responding here as well, I am W-

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 17:26 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ~
Biobytes  Account Info
(Web Page)

While you guys are hosing the decks with testosterone about a _a couple of calculators_, I'll make a sly remark about the maturity level of the TI community. Did you catch it?

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 02:55 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ~
Jeremiah Walgren  Account Info
(Web Page)

You mean him disliking a calculator for one feature, or me disliking him for disliking a calculator for one feature?

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 04:24 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ~
Rob van Wijk  Account Info

I asume he meant your little "Does not! \ Does to!"-style discussion.

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 21:11 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ~
Jeremiah Walgren  Account Info
(Web Page)

Hmm, it does seem like that...

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 22:29 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ~
Chivo  Account Info

Does not!

Reply to this comment    12 February 2004, 00:04 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ~
Jeremiah Walgren  Account Info
(Web Page)

Does to!

Reply to this comment    12 February 2004, 00:32 GMT


¤
burntfuse  Account Info

Yeah...it's only a matter of what you're used to. Also, there are almost never more than 3 pages of menus on the 86, so it's really not hard to get to what you want.

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 23:35 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
The Muffin Man  Account Info
(Web Page)

O_o
The fact that a youngen like me can learn to operate any calc speedily after getting familiar with it after 2 hours just puts that to shame. Don't buy it if you don't want to learn it.
Catalog is the *****iest thing, ALL commands should be available under other submenus... I'm NOT sayig Catalog should be removed (it's good for learning commands) but the commands SHOULD be available at the press of no more than 4 keys.

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 11:13 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Rob van Wijk  Account Info

For the most part, the commands in the Catalog are also accessable through other menus. There are some exceptions, like GarbageCollect(, sub( and the hyperbolic trig functions, but not a lot.
In all fairness I'd like to add that almost anything in the Catalog that's not in another menu is not used very frequently anyway.

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 21:14 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Chivo  Account Info

Isn't GarbageCollect( available in the MEM menu? I don't have one, but I've used a TI-83+ a few times, and I think I recall it being there.

Reply to this comment    12 February 2004, 00:08 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
The Muffin Man  Account Info
(Web Page)

Solve() is just 1 command I use frequently with Simultaenous Equations, found it the CTLG and no where else on an 83+. Garbage collect CAN be found under the MEM menu, but I have MEM blocked, so...
>>Fargo won't run on my 92 v1.4, ne???

Reply to this comment    12 February 2004, 06:38 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Daniel DeGraaf  Account Info
(Web Page)

solve( can be found, when editing a program only, in the Math->0 menu. I would suggest using Omnicalc's mem protection-it allows the MEM key, but not delete or reset.

Reply to this comment    12 February 2004, 22:07 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Travis Evans  Account Info

My favorite feature about the 86-style menu system is that it allows items displayed on the menus to be quickly entered by leaving the menu open and using a single F-key, especially when preforming repetitive operations. Very nice especially for the Custom menu.

Personally, I also like being able to see what I'm doing while choosing from a menu, rather than having a menu replace the screen temporarily.

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 15:11 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Memwaster  Account Info

casio fanboy....

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 11:23 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Travis Evans  Account Info

I've never even used a Casio graphing calculator before...

Reply to this comment    13 February 2004, 00:13 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Michael Lakkis  Account Info

Make your own custom menu using getKey, and put some text alongside it, on the graph screen. That's what I do, and the TI-83 Plus is 100x faster than anything running Windows will ever be.

Reply to this comment    25 February 2006, 22:21 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
jordan krage  Account Info

i agree with that, when programing basic on my 83+ silver, i hardly even need to look at the menus, i just hit the number/letter for the apropiate command, and im back to the program before i see a difference

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 23:19 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
W Hibdon  Account Info

thank you. That is all I have to say. Just thank you.

-W-

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 23:56 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Spaz_Attack  Account Info

That is for programing, for actualy running the prgm you must admit the 86 has a much better menu system.
I can do almost all of my basic programing without looking because I have done it for so long, but for a program that I have never used before then I have to take some time to look.

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 14:53 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
W Hibdon  Account Info

I don't agree. What if all you have is menus? I myself wrote a game where you went through the menus. On the 86, if you did this, the screen wuold be blank, and rather bland.

-W-

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 17:29 GMT

¤
burntfuse  Account Info

Then it just leaves more space for additional text or graphics that can help explain the menu functions!!!

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 23:37 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Konrad Meyer  Account Info
(Web Page)

u DO hav the option of sepereate backgrouns for every menu on the 86 tho... (im an 83+ (SE) and 89 user)

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 23:53 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Ben Cherry  Account Info
(Web Page)

That's true for a text-based menu game, but for many other kinds of basic games, the menus are great. If you have a game where you want to have commands for attack, or item, or magic, and still want to be able to see the action on the screen, then the 86 menus are perfect for that. You can definitely be more creative in your menus, title screens, and gameplay by incoporating the 86 menus well into your program.
However, i did vote 83+ because i think that that the 83 series, especially + and SE are the "best" calculators for high school students, which is what TI targets anyways. I myself use my 89 primarily, and my 83 infrequently and dont even own an 86, although many of my friends do. But surely the 83+SE is the most advanced z80, although the 86 may be more powerful. And, i think in general the 86 menus look nice and the 83 menus are so ugly i could never use them in a decent game.

Reply to this comment    12 February 2004, 01:54 GMT


¤
burntfuse  Account Info

FINALLY...someone else who thinks the 83+ menus are ugly!!!!

Reply to this comment    12 February 2004, 21:30 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
The Muffin Man  Account Info
(Web Page)

I'm not sure if the 86 supports number indexes for the menus (I NEED A ROM) but even if they don't, after a few hours of using EVERY function in BASIC then you should be able to just memorize key presses. It IS easy...

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 11:20 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Ben Cherry  Account Info
(Web Page)

im not going to give out any roms here for a variety of reasons, but i found roms for EVERY calculator by google searching "Ti-83 rom" or something like that. try that out, you might find something...

Reply to this comment    12 February 2004, 01:57 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
no_one_2000_  Account Info
(Web Page)

I agree. I'm never in the TI-82 series calculator's menus for longer than a fraction of a second. In fact, I type the stuff that I need so fast that I don't even see the menu. Factorial on a TI-82 -- Math, left, 4. There. That doesn't take long, now does it?

And about the comment before you and the whole "So we have more room for *cough* games *cough*" ... The TI-83+SE has PLENTY more memory than the TI-86, even if you do fill it up with all the calculus programs out there.

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 22:38 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
jordan krage  Account Info

one time angelboy spent the whole math period trying to fill up the archive on my silver, it took him forever!!!
he just had a buch of massive matrices and strings, it was hilarious

Reply to this comment    13 February 2004, 00:52 GMT


¤
burntfuse  Account Info

Those are some great reasons in favor of the 86-also, the 83+ needs either a slow BASIC program or an app that takes up a good portion of the archive to be able to factor polynomials, or solve systems of multiple equations.

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 23:33 GMT


Re: ¤
nolekid  Account Info

Though I voted for the 86 (just because it was my first calc and so I feel a sort of loyalty to it; I actually use the 83+SE the most), note that the poll says "86 or 83+/84+SE". The 32K polysmlt app takes up very little space on the 83SE.

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 02:54 GMT

Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
W Hibdon  Account Info

Okay, okay, I realize that I did not give reasons for the menus thing. I once made a BASIC game on it. It was an 86 version of my 83+ lights out game. I got bored in Time Out, and I had my friend's 86. On the 83+, I crapped that game out in about 3 hours(the main mechanics that is). However, on the 86, the menus were so debilitating that it took both days of Time Out to finish the game. That is why the menus suck. Since then, I never looked back. -W-

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 21:55 GMT


Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Jeremiah Walgren  Account Info
(Web Page)

So they suck because you are incapable of using them?

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 21:58 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Morgan Davies  Account Info
(Web Page)

That's my bigest supporting arguemant....operator error :-)

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 21:59 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
W Hibdon  Account Info

i don't see how anyone is capable to use them.



But that is not why they suck. They suck, because if you are one page infront of your desired entry, you have to cycle through something like 3 pages to get back to the one you need. This is way longer than the one second that it takes to use the 83+ menus. That is why they suck, they are slow!



-W-

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:01 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Jeremiah Walgren  Account Info
(Web Page)

Ahh, so you are incapable of using them. Got it.

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:19 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
W Hibdon  Account Info

No, that is not what I said. I it you read up there, I programed a game on the 86, and realized that i do not care for the menu system.
It appears that you want to say that i hate the menus because i am dumb, or because it is cliché. Just because you put yourself to willing suffering does not make you better than me.
-W-

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:21 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Jeremiah Walgren  Account Info
(Web Page)

Actually, it seems that people hate certain calculators just because they can't (or don't want to) use them. I receive similar animosity with my 89.

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:33 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
W Hibdon  Account Info

I never said that I hated the 86. It is a nice calculator. If only it did not have those damn menus. I could have been the best of the z80 calcs if TI would have persued it. But those damn menus turned people off. That is the only reason that I don't want to use it. If I had no other choice, I would use it, but so long as i do, I will keep my distance.

-W-

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:35 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Jeremiah Walgren  Account Info
(Web Page)

Hmm, perhaps the poll should've been which calc has better menu systems...

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:47 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Morgan Davies  Account Info
(Web Page)

You fail to realize that you can make the 86 menu exactly like the 83 menu with the exceptio nof the bar across the bottom by displaying text across the screen in a similar format that appears the same as the 83 does and even after that you can chose what keys you want to use to call each option instead of just 1,2,3,4,5,6..etc.

The advantages I see to the menus of the 86 is that you have a choice. The mensu is not slow, have no idea what you are talking about there. You have the choice of displaying some sort of screens, weather it be graphics or text or what ever, and still having the option of havign a working menu displayed on the same page.

Anyone who ranks on the menus on the 86 still is and will forever be in my mind, morons. If you truly hate it then you don;t know all that ti can do...need more exploring around.

THE ONLY THING I can think of that the 83 menu has over the 86 is that you can have inverted text on the top line and we all know how cool that is :-)

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:49 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
JAKAS  Account Info

mmmmmmmmmmmmm... Inverted Text........

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 23:08 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Justin McKinley  Account Info

I have never used an 86, but I think what *everyone* means is that 86 menus are harder to *learn* to use, while 83 menus... don't have as many features?

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 02:59 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Jeremiah Walgren  Account Info
(Web Page)

Nice point there.

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 03:22 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
W Hibdon  Account Info

No, that is not the case. My hate of the menus came from prolonged use of them, and the realization that they are not as efficient. If you learn the menu system, and your primary calc has been the 83/+, then you would not like the difference either, and have the opinion that the 83/+'s are better.

-W-

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 18:04 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Justin McKinley  Account Info

As I said, I have never used an 86, so you may be right.

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 21:01 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Travis Evans  Account Info

You could install XCommand on the 86 and have inverted text that way. :)

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 15:25 GMT


¤
burntfuse  Account Info

I COMPLETELY agree. :-)

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 23:41 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Spaz_Attack  Account Info

I get the same stuff and I usualy find it amusing because all of the prepy kids have thier precious 83+ silver always get upset when I show off with the much superior 89.

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 14:59 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
W Hibdon  Account Info

That always really funny.

-W-

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 17:30 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Konrad Meyer  Account Info
(Web Page)

i wanted an 89 but i dont hav the damn funds. my rather unintelligent parents asked my math teacher what kind of calc i should have and *poof* 83+ SE (the store didnt stock the black 83+s). O and that was the 2nd time. I broke my 83+ by deleting an app before uninstalling, THEN my parents asked what kind of calc to get.

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 23:58 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Rob van Wijk  Account Info

You deleted an app without uninstalling it? Big deal, if a RAM reset can't fix it, a full reset will. I can't imagine what you've done if deleting an app caused permanent damage.

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 21:37 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
parker bush  Account Info

Get a job at a big office supply store: I got a 20% off discount on mine

Reply to this comment    13 February 2004, 00:48 GMT


¤
burntfuse  Account Info

Three pages is easy...just press More 3 times!!! You usually press Down or Up at least as many times on an 83 menu!!! It's just what you're used to...

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 23:39 GMT


Re: ¤
Konrad Meyer  Account Info
(Web Page)

yea, xept if u r a proficient 83+ user, u dont press up and down, u press a number (or letter). we who use them a lot tend to memorize key combinations...

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 00:00 GMT

Re: Re: ¤
W Hibdon  Account Info

That was the point I was trying to make. That will always be faster than the paging.

-W-

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 20:58 GMT


Re: Re: ¤
Ben Cherry  Account Info
(Web Page)

strangely enough, i hadnt used my ti-83 or programmed BASIC on it for 3 years, but a few months ago i felt nostalgic when i found it lying in neglect, so i put some new batteries in, fired it up and started programming. The wierd thing is, i still knew all of the key combos and was programming really fast. I think that the only good thing about the 83 menu is the ability to just press a number and get what you want, but that if you look outside just the menu system, the 83+SE far outranks the 86 in terms of advancedness.

Reply to this comment    12 February 2004, 02:04 GMT

Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Joe Pemberton  Account Info
(Web Page)

Three words: memory mapped LCD. More free RAM, too.



86 all the way.

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 21:59 GMT

Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
W Hibdon  Account Info

Ram sha-mam. The flash ROM allows the 83/84 series to hold more memory than the 86 could even comprehend. The 86 would crap it's pants if it ever had that much. (obviously a rediculous metaphore, but you get the point).
-W-

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:03 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Jeremiah Walgren  Account Info
(Web Page)

And what can you run from the Flash ROM? Flash apps? The biggest program for the 83 is something like 23-24k?

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:20 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
W Hibdon  Account Info

Umm, as long as it can be copied into ram, you are fine. Shells like Mirage do that for you. And if you are a basic programmer, and you don't add mirage support, you are crazy. And if you don't allow write backs in archived programs, then you never have to worry about a garbage collect!

-W-

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:25 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Jeremiah Walgren  Account Info
(Web Page)

You still have the size limit...

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:33 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
W Hibdon  Account Info

You are telling me that there is not file size limit for the 86?

-W-

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:36 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Jeremiah Walgren  Account Info
(Web Page)

More RAM on the 86, bigger program to run. Less RAM on the 83, smaller program to run.

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:43 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
W Hibdon  Account Info

Because, you know, there are so many calc programs the 86 that exceed 23k.

-W-

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:45 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Jeremiah Walgren  Account Info
(Web Page)

The option is still there.

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 22:48 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
W Hibdon  Account Info

When that becomes an issue, then I'll care.

-Done responding to this segment, I am W-

Reply to this comment    9 February 2004, 23:04 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
David Phillips  Account Info
(Web Page)

Zelda 86 does.

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 04:49 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Memwaster  Account Info

If it's that big, and you wanted it on the 83+, you'd make an app. (look at MTSquest)

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 13:06 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Joe Pemberton  Account Info
(Web Page)

Apps have pretty big downsides. You cannot use self-modifying code in a flashapp, and for other-page code, you must use B_CALL (which has a pretty hefty overhead vs a normal call).

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 02:19 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Memwaster  Account Info

Sorry about being blunt, but self-modifying code is BAD.

What is the actual use of it?

When I program something that requires to "save" a state, I always, (on the TI83+), create an appvar to store the data. This makes it easier for programs to be run from archive, and easier to transfer the programs.

This stratagy seems to have been adopted for ALL 68000 ASM/C programs, and I believe it is a vast improvement, as the whole program doesn't have to be unarchived, and rewritten.

Also, although B_CALLs must be used for OFF-PAGE calls, normal calls can be used for same-page calls. Although the B_CALL is slower (if that's the kind of "overhead" you're talking about), it has no real impact on the speed unless it is used within a loop.

Good App-page management can eliminate all instances regarding off-page calls used in loops.

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 11:54 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Joe Pemberton  Account Info
(Web Page)

Sorry about being blunt, but self-modifying code is REALLY GOOD.

I'm not talking about writing data back to the program for later use, i'm talking about code that actually modifies ITSELF. If you've ever written anything where speed actually mattered, you'd know that the ability to have code modify itself is sometimes the fastest (and maybe the only viable) way to get something done.

I can think of a couple cases off the top of my head where I had to use self modifying code: once I needed to do "bit X,A" where X was a variable. This is not a valid opcode, as you probably know. I had do to this inside a pretty tight loop where X does not change, so speed was paramount. I ended up building the opcode before the loop with self modifying code and then entering the loop (which is much faster than looping and doing rra's and checking for carry or some other solution).

If you are an assembly programmer and you've dismissed self-modifying code, I have little respect for you.

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 23:38 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Memwaster  Account Info

I have done a

bit x,a

command, and I found the same problem. the way I get around it is that i copy the needed code (in this case, %11001011, %01000111, $C9), to a safeRAM location, usually OP6. This way it can still be used in apps.

Furthermore, if you were to try to use self-modifying code in and modern processor (like the x86), it would not work becasue of the hardware cacheing.

Reply to this comment    12 February 2004, 06:50 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
parker bush  Account Info

The 84+ will have enough ram to run just about any program, while everything wastes the memory on the 86 and you end up only being able to keep a few programs at a time-- that is if your ram doesnt get deleted

Reply to this comment    13 February 2004, 00:52 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Joe Pemberton  Account Info
(Web Page)

not that size limit. The executable size limit on the 83+.

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 08:59 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
W Hibdon  Account Info

That is what I ment. I did not know that there was not a exec limit on the 86.

-W-

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 17:31 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Andree Chea  Account Info

About the BASIC MirageOS, it crashes in my silver, so I no longer add support for it (I'm not crazy is my point :D). 96k ... 24k + 160k, Yes the 86 has RAM, but Flash ROM is a PLUS! For BASIC programs, you can use basicbuilder to put twice as many programs on the 83+. I am still not an ASM programmer (as of the moment), so I dunno... I have never held an 86, so I know nothing about it. All I know is that I am quite fast in navigating menus because I memorized a whole bunch of menu hotkeys.

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 19:33 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
W Hibdon  Account Info

Yeah, I heard about people's SE's doing that. Also, if you are in a basic program that is archived, and you hit [2nd] [QUIT] at a prompt, it creats that ram eating program "Z.1," or is it "Z,1."? Either way, it is evil.

-W-

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 21:01 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
The Muffin Man  Account Info
(Web Page)

That's happened on my normal 83+ too, it's just because of exiting a prgm incorrectly OR it exits incorrectly. One good example is:
FinnPack closing whilst leaving all it's data open*
Caused the MEM to max out stopping the TI to function properly. (screen glitch, random power down after .2-5 sec of power up)
So I ended up pressing [mode][2nd][+][7][left][enter][2] before homescreen could load...

Reply to this comment    12 February 2004, 06:52 GMT


¤
burntfuse  Account Info

But it's really slow to run programs from flash with a shell, apps take up way too much room, and many things such as game levels still have to reside in RAM. The RAM is also sometimes needed by programs for buffers and things-I had to remove most of my programs in RAM on my 83+ to run Fire Track 2.

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 23:46 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Joe Pemberton  Account Info
(Web Page)

When it comes to simply writing games, almost nobody cares about Flash ROM. See, the main problem with the 83+ (and probably the 84+) is that on top of the fact that there is only about 24k of free RAM, there is also an executable code limit. Code cannot be run past the address $bfff on the 83+; the 86 does not have this problem.

From the point of a developer, I could care less about Flash ROM. Usable RAM is what the 83+ lacks. The 86 does not.

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 08:58 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
W Hibdon  Account Info

Well, as a devloper, you should not care about ROM. If your program is too big to be exec'ed, or too big evem to fit in RAM, then you are screwed. I am looking at it from the view point of the one who loads the games on the calc. The protection of the ROM is also a plus.

-W-

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 17:44 GMT


¤
burntfuse  Account Info

My 86 almost NEVER crashes-the only times I can remember are when I'm testing a program I've written, or testing some progs I've just downloaded from ticalc.org, and in both cases, anyone with any sense makes a backup first. Besides, it's not hard to make a backup module you can carry around with your calc.

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 23:48 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Memwaster  Account Info

I AM a developer, and I care about ROM.... More than half of my programs are run from there.

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 11:58 GMT

Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Travis Evans  Account Info

I didn't spend too much time with ASM on the TI-86, but I do know that there are a lot of small benefits from an ASM standpoint. I remember that the 86 allows ASM programs to expand the calculator in quite a lot of ways by hooking several different operations, in addition to just the timer interrupt routine and keyboard handler. Also, being able to add BASIC commands is a cool feature. There is nearly a full RAM page of working space that is available for ASM programs to use. The memory-mapped LCD makes grayscale easier and display operations faster.

I have no experience with 83-based ASM, but from discussions I read I know that the 83-based calculators lack at least some of these features.

I can't speak for the 86's lack of flash ROM, though--it's true that the 86 is an older calculator than the 83+ and 84 because TI never bothered with the 86 much. But the 86 had a lot of ways to expand despite the limitations. I especially have not seen very many programs take advantage of some of the more advanced ASM features.

Feel free to comment or make corrections.

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 15:22 GMT

¤
burntfuse  Account Info

You're completely correct. One of the annoying things about asm on the 83+ is that the API calls are only accessible with this strange B_CALL macro, which takes up more space than a simple "call" instruction.

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 23:50 GMT


Re: ¤
Konrad Meyer  Account Info
(Web Page)

on the contrary... its still 3 bytes:
; /// code ... \\\
B_CALL(_Blahblahblah) =
RST 18h ;i believe its 18; i could be wrong, anyways, all RST instructions are one byte
.DW _Blahblahblah
;/// ... more code \\\

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 00:06 GMT

Re: Re: ¤
Joe Pemberton  Account Info
(Web Page)

Well, depends on how you use it. If you're using B_CALL in an app, then you need an extra three bytes to store the page and offset needed for the B_CALL for a total of six bytes. If you are simply using the TIOS APIs, it takes three.

In either case the B_CALL overhead is MUCH more than a simple call.

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 02:25 GMT

Re: Re: Re: ¤
Memwaster  Account Info

But in an APP, 6 bytes is 0.00004% of the total available memory, whereas in a TI86 ASM program, 3 bytes is 0.003125% on available memory.

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 12:15 GMT


Re: Re: Re: ¤
Rob van Wijk  Account Info

You only have to store that once, so I don't think that really counts. Besides, you only need such a table in a multipage app, which reduces the overhead, as a percentage of the total space, by another (at least) 50%.

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 22:00 GMT

Re: Re: ¤
Memwaster  Account Info

its 28h

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 12:16 GMT


¤
burntfuse  Account Info

You're right-sorry, I wasn't thinking clearly.

Reply to this comment    12 February 2004, 21:33 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Rob van Wijk  Account Info

Did you mean the 83+ has hooks? I don't know much about the 86, so I can't tell whether it has hooks. What I do know, is that the 83+ has a whole lot of hooks.

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 22:31 GMT


¤
burntfuse  Account Info

The memory-mapped LCD is great-I've been scared away from 83+ graphics, because it's so annoying to have to write a routine to refresh the screen (and I've done it, so I know).

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 23:43 GMT

Screw This
W Hibdon  Account Info

Well, i have decided to "f" this whole thread. I have come to the realization that I am not going to change your mind, and you are not going to change mine.

Jeremiah obviously likes the 86 menus, and I don't. The same is opposite for the 83/+/SE menu style. So, I no longer care about a topic that boils down to personal preference.

-W-

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 18:07 GMT

Re: Screw This
Morgan Davies  Account Info
(Web Page)

So in other words you don't have any more support for your arguement.

Another concept to think about..is that you can easily program a menus like the 83 series if you wanted that option on the 86. However it would be rather difficult...well it would take up more space to program an 86 style menus into the 83. So on the 86 you have more opions.

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 19:54 GMT


Re: Re: Screw This
Konrad Meyer  Account Info
(Web Page)

" options" and the 86 is muhc better... unfortunately i only hav a 83+...

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 00:07 GMT

Re: Screw This
Jeremiah Walgren  Account Info
(Web Page)

Yep, I like those 86 menus. Sorry if I was a little too strong trying to convince you of something else.

Reply to this comment    12 February 2004, 00:37 GMT


Re: Screw This
Memwaster  Account Info

oh, you finally noticed that everyone reading this has already voted...

Reply to this comment    12 February 2004, 06:53 GMT


Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Vejita  Account Info
(Web Page)

It's not that "advanced" to implement a simple 16bit page flipping ability into the calculator.

You could always add a huge ram chip too, that doesn't make it advanced the same way XBox being a computer doesn't make it an advanced gaming console soley for that reason.

Reply to this comment    10 February 2004, 20:27 GMT


Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
W Hibdon  Account Info

Your pwobabwey white.

-God I love homestar runner.... I am W-

Reply to this comment    11 February 2004, 20:46 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
Justin Cassavaugh  Account Info
(Web Page)

Homestar Runner Rules!!!!

Reply to this comment    12 February 2004, 18:14 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Why?!?!?!?!?!?!
jrock7286  Account Info

Yaw headed stwaight foe "Not My Gahl Fwend" Junction, next stop "I'm Bweakin' Up With You!" I don't know what twain yowah on sistaw but it's not the homestaw anymowah!!!

Reply to this comment    13 February 2004, 17:07 GMT

1  2  3  4  5  6  

You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.

  Copyright © 1996-2012, the ticalc.org project. All rights reserved. | Contact Us | Disclaimer