ticalc.org
Basics Archives Community Services Programming
Hardware Help About Search Your Account
   Home :: Community :: Surveys :: If you were forced to make one of the following sacrifices on your favorite calculator model, which would you choose?
Results
Choice Votes   Percent
No flash ROM technology 9 11.7%   
No linking capability 22 28.6%   
No programmability 2 2.6%   
Cut processor speed in half 11 14.3%   
Cut available RAM in half 16 20.8%   
25% reduction in display resolution 17 22.1%   

Survey posted 2012-12-24 21:35 by Travis.

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

  Reply to this item

Re: If you were forced to make one of the following sacrifices on your favorite calculator model, which would you choose?
Travis Evans  Account Info

My favorite TI model being the TI-89(t) and non-TI model being HP 50g, in a way I've already made a sacrifice of reduced display resolution on the HP: 160x100 vs. 131x80 (that's more like a 34.5% reduction). But it's not so bad since the HP has better display and font customizability and tends to make better use of the pixels overall.

Reply to this comment    24 December 2012, 21:50 GMT

Re: If you were forced to make one of the following sacrifices on your favorite calculator model, which would you choose?
calcvids Account Info
(Web Page)

Considering most of my calculator usage is on non-Flash devices (83 and 86), I wouldn't necessarily miss losing Flash.

Reply to this comment    25 December 2012, 09:26 GMT

Re: If you were forced to make one of the following sacrifices on your favorite calculator model, which would you choose?
Stefan Bauwens  Account Info
(Web Page)

No programability ofcourse! :P
No, I chose the last option, although I doubted to perhaps choose the speed reduction.

Reply to this comment    25 December 2012, 15:53 GMT

Re: If you were forced to make one of the following sacrifices on your favorite calculator model, which would you choose?
Mr.Z  Account Info
(Web Page)

The only one that can be fixed is lack of programmability, of course. (^_^)

Reply to this comment    25 December 2012, 20:03 GMT


Re: Re: If you were forced to make one of the following sacrifices on your favorite calculator model, which would you choose?
Mr.Z  Account Info
(Web Page)

I guess overclocking could fix half the speed, & people have demonstrated memory extenders for some models. I should have specified "in software," since otherwise in principle you can fix most of them by hooking up a PC & running a serial terminal on the calculator.

Reply to this comment    22 March 2013, 16:17 GMT

Re: If you were forced to make one of the following sacrifices on your favorite calculator model, which would you choose?
Travis Evans  Account Info

Another possibility in the case of calcs with built-in card readers (like HP 50g) is lack of linking, since I can and do get along just fine transferring stuff to/from the PC and other calcs just using the SD card. Perhaps that might be considered cheating in a way, though. :-P

Reply to this comment    25 December 2012, 23:55 GMT

Re: If you were forced to make one of the following sacrifices on your favorite calculator model, which would you choose?
jiangshi Account Info

I suppose our choices depend a lot on what we are using our calculators for. I chose to sacrifice linking because using the calculator ( TI-92+ ) for mathematics including graphing is more important to me than connecting to my PC or another calculator.

Reply to this comment    29 December 2012, 17:33 GMT

Re: If you were forced to make one of the following sacrifices on your favorite calculator model, which would you choose?
Ranman  Account Info
(Web Page)

This is a no brainer. Cut CPU speed in half -- force us to be better, more efficient coders.

Reply to this comment    4 January 2013, 18:25 GMT

Re: Re: If you were forced to make one of the following sacrifices on your favorite calculator model, which would you choose?
Deep Thought  Account Info
(Web Page)

That's what I was thinking, but then graphing or doing math on the TI-83 Plus would be way too slow—so I went with half RAM instead.

Reply to this comment    6 January 2013, 05:00 GMT


If you were forced to make one of the following sacrifices on your favorite calculator model, which would you choose?
TheNlightenedOne Account Info

As did I, it seems to be the smallest loss imho

Reply to this comment    31 January 2013, 18:07 GMT


Re: Re: If you were forced to make one of the following sacrifices on your favorite calculator model, which would you choose?
AnthonyM  Account Info

I would cut the speed in half, because I usually write programs that run fairly quickly as they are now. Half speed would mean .2 seconds instead of .1

Reply to this comment    26 February 2013, 23:39 GMT

Re: If you were forced to make one of the following sacrifices on your favorite calculator model, which would you choose?
ghest1138 Account Info

Half the RAM! I don't ever use that much on my 83+, but I don't think it would be that big of a sacrifice. The TI-81 works just fine with only 2.4 KB of RAM (Well, sort of fine)

Reply to this comment    5 February 2013, 21:11 GMT


Re: Re: If you were forced to make one of the following sacrifices on your favorite calculator model, which would you choose?
Mr.Z  Account Info
(Web Page)

The TI-81 has 8KB of RAM. The 2400 bytes is for programs (not including their names or pointers) & stat vars (& a separate 360 bytes for all Y-vars), but all other variables have fixed locations (which together take up much of the 8KB, & then there are buffers & system data). You can do all the math you want on a TI-81 with it reading 0 bytes free. (In fact, ASM programs can be stored elsewhere, but you would have to choose what other functionality to sacrifice...& remember not to invoke it.) So it is not nearly as restrictive as 2400 bytes on any later model would be.

Reply to this comment    13 February 2013, 16:31 GMT

Re: If you were forced to make one of the following sacrifices on your favorite calculator model, which would you choose?
Adept  Account Info
(Web Page)

Wow, the only reasons someone would put 25% reduction in display resolution is because they're trolling! :P Jesus Christ, imagine how crappy it would look if it was 72x48! That would be murder! :D

Reply to this comment    2 May 2013, 05:04 GMT

  Copyright © 1996-2011, the ticalc.org project. All rights reserved. | Contact Us | Disclaimer