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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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)

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.

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