My question is, does 2.08 have any benefits over, say 2.05? And would all my games and programs on my 2.05 still work if I put 2.08 on my calc?

>My question is, does 2.08 have any benefits over, say 2.05?

* clock functionality if you have HW2
* icon desktop
* built-in functions for sec, csc, cot, sech, csch, coth and their inverses. They won't be used in results though.
* optional argument for Request (TI-BASIC) to disable the auto-alpha-lock for that Request. Any programs using it will be incompatible with AMS 2.05 or earlier though.
* some minor bugfixes
On the TI-89, it does however consume an additional block of 64 KB of FlashROM. On the TI-92+/V200, it doesn't.

>And would all my games and programs on my 2.05 still work if I put 2.08 on my calc?

Nearly all will. You might encounter this launcher bug:
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~pad /faq/ti89.html#3.6.12
(remove the space from the URL) but it is easily fixable by using an updated ttstart.

Those aren't really that impressive...

>>* clock functionality if you have HW2
Oh boy. A clock. In case I can't find a clock on the wall somewhere, or on my wrist, or my phone, or my palm pilot, etc. etc. I can use my CALCULATOR! joy!
>>* icon desktop
... no comment. this thing sucked up WAY too much memory.
>>* built-in functions for sec, csc, cot, sech, csch, coth and their inverses. They won't be used in results though.
... but why??
>>On the TI-89, it does however consume an additional block of 64 KB of FlashROM. On the TI-92+/V200, it doesn't.

It's actually somewhere around 100 KB - probably 96, since that would be 3 32KB blocks.

they also fixed some serious crashing bugs... like forgetting to query OO_APP_CAN_DELETE for the installed flash apps before implicitly removing them after the user chooses mem->reset->all
As far as i can tell, every bug that I reported is fixed (although i would need to go back and check my email to be sure i've remember them all).

32k blocks? The flash mem (89, 92p, v200) is orgainized into 64k blocks; the ams on the 89 is overlapping a few bytes into the next block.

-Greg

Ah, ok. Couldn't remember.

>>>* built-in functions for sec, csc, cot, sech, csch, coth and their inverses. They won't be used in results though.
>... but why??

Because in Europe, nobody uses them, and the average European high school student (yes, calculus is done in high school in Europe) has absolutely no idea what a secant is.

I meant, why did they include it? If you really needed something like secant, just write a function like this:

sec(x)
Func
1/cos(x)
EndFunc

and that's all you would need.

Actually, if a function is just one line, you can do this:

sec(x)
1/cos(x)

An even faster way to secant is to type

1/cos(n)

on the home screen, with n being the number.

They were talking about writing their own functions for it, but yeah, if I were to only use it a few times, I'd just type it in on the homescreen... why wouldn't people in Europe know what a secant is?!

I bet even fewer people know what a secant actually represents. Anyway, the whole point of trig functions is that you never have a function^-1, but rather just a different function for that, and therefore do not confuse it with the arcfunctions.
But it seems to me that TI added it just in order to avoid being outdone by Symbolic (link above), although they have a different definition for arccot.

> But it seems to me that TI added it just in order to be avoid being outdone by Symbolic

LOL. It seems that lovely people at Detached Solutions and at ticalc.org are always outdoing TI (their apps are actually pretty lame. The best free ones are probably World Geo and Conics, and I already wrote a Conics program that is only 4.5K and does more than it)

WorldGeo is a concept app, by Fred Coughlin.

Really, your conics program can do different modes, graph/trace, and give useful info about the conic, as fast?

I guess so. The program first prompts (from a menu) the first type of conic section you want to graph. If you select Ellipse, Parabola, or Hyperbola, it will ask if the desired graph (for ellipse) is wide or tall, (for parabola) is horizontal or vertical, and (for hyperbola) is up/down or left/right. The program then switches to Horizonal mode and displays the equation for the chosen conic section, including the restrictions. The home screen prompts the values for the equations, and will even tell you if the data is valid or not. It then graphs the equation, and (for circle) the center, (for ellipse) the major and minor axes, and the foci, (for parabola) the directix, the axis of symmetry, and the focus, and (for hyperbola) the foci and the asymptotes. After you finish tracing the graph, it will give you the numeric values for the above descriptions. Once that is finished, it returns to the main menu. If you want it, e-mail me and I'll send it to you (or you can wait until it is approved, as it is buried under the huge pending queue).

<<But it seems to me that TI added it just in order to avoid being outdone by Symbolic (link above)>>

No offense intended to the developer(s) of Symbolic, but it is quite unlikely that Symbolic can outdo the AMS (especially since the TI-83 series don't have a standard C compiler). Anyway, if software1 has simple one-line definitions of functions that software2 doesn't, that doesn't mean software1 is "outdoing" software2, simply that the developers of software2 didn't consider such simple functions worth their while to implement.

I'm in Europe and I do know what sec and csc are... Nevertheless, it's true that these functions are not mentioned in the school. Anyway, I find it easier to work with only the ordinary functions, and I don't really remember any occasion when the reciprocal functions would have been useful.

When you get into Trig, Pre-Calculus and Calculus they are used very frequently. I would do almost anything to have these functions on my 86.

You could always write a patch for your 86, or an asm prog that adds the illegal tokens.

They are mainly used for simplification of expressions involving trig functions. Of course, "simple" is a very subjective term.

How does one write functions on the TI-89 anyway? The instructions manual does not cover it well enough (or at all. lol)

See Chapter 17 of the full guidebook at the URL above.

Lalu has a link (above post)

The guidebook only seems to have the first two chapters for your 89/92+... even so, to write a function, goto [APPS], [7] (Program/Function editor), [2] (New), [type name of your function and select folder], hit [ENTER] twice when done, and there you are... :)

That's easy enough, but I was asking what the structure needed to be? For example, programs have the title of their variable as the first line of their code:

prgm1()
Prgm
...
EndPrgm

How does that change in functions? For example, if I wanted to write a function that calculated the distance between two points, I would write something like this:

dist(x1,x2,y1,y2)
Func
sqr((x1-x2)^2+(y1-y2)^2)
EndFunc

where sqr() is the radical operator?

Yes. And if your function is an one-liner, you don't even need to write Func and EndFunc. And AMS will handle functions without Func and EndFunc better for some symbolic calculations.

LOL. But why do Europeans not use cotangents, secants, and cosecants? Are the happier typing in 1/tan, 1/cos, and 1/sin respectfully?

I was wondering the same thing LOL :)

"yes, calculus is done in high school in Europe"

At my HS in the US, to NOT take AP calc was to be falling behind in math

Whoa, do you go to some Math and Science academy or something?

I go to a public school, and I am taking multivariable calculus (past Calculus BC).

Regarding the new built-in functions for sec, csc, cot, sech, csch, coth and their inverses -- what do you mean by "They won't be used in results though"?

I have a Voyage 200, which shipped with AMS 2.07, so it already includes the clock function and the icon desktop. So, the new trig functions are about the only attraction, unless there's something else.

Anyone know if the AMS 2.08 is required to use with the new TI Connect v1.2 (or vice-versa)?

8-{)#

>Regarding the new built-in functions for sec, csc, cot, sech, csch, coth and their inverses -- what do you mean by "They won't be used in results though"?

Type sec(x) and you will get 1/cos(x), not sec(x).
Type cos(x)/sin(x) and you will get 1/tan(x), not cot(x).
And so on...

>Anyone know if the AMS 2.08 is required to use with the new TI Connect v1.2 (or vice-versa)?

You need TI-Connect 1.2 if you have AMS 2.08 and a black TI-GraphLink. I don't think you need AMS 2.08 to use TI-Connect 1.2.

Oh okay, well that's not a big deal. The trig thing really isn't a big improvement. The clock sounds cool, and that leaves the desktop: what is the desktop? Is it like a real desktop on your comptuer with icons and everything? We could use Kerm's mouse program ported to the 89 lol ;-)

The 'desktop' thing is the Apps Desktop featured first on the V200. It's pretty much useless unless you have a bunch of flash apps installed. All it does is list the apps (built-in like the graph, y= editor, etc., and user apps) you have on your calculator in a Palm OS style layout, with categories and all. If you can find and install enough apps to *need* this, or even better to use the categories, I will become very afraid of you.

LOL, that's a good point... APPS take up a lot of space.

Remember that the TI Voyage 200 can use all of its flash for applications. The OS is designed for that "PLT" and you could have a lot of apps there.

I saw a real TI Voyage 200 today!

The legendary v200!!! Did you get to use it? I've never seen one either, except in photos...

First it needs 83-->83+ porting...

> You need TI-Connect 1.2 if you have AMS 2.08 and a black TI-GraphLink

I use AMS 2.08, use a black link, Windows XP, and TI-Connect 1.1. I have had no problems yet.

Tnx Kevin. I see - the new AMS can interpret the "upside down" trig functions, but will convert them back to the more common forms. At first it seems kind of odd TI implemented the new functions like this, but actually it seems consistant with the way the AMS simplifies any "tangled up" expressions that are entered into the calc.
As for the new TIConnect version, the Voyage 200 ships with the new USB link cable, so I guess I don't absolutely need the new version, unless it comes with some new functionality or attractive doo-dads. . .
8-{)#

hi !
hum... what is "HW2" ? the "usefull" clock does work on my 92+. is this normal ?...
thanx, bye.

HW2 = hardware version 2.00.
Is your TI-92+ a TI-92 with a Plus module? Then it is a HW1 (hardware version 1.00), so the fact that the clock doesn't work is normal.

I haven't seen you around, Gu. Are you new to this website?

Most likely. There are always new people popping up every now and then. Most of them don't stay, though.

Hey, I was new, just a year ago, and I have stayed, probably to much dismay, though.
Oh well, I put the new ams(os) on my calc, and it works just fine, except I had to get rid of all my trig functions. I like the sec^-1 better than typing backsec()...

I haven't seen you around either :)

c00l! You're the only one I know on this site (aside from myself) that lives in the Mountain Time Zone!

In short, yes. But I'm sticking with AMS 2.03 for now.

2.03? What does 2.05 have over 2.03? You know, TI should make a huge History list of all the AMS versions they have and then we could see what the added/fixed/changed. That would be easier than posting random questions ;-)

<<TI should make a huge History list of all the AMS versions they have and then we could see what the added/fixed/changed.>>

Well, others have done that. See the link above.

Cool, thanks :) LOL 2.01 slipped out accidentally :)

Actually, no. There are quite a few Assembly and C programs that don't work at all anymore. ExePacked programs seem to be most negatively affected.

That problem is easily fixed by using an updated ttstart to launch the program instead of the supplied launcher. Many of the affected programs have also been updated to supply a working launcher based on the updated ttstart.

Ah, so that's how! In my review of AMS 2.08 (http://www.geocities.com/augrad) I mentioned something about how Kurt Hoffman managed to get his programs to work properly. I wasn't sure how, though. Thanks!

The other HUGE benefit of 2.08 is TI-Keyboard support. I've been using 2.08 since Christmas, even though I have little need for a clock or an icon desktop, just because the TI-Keyboard makes stuff so much easier.

Yay! Someone who has a keyboard! How do you like it?

I have a keyboard too. Its nice, but somewhat hard to transport around. And it was more developed for the 89, as the 83+ does not fully utilize all of the shortcut capabilities. On the 83+, I still have to push buttons on the calc, but its all on the keyboard for the 89.

The only thing that the keyboard is missing is a button to turn the calc on/off. Other than that, I love it! Programming becomes SO much easier because you don't have to keep switching in and out of alpha-lock. Now if only they'd release drivers for the 73... the alpha system on that calc is so incredibly annoying, I can see why no one (not even no_one) programs it. The only real way to program it is on the computer. Out of curiosity, am I pretty much the only one with a 73?

On the TI-89, you don't have to switch alpha-lock on and off, you just need to hold [alpha] while typing letters.

Really? That's cool. That would be handy when taking notes that involve a lot of switching from alpha to numbers. (dates in History, for instace)

When one uses the keyboard for note-taking on the TI-89, does one write the text in the Text-Editor, or on some application similar to NoteFolio?

I believe TI is making a NoteFolio application for the 68k calcs. That will allow users to create folios, which can contain more than one note as one file. I remember this from a while back, though.

Since I don't have the keyboard, I use the text editor. I like it because it's handy and easy to use. Nice and simple :)

*cough* great for cheating in History class *cough*

Woah, AMS 2.08 uses the Keyboard? SWEEEEEEET! I've been waiting to use my keyboard for on-calc programming for quite some time now :)

Programming with the keyboard only works on the 89 though...the 83+ still needs the individual tokens, and that is where the keyboard's flaw is. It doesn't have menu functions for the 83+, so if you were programming with the keyboard, you need to hit the calc to get the other menus, unless you want to use catalog for all your functions.

Someone really ought to fix that by writing an ASM program that parses plain text into tokens.

I have said it before and I'll say it again. Texas instruments should port the parser of the ti85/86 to the ti83 as part of an IDE.

That would be soooooooo nice.

Yes, I already knew that. It's just that I am not as familiar with the TI-89 built-in keyboard as the TI-83+ SE's. However, the TI-89 allows tokens to be strung together by individual letters instead of the command being a single token, so I have been anxious to take advantage of that ever since I got my keyboard.

I wouldn't really call that a huge benefit, as most people dont own a keyboard, and if you havea 92, its pointless to buy a keyboard, even though the keys are so small...

You just disproved yourself.

The TI-Keyboard support is very important. Also, if you have a 92, then buying a keyboard would be useless, unless you have a plus module. But for a Voyage 200 or the 92+, a keyboard is quite nice. There are even keyboards for laptops.
Maybe the clock could be used for randomness.
Do you know if TI-Chess already makes use of this clock?

>Do you know if TI-Chess already makes use of this clock?

It doesn't.

But, does it use the crystals to keep track of the time? Maybe not, since on VTI it actually goes faster instead of slower. Even so, it looks pretty accurate to me.

The clock on AMS 2.08 is probably based on an internal timing switch, which regulates program and OS flow. The clock uses the switch to calculate the time, since electricity never ceases to flow through the calculator. The switch itself may use a quartz crystal to monitor the time lapses, since quartz crystal vibrations (from which it derives the time) are off by only 12 seconds per year.

Wow! That's interesting; the clock doesn't even seem to work AT ALL on my version of VTI. :-) (When I go to turn it on, it acts like it turns on, but when I check it it's still off.) Are you using the new alpha version?