Re: A89: TI89 ROM vs HP49 ROM

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: A89: TI89 ROM vs HP49 ROM


In a message dated 6/8/99 2:51:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
rogue_ant@hotmail.com writes:

> I would just like to thank all those how responded.  But I feel, I don't 
>  know, like TI is being lazy.  I understand that the Saturn is a special 
>  number crunchier, but the 89 should have blown it out of the water!  But 
>  no... TI decided to not put in the extra effort, not take the 68k CPU to 
the 
> 
>  fullest, not provide us with the same quality effort that HP did.  Don't 
get 
> 
>  me wrong, I love my 89, but I feel that some how...we've been cheated.  
>  Cheated of what could have been.  Just think of optimized OS for the 
89/92+! 
> 
>    Not only the obvious speed improvements, but size improvement too.  I am 
>  no expert on Compiled C vs. Asm, but I can tell you that TI would have a 
>  hell of a lot more ROM space to put in more stuff.  They could have put in 
>  an on calc assembler right in the ROM, like HP did, they could have put in 
>  more math functions, they could have increased the numeric accuracy, they 
>  could have increased the number of digits to only be limited by RAM, they 
>  could have done all kinds of things.  BUT instead they decided to take the 
>  easy way out, let HP beat you with just a little bit more work, and a lot 
>  less machine.
>  The TI89 could have been a lot more, but alas they cheated us.
>  Maybe some TI guy will read this, and be furious.  Maybe he will take it 
to 
>  heart, either way I hope someone does read this who can do something about 
>  it, or at least will try.  After all its just my opinion.
>  
>  Sincerely
>  
>  Josh Cunningham

Don't feel cheated! TI has one major thing that they did that can excuse a 
fairly bloated program: flashROM. Had we had to wait for them to optomize the 
code, we would have had to wait until we graduated from High School before 
they released the TI89. By having a FlashROM and leaving more room for 
upgradability, and waiting for later to optomize (or perhaps even a rewrite 
in Assembly), we can get the calculator earlier. I don't feel cheated.
Follow-Ups: