Re: Why are TI Calcs so inferior?

Subject: Re: Why are TI Calcs so inferior?
From: Marc Fisher <fisherm@ENC.EDU>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:28:19 -0500
In-Reply-To: <328b645b.582990@news.sprynet.com>
On Thu, 14 Nov 1996, Goatboy wrote:


> I've been looking over the tech specs for all the TI calculators, and
> I can't argue that these calculators are spectacular. They are the
> most ingenious pieces of equipment for school use and such. However,
> they're hardware is very inferior. The hard disk so to speak only is
> about 30K.


There is no HD.  The 30k is RAM.


> The processor runs at 6MHz?


It is calculator.  It runs on standard alkaline batteries.  The faster
the device the more power it takes.  It comes down to an issue of power
conservation versus speed, and these calcs are plenty fast for what they
do, math.


> It only has an assembly
> language, not something better?


Could you please define better.  If you mean a higher level language then
there is TI-BASIC.  The assembly programming is basically a bonus to
allow the people better access to the hardware and to allow the programs
to run faster.  Yet again, remember thes are calculators and are
therefore designed to help with math, for most math functions the
built-in TI-BASIC is enough.


> My gosh, on today's technology, hd
> space is 6 *cents* a meg? And hard drives are the size of a TI calc.
> If u shrink down the hd to that of a mini cassette, and put it in the
> TI, u could get about 1/3 a gig. And you could probably do better,
> because I've seen a mini cassette for the computer that holds a gig,
> and the drive it goes in to is only 1 cm bigger on each side. And the
> chip? The 486 chips are like $30 bucks nowadays, and they run at
> 66MHz. AMD chips are $75 for a 133MHz version. And the display screen.
> I've seen sony watchman that were smaller and they have a color screen
> at 320x200.


All of these are issues of power consumption, and keeping in mind the
basic purpose of the calculator, MATH.  You do not need color or HD
space.  (And I personnaly prefer the 68000 in the 92 to a 486)


> Basically, what I'm saying is with today's current technology and its
> cheapness, TI could probably come out with a calculator that could
> outperform my computer (mine is a 486 DX2-50) for the same price as
> their 92, and I don't know why they aren't trying.


It is not a computer.  It is a calculator.  It is for math, not
graphic(except as needed in function graphing), not for
programming(except as needed to perform certain math based functions),
and not for games.  They had to balance out the issues of speed and
memory versus battery consumption , size, and price.  And IMHO TI did an
excellent job at it.


-MarcII
References:
From: