Re: The Repulsive Design of the 89
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The Repulsive Design of the 89
I have an 85 and an 86 and really don't notice the difference between
the casing. The 86 does look a lot like the 83 though (the coloring of
the plastic). I like the dark casing of the 85 over the 82 though - the
grey makes the 82 look cheap, IMO.
I do think the 83+'s white buttons make it look uglier than the old 83,
but maybe that's because I am not used to it yet. Personally, I think
it is interesting that TI has kept the same basic design of the graphing
calculator the same since the 81, with the exception of the 92. With
the screen, the 5 'menu' buttons, the 4-direction keypad, and all the
other buttons like 2nd and ALPHA in the same place. I wonder why they
haven't changed it?
About the only design complaint on the 89 I have is the small text can
be hard on my eyes.
Todd
Steve wrote:
>
> Does anyone else find the unnecessary 'curviness' of the 89 case repulsive?
> This applies to all the newer TI calcs. What is wrong with straight lines? I
> especially dont' like the curved bottom. If you want to prop the 89 up,
> there's no flat surface to rest on. And why? And how about the meaningless
> dip in the display area below the menu keys? What is that for? And why have
> that whole dark area around the display? To show that the display is
> different from the rest of the calc? We can see that already, don't need it
> shoved down our throats.The 81-82-85 cases were simpler, less distracting.
> So they wanted to change something for the new series, but not all change is
> good. There are three principles at work : creation, preservation, and
> destruction. change exists in the first and the last, but often change for
> the sake of change is just destruction. It is only controlled, purposeful
> change that gives rise to creation. And once something is created, if it's
> good you don't change it, you preserve it. So in my opinion if something is
> to be changed it must have a PURPOSE. Let me state it this way:
>
> 1. Change for the sake of change = destruction.
>
> 2. Change with purpose and utility = creation.
>
> That is, each change must justify itself by providing something other than
> itself alone. If this is done then by definition creation has taken place.
> If however the change provides nothing but the change itself, then by
> definition the only thing that has happened is the destruction of that which
> was changed.
--
Spam filters in place. If you are accidently blocked, remove nospam.
References: