ticalc.org
Basics Archives Community Services Programming
Hardware Help About Search Your Account
   Home :: Community :: Surveys :: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Error!
Failed to query database!

Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Bobman  Account Info

Higher resolution for me. Imagine all of the possibilities if a calculator had 700x500 resolution. That would be cool, but it is only a dream. If resolution were that good on a TI-89, we would all be playing Quake III on it.

Reply to this comment    25 March 2000, 19:34 GMT

Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Dan Sandstrom Account Info

Unfortunately, Quake III is so intensive that you'd be getting about 1/2 FPS playing it on a calc...

Reply to this comment    25 March 2000, 19:45 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
The_Professor  Account Info
(Web Page)

Don't you mean 1/20 FPS or 1/50 FPS?

Reply to this comment    25 March 2000, 20:39 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
meingts Account Info
(Web Page)

That might be exaggerating it a bit. But considering it's a higher resolution screen...oh. I see.

I also voted higher resolution, BUT compatibility between all ROM/HW versions would be really nice for us TI-89/92+ users.

Reply to this comment    26 March 2000, 00:19 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Amalfi Marini  Account Info

high resolution gaming would be a problem , but Sega Genesis is 320x240 and 64 colors simultanously(I'm not sure , maybe it's higher)it uses a 12Mhz m68k and it has good games on it... The problem is memory , ram and flash rom must be larger in calcs . Increasing the procesor speed would be good , there are several version of 68k , up to 20Mhz . Color calcs ? the Game Boy color has the best LCD screen I've ever seen , it's refresh is very fast , movement is not blury.And is a chep LCD , maybe they can consider it . I think all features must be present , but Ram memory is the most important.

Reply to this comment    26 March 2000, 01:58 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Niten  Account Info
(Web Page)

Actually, the Genesis has about an 11.75 mHz processor :)

But the Genesis also has all kinds of graphics hardware and such, so the processor isn't doing nearly all the work. The 92 and the 89 have nothing of that kind.

Reply to this comment    27 March 2000, 04:23 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
vegetto34 Account Info

the processor is an issue, my ti-83+ runs faster than a ti-86+(i tested by putting in a "for" loop on each calc and saw which calc said done first) the color display on a game gear is much better suited(game gears could also be transformed into portable tv's!)

Reply to this comment    27 March 2000, 04:43 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
dahoff

TI-86+ ? heh

Reply to this comment    27 March 2000, 09:44 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Reno  Account Info

there is no such thing as an 86+...

but then again, the 83+ is faster because it has less functions (although I think the 83+ DID have a higher mhz, but not by much). The 86 has a lot of functions I take for granted whenever I try using someone's 83...

on a side note, I actually saw a ti-80 the other day...weird :P

Reply to this comment    27 March 2000, 23:20 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
vegetto34 Account Info

stop conplaining about typing errors... would you like someone ALWAYS showing your mistakes???

Reply to this comment    28 March 2000, 00:43 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Robert Mohr  Account Info

sometimes typing errors make things look completely different (i.e. aren't, arena, arrant, ardent, argent; TI-86, TI-86+)

Reply to this comment    1 April 2000, 05:00 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
icebrain  Account Info

i know what you mean about the 86 and 83... and so much easier to program on too.... but the higher processor speeds would help, b/c then we could make basic games with good framerates! (worry about resolution later....) there should be a refit kit to put a gameboy screen on the calc, and we need a build in ir link too

Reply to this comment    28 March 2000, 05:12 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Adml_Ackbar(RA)
(Web Page)

that would be too hard, a few of the ICs will need to be replaced with better ones in order to control the color screen. the microprocessor might not even be able to support the color screen anyway

Reply to this comment    28 March 2000, 17:34 GMT

Upgrade kit
icebrain  Account Info

not necessarily a color screen... just an old gameboy one... its higher resolution.... but you might need a rom upgrade as well to handle the additional stuff

Reply to this comment    29 March 2000, 05:10 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Aaron Peterson  Account Info
(Web Page)

I voted for color screen.

I included graphics hardware in my thinking.


I would like to see a PDA with a CAS (computer algebra system) graphing calculator software (including a powerfull basic)... in a cell phone with a gameboy color type screen,and blue tooth network support.

I think these would sell like hotcakes. Boeing is trying to make an RF network in its factory(ies)... imagine if inspectors ande engineers could move allover the place making the data available real quick.

Reply to this comment    1 April 2000, 08:19 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
net-cat
(Web Page)

"on a side note, I actually saw a ti-80 the other day...weird :P"

My school still owns (and forces us to use) a few TI-81's ...

Reply to this comment    1 April 2000, 01:58 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Ciaran McCreesh  Account Info
(Web Page)

Ha ha, our school recommends TI80s to first years.

Ciaran

Reply to this comment    4 April 2000, 19:25 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Ryan Castellucci  Account Info

My study hall class JUST GOT a NEW TI-80. I, with my 89 am laughing at them.

Reply to this comment    11 April 2000, 05:08 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
daussaulit Account Info

But the only reason that the 83 is faster is the 86 has to manage more memory with the same exact processor. I have read somewhere that you can take out the old 86 processor and replace it with a processor that this company makes. Does that really work?

Reply to this comment    29 March 2000, 00:35 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
vegetto34 Account Info

read my statement again
i said "TI-83+"
the "ti-83+" has 24k RAM and 160k ARCHIVE
doesnt ti-86's have 96k??????????
strange isnt it which 1 has more memory

Reply to this comment    29 March 2000, 01:43 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Andrew  Account Info

the *83* is still faster than the 86 and the 83+ still has less ram than the 86.

Reply to this comment    29 March 2000, 02:31 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Etec  Account Info
(Web Page)

The 83 is *not* faster then the 83+, 83 has a 6mhz processer the 83+ has an 8mhz processer. Try running the same ASM programs on both of them at the same time, the 83+ is faster. Basic is diffrent because Basic is limited to the calculators built in os that only uses 6mhz of the processer and the smaller amount of ram slows down the 83+.

Reply to this comment    1 April 2000, 01:44 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Baculo
(Web Page)

I thought I saw somewhere that the 83+'s processer is running a 6 MHz

Reply to this comment    21 June 2000, 02:19 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Baculo
(Web Page)

I thought I saw somewhere that the 83+'s processer is running a 6 MHz though it is an 8 MHz processer

Reply to this comment    21 June 2000, 02:20 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Free_Bird Account Info
(Web Page)

That's the FLASH ROM, which is not used during normal operation. The RAM is only 32KB, which means no page switching for the RAM part.

Reply to this comment    29 March 2000, 17:12 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
vegetto34 Account Info

so ALL the memory is being used ALL the time??
doesnt make much since ofr it to do that
(the 86 have almost all memory free, mine was almost full)

Reply to this comment    31 March 2000, 02:41 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Free_Bird Account Info
(Web Page)

>I have read somewhere that you can take out the old 86 processor and replace it
>with a processor that this company makes.

Which company? Unlikely. The Z80 can't just be replaced! However, you can overclock it to 24MHz very easily (even higher, but not without considerable effort)

Reply to this comment    29 March 2000, 17:09 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Bradley Stock  Account Info

Yeah, I did it myself. It was pretty cool until I tried to play an assembly game on it. (way too fast) I then attempted to re-solder the origional capacitor onto it and my motherboard fried:(

Reply to this comment    2 April 2000, 07:38 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Free_Bird Account Info
(Web Page)

Not so. You are referring to BASIC shit, which sux anyhow. The 86 is faster in asm, because the screen uses memory mapping instead of a stupid LCD driver. The CPUs are identical.

Reply to this comment    29 March 2000, 17:06 GMT


PEOPLE!
Cliff

This is not an appropriate topic for argument! Here's why.

1. TIs are not on a crystal clock--they're on a capacitor clock generator, which varies with the voltage level of the batteries.
2. You're talking about an interpreted language in two separate implementations, which may well have their variations. How about an ASM benchmark?

Reply to this comment    31 March 2000, 05:09 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
CircaX  Account Info
(Web Page)

Actually, the GBC system uses a TFT display, (Thin Film Transistor) a close relative of active matrix displays, but definately not LCD (liquid Crystal Display).

Reply to this comment    29 March 2000, 04:34 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Free_Bird Account Info
(Web Page)

Uhh... a TFT screen is an LCD!

Reply to this comment    29 March 2000, 17:11 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
CircaX  Account Info
(Web Page)

Is it? But how????? How??

Reply to this comment    29 March 2000, 23:59 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Free_Bird Account Info
(Web Page)

Matrix screen is passive LCD. TFT is active.

Reply to this comment    31 March 2000, 13:54 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Warmage  Account Info

Yes, their definitaly needs to be more compatible calculator roms versions and hardware versions.. obviously anyone voting that has an 89..... heh

Reply to this comment    26 March 2000, 19:07 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Paul Froissart  Account Info
(Web Page)

No, that's games that are programmed in a 1.00-specific ways; exceptionally it's not ti's fault...

Reply to this comment    27 March 2000, 18:49 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Chris Heit  Account Info
(Web Page)

Personally I think compatibly is a smaller concern than the processor speed. Since the 89 already has a high resolution and can actually use "sprites" in basic, a faster processor could allow some high quality basic games.

Reply to this comment    31 March 2000, 00:11 GMT


Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
rocky12  Account Info

Ok how in the world can you say comatibility isnt a big concern. If you have an 89 it is one of the BIGGEST concerns you should have you have to make sure everything is right with the game your gettin or your calc crashes and you have to put everything you had back on and that is a pain in the A$$.

Reply to this comment    4 April 2000, 02:29 GMT

I agree.
JackNomad Account Info

I have a TI-89. I use it a whole bunch, like every day since i'm in 2 math classes. THe problem is that my friend has a different hardware version than I do. We send each other games and programs, but they screw our calcs up. SO, its compatibility between hardware/ROM versions ALL THE WAY!!!

Reply to this comment    28 March 2000, 13:00 GMT

uhh...
kennethdj69  Account Info

what's the deal with the 89s? since i don't know anything about calculators yet - i just got my 86 about 5 months ago - i'm gonna ask a question that may seem a little dumb. do the 89s come with the different hardware versions, or is that something that has to be downloaded like programs?

Reply to this comment    30 March 2000, 02:36 GMT


Re: uhh...
Chris Heit  Account Info
(Web Page)

Hardware is what makes up the calculator; you don't download it. Kind of like the hardware inside your computer. Software however (AMS) can be downloaded.

Reply to this comment    31 March 2000, 00:15 GMT


Re: Re: uhh...
Nikku-kun Account Info

shoot. I was just downloading a new 3D card, and you have to tell me this. ^_^

Reply to this comment    31 March 2000, 03:10 GMT

Re: Re: Re: uhh...
Downwiththeman  Account Info
(Web Page)

How do you download a 3d card???

Reply to this comment    31 March 2000, 04:10 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: uhh...
83er  Account Info

try www.sarcasm.com

Reply to this comment    31 March 2000, 21:48 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: uhh...
notcarlos Account Info

Correctly

Reply to this comment    2 April 2000, 01:28 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: uhh...
Daniel Bishop  Account Info

<sarcasm>
Wow! Download hardware?! I'd like to see this site so I can download a serial port for my PC.

Reply to this comment    19 April 2000, 23:16 GMT


Re: Re: Re: uhh...
Etec  Account Info
(Web Page)

LOL!
Their wrong you can go ahead and download your card.
I hate downloading 3d cards, there so hard to pull out of the screen without touching the connectors, I rather just download a new computer.

ok really you can download the 3d capability if someone came up with it, its just like a Mac emulator for the PC or a PC emulator for the mac or calculator emulators, or consol emulators, etc. Its just not hardware.

Reply to this comment    1 April 2000, 01:53 GMT


Moo
EMan2k1 Account Info
(Web Page)

I know what you mean. I just have trouble with speed. It took my PC _days_ to download a SB MP3+ with my 33.6 modem! (Not to mention this comment page)

Reply to this comment    3 April 2000, 21:22 GMT


I also agree.
Daniel Bishop  Account Info

I have an 83, but most of my friends have 82's, 85's, and 86's. I hate having to write all my programs twice so they can be used on different calcs.

Reply to this comment    26 April 2000, 04:59 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Chris Heit  Account Info
(Web Page)

A higher resolution screen would be a pain for basic programmers though. It takes long enought to draw pictures on an 89 (not with 89view.) With a higher resolution it would take forever to move across the screen, without a linkable mouse.

Reply to this comment    1 April 2000, 21:13 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
jaymz Account Info

I'd love to play Quake on the 89, but even on PCs Quake is played at a 320x200 resolution(at least by default), which is a standard for VGA graphics. You could play it at 160x100 just fine, and it would run much faster than at 800x600 or whatever. But you'd most likely need more memory though.

Reply to this comment    27 March 2000, 18:20 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
David Clausen  Account Info

Give it up Q3 or any fps (frist person shooter) like that is not commin to a calc any time soon. Do you have any idea how bigh those games are?? and the resourses that they require? And most of the new games require a video card good louck hookin' one of those up to a ti

Reply to this comment    29 March 2000, 01:17 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Etec  Account Info
(Web Page)

really, I asked certain people if they had Quake 3 Arena aned 50% of them said that they had it but they returned it because it didn't work on their computer. Luckly for me I have a lot of memory and a very good Video card so I can run it pretty well, except for the fact that even then it runs at a low frame rate when all the graphic options are set as high as they can get. I have to turn down texture detail by 10% to get it to run smooth. Then again I have the game running at 1024x768 resolution.

Reply to this comment    1 April 2000, 02:01 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
joemck  Account Info
(Web Page)

You are wrong about the FPS thing. Check out Daedalus for the TI-85. It's based on Doom.

Reply to this comment    4 April 2000, 21:28 GMT

Why
usaar33  Account Info

Why would you want to play Q3?

Reply to this comment    26 March 2000, 03:46 GMT


Re: Why
Anubis  Account Info

Why would you NOT want to play Q3?????

Reply to this comment    28 March 2000, 02:35 GMT

Re: Re: Why
usaar33  Account Info

I've played the demo and personally it sux....
I've played it's rival, UT, and it is about 50x better :)

Reply to this comment    28 March 2000, 03:26 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Why
Etec  Account Info
(Web Page)

Thats true but I have both (full). I still think quake is good though, espicially if they had smoother polygons.

Reply to this comment    1 April 2000, 02:05 GMT


Re: Re: Why
special[k]  Account Info
(Web Page)

Becuase it sucks compared to Unreal Tourny. And UT works on slower machines.

special [k]

Reply to this comment    28 March 2000, 18:17 GMT

Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Amalfi Marini  Account Info

warning ! Ti engineers can take a look to this survey , so , if resolution for playing Q3 is what you want , you won't get it , TI will skip this feature !
:-\
A good reason for having high resolution is to do better 3d/2d graphs (ok ?)
:-)

Reply to this comment    26 March 2000, 04:00 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
dleet  Account Info

$.02 --
Faster chips for me - nothing hurts more than waiting 5 minutes for it to do some stupid little 3d contour plot.

Reply to this comment    26 March 2000, 05:59 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Amalfi Marini  Account Info

the chips are fast , the problem is the AMS !!!
how can you explain that a HP49G can rotate and compute
a 3d graph 2 or 3 times faster than the TI89 !?(maybe more than 3)

Reply to this comment    26 March 2000, 06:20 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Robert Snyder  Account Info

excelent point..because they only use a 4 Mhz chip.. while the 89 uses a 6mhz.. i've been scoping both out..and it seems that the hp is better for the big hard stuff.. but it just takes a bit to get used to if you've been using ti's. but ti's are great calcs. they just need to get a better ...umm...forgot the word... programming stuff so that the processor can access things quicker..

Reply to this comment    26 March 2000, 19:35 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Amalfi Marini  Account Info

the 89/92 uses a 10 Mhz processor , the Hardware2 calcs uses 12Mhz . The HP49G is fast graphing 3d functions , the rest is slower than the TI89 .

Reply to this comment    26 March 2000, 21:00 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Killer2  Account Info
(Web Page)

The HW2 calcs do NOT have a 12Mhz processor, but the same 10Mhz processor that the HW1 calcs have. The difference in speed is due to the reprogramming of the software, and little to do with the restructuring of the hardware.

-Killer2

Reply to this comment    27 March 2000, 08:33 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Aaron Peterson  Account Info
(Web Page)

TI's website says HW2 calcs are 12 mHz.

Reply to this comment    1 April 2000, 08:35 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Homer Simpson  Account Info
(Web Page)

In fact it's more complicated than this. There are several things the HP49 does more quickly than the TI-89 (although you'll find the 49 slower overall).

The strong point of the 49 is that its functions often can do more for you than the functions of the TI. Say you want to reduce a matrix using the gaussian method, it can show you every step, or return the matrix almost-reduced (so you can see if you have the correct coefficients).

Reply to this comment    29 March 2000, 12:03 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Cliff

The really interesting thing here is that the HPs all use a (relatively weak) 4-bit processor to do their operations, clocked at a fraction of ours. Our calculators (and here I speak to 89/92 owners) use a 32-bit processor clocked at 10-mhz. Yet, the HP is comparable in speed, and faster in some areas. This tells me simply that the OS is NOT optimized for our processor. The slow points are probably in the expression processing system (just a guess), as that seems to be the most time-consuming part of evaluating a statement.

Reply to this comment    31 March 2000, 05:14 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Adml_Ackbar(RA)
(Web Page)

The Hp49g does have 2x the memory (as in RAM) of the ti-89/92plus

Reply to this comment    27 March 2000, 18:47 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Paul Froissart  Account Info
(Web Page)

> how can you explain that?
BECAUSE THE DEFAULT GRID IS 6x6 ON THE 49 AND 14x14 ON THE 89! At the same resolution, you see that the 89 is 2x faster.

Reply to this comment    27 March 2000, 18:54 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
jaymz Account Info

Good point. I'll try that om my 89.

Reply to this comment    28 March 2000, 17:09 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Homer Simpson  Account Info
(Web Page)

This is not true. The speed comparisons were of course made with the same grid size on both calculators.

I entered the exact same eq on both calculators with a 18*18 grid, and the 49 finished computing values a little faster than the TI (only a little faster - the HP isn't magic).

The rotation is indeed faster on the HP (slightly more fps), and the graph doesn't get distorted.

Now, okay, the TI's screen is four times smaller... But isn't that amazing to have such good results with a much slower processor than that of the TI?

I really think a hi-res screen would make plots (3D in particular) a lot more enjoyable... At the expense of available CPU time!

Reply to this comment    31 March 2000, 19:26 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
vegetto34 Account Info

think of the pixels, its the pixel difference bettween the two, the 89 has more resolution and simply takes longer on high-res lcd.

Reply to this comment    1 April 2000, 10:44 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Daniel Bishop  Account Info

Good point. It's easy to forget that TI intended its calculators to be used as CALCULATORS rather than game machines.

Reply to this comment    26 April 2000, 05:01 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
nick s  Account Info

Ti should make a calculator that has basic and asm programming features built-in, higher resolution screen, color screen and all its standard math/science functions!

Reply to this comment    24 January 2003, 02:33 GMT

Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
David  Account Info
(Web Page)

Higher resolution would be nice, but you would also need more memory to take advantage of it (programs that draw things on the screen or pictures, for example).

Reply to this comment    26 March 2000, 04:07 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
yosweetlady  Account Info

I think the resolution on my 89 is pretty impressive. I really don't think that it needs to be improved at all. I don't think that color is terribly important either. I would really like more memory, both archive and ram. I've always used up all my memory on all my calcs. It's not enough memory even if I wasn't using it to play games. Flash apps are huge (although there are none worth having). It's also really annoying that all ti-89's aren't compattible with eachother. Instead, I've got to worry about hardware and software specifications of all the programs. I've got to check that everything says "hardware version 1, ams 2.03 compatible" before I download it

Reply to this comment    26 March 2000, 10:18 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Etec  Account Info
(Web Page)

I agree

Reply to this comment    1 April 2000, 02:09 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Robert Mohr  Account Info

What is archiving? I have an 86, and help friends program on 83s and 83+s but never learned what archiving was.

Reply to this comment    1 April 2000, 05:07 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
saywhat97  Account Info
(Web Page)

Archiving is putting variables into the calc's flash rom.

Reply to this comment    3 April 2000, 02:48 GMT

Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Laura Thompson  Account Info

In order to play Quake on a calculator you must also have a large memory

Reply to this comment    27 March 2000, 00:27 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Brian Overman  Account Info
(Web Page)

In order to have Quake on a calculator, you would need Color support (b/w would really stink), a large memory size, high resolution, and a fast processor. Without even one of these four requirements, the game would not be worth playing. But, if TI tried to put all of these new features in it's calculators, the price would be ten times the already high price for the calculator. That's pretty frustrating.

Reply to this comment    29 March 2000, 05:25 GMT


Quake and Geometry for 89
Aaron Peterson  Account Info

They have a First Person Shooter for the HP49g.

We have a maze program for the 86.

3dlib is being developed for the 68000 calcs...

I would like to see floating point hardware on the calc.

I would love to have lots more archive memory. I want the geometry program. Has anybody hacked it?

Reply to this comment    1 April 2000, 08:35 GMT

Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Paul Schippnick  Account Info
(Web Page)

If you want more resolution at this time get a 92+. It can run the same programs as the 89.

Reply to this comment    27 March 2000, 02:29 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
yosweetlady  Account Info

It has the same resolution, it's the same calc.

Reply to this comment    28 March 2000, 09:05 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
grinik  Account Info

Nope. The TI-92(+) has a higher resolution than the TI-89.

Reply to this comment    28 March 2000, 21:54 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Rob Hornick  Account Info

Nope. The 92 has the same resolution but a larger screen. (I used to own a 92+ but now own an 89.)

Reply to this comment    30 March 2000, 23:07 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Chris Heit  Account Info
(Web Page)

Right. The pixels aren't any longer than the 89's, it's just that the 92's screen is wider than the 89's.

Reply to this comment    31 March 2000, 03:48 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Cliff

Double check for me, then--your 89 is a 240x128 screen?

Nope. :-)

This is why 89 software runs in a little window in the upper-left corner of the 92's screen.

Reply to this comment    31 March 2000, 05:16 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
net-cat
(Web Page)

TI-89 = 100x160
TI-92(+) = 128x240

For proof go to: (Or click on "Web Page")
http://www.ti.com/calc/docs/gmtrx.htm

Reply to this comment    1 April 2000, 02:13 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Chris Heit  Account Info
(Web Page)

I never said that. What I meant was the only reason the 92 has a higher resolution is because its screen is larger.

Reply to this comment    1 April 2000, 21:08 GMT

Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Gary Moorhead  Account Info

I don't think it really needs higher resolutionbut a larger screen would be the key

Reply to this comment    27 March 2000, 04:36 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
David  Account Info
(Web Page)

Yea. Things are already hard enough to read on the TI-89 screen without making them even smaller by increasing the resolution. But how would you make the screen larger without increasing the width of the calculator? It would be like getting a TI-92+.

Reply to this comment    31 March 2000, 00:38 GMT

Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Chris Fazio  Account Info

yes, i agree that i resolution that good would be great, BUT, the bigger they come the harder they fall...with such a good resolution comes bad things, such as the calculator would use an immense amount of power, and Quake III MIGHT be possible on the calc, but you'd need a fast processor to have quake III. that's why i chose fast processor...

-chris

Reply to this comment    27 March 2000, 22:17 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
bradys9 Account Info

Umm no QuakeIII would not be possible on any calculator. You would have to have a dang fast processor, TONS of RAM, better resolution. Sorry at this point it is just not even close possible.
I would like to see anyone make QuakeI. That would be the day. Yes there have been lame Doom wannabes but they all suck and are not even close to the real thing.

Reply to this comment    28 March 2000, 02:29 GMT


Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
skrguy@optonline.net  Account Info

But to put Quake 3 on the calc wouldn't you need more memory?

Reply to this comment    27 March 2000, 22:27 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
JaggedFlame

yeah there's no way we're going to be getting calcs with 100MB memory anytime soon... stick to your computer.

Reply to this comment    29 March 2000, 01:55 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Downwiththeman  Account Info
(Web Page)

So why not just get a lap top to take to school and then you can play Qauke III in study hall

Reply to this comment    31 March 2000, 04:20 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which would you rather have in a calculator?
Etec  Account Info
(Web Page)

Great Idea, then depending on which school your in, get it stolen the same day, unless your planning to have it in your view at all times, which is kinda hard espically when your in the bathrooms.

Reply to this comment    1 April 2000, 02:14 GMT

1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  

You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.

  Copyright © 1996-2012, the ticalc.org project. All rights reserved. | Contact Us | Disclaimer