| Author | Comment |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 8 Jan 2004
18:51 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | for those of you not up to date on calc news, read ticalc.org.
If you guys have seen the pictures of the 84/89 titanium, which are both similarily designed. Does it seem like TI increased the bezel area. And the keys no longer go to the edge of the calc? It looks like they were trying to give the appearence of a smaller size. Especially by black border around the bottom, or is that not a border, it's a bit hard to tell in the pictuers.
http://education.ti.com/us/product/tech/89ti/features/features.html |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 9 Jan 2004
15:03 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | Why wait make this news spiral! |
allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 9 Jan 2004
15:55 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | I was considering getting the 89, and now I definalty am this summer.
|
Billy
Ultralisk
Posted: 9 Jan 2004
20:26 GMT
Total Posts: 260 | TI-89 Titatnium has a nice, sleek look. I like it. And 3X the memory is a very nice feature!
Ti-84 Silver Edition looks just as nice. For TI-83 users it's an easy upgrade, too. Nothing new to learn, and it has tons of memory.
The USB is a neat, new feature; however, I don't see the point really... |
allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 10 Jan 2004
15:44 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | Faster transferrs I suppose...
plus most computers have more USB ports now, (Mine has 4) |
BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 10 Jan 2004
16:35 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | Everyone wants things faster nowadays... TI already had the USB graphlink cable, so that's really not much of an excuse. Perhaps they needed to market something new before the actual value of what was current began to drop too much. But hey, they've got new calculators. Not really much left to say about why...
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt |
allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 10 Jan 2004
18:35 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | But from what I've read, the calc's link port is an USB... |
zkostik
Carrier
Posted: 10 Jan 2004
19:56 GMT
Total Posts: 2486 | This is the ugliest piece of hardware since iMacs (no offence folks, don't start a debate over this plz). Anyway, this is one ugly calc. They should have just used the same style as on regular 89, maybe a different color like 83+SE (I prefer just black or gray though). To me this new layout looks bad, like their designer was on crack when he came up with this...oh well, I guess it may be something people would consider cool and I may be still old fashioned.
I agree though, pls post a news article spiral. Good or bad this is still a big calc news and we need news quite badly.
---
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 10 Jan 2004
20:52 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | eMacs are uglier, but it's and aquired taste (no arguments, and you don't need to do that anymore). Yeah, I agree with you on this design, I think it is obvious that TI is worried about the HP 49g. |
Ray Kremer
Ultralisk
Posted: 10 Jan 2004
23:18 GMT
Total Posts: 310 | >Perhaps they needed to market something new before the actual
>value of what was current began to drop too much.
Of course. TI's been pulling this scam with "new calculators" since the TI-83 Plus. More Flash ROM is the only improvement they've had to offer for years.
As far as I can tell, the only differences between the 84+SE and the 83+SE are the USB link port (there's already a USB Graph Link cable), the viewscreen port (who cares) and interchangeable faceplates (they've got to be kidding me).
And then there's the 84+. They're highlighting that it has more memory than the 83+, but since it's still less than what the two Silver Editions have it really has no reason to exist.
And the 89 Ti, other than the addition of the USB link port it's just a Voyage 200 in the vertical case, which we've been expecting ever since the V200 came out. |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 11 Jan 2004
01:04 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | And they upped the processor speed, which usually does little but look better on specs sheets.
D or Z, you guys can post this up as news, I'm not really feeling up to posting a quality news article, and i really got to get back to this calc hw. |
Ray Kremer
Ultralisk
Posted: 11 Jan 2004
18:06 GMT
Total Posts: 310 | >And they upped the processor speed, which usually does little but
>look better on specs sheets.
Aha! They fooled you. Note that both 84s are described as being 2.5 times faster than the 83+. Guess what else TI says is 2.5 times faster than the 83+? That's right, the 83+SE.
I think it's spectacular hyperbole that they're even calling these things 84, and at the same time an oddly stubborn continuity that they're leaving the "Plus" and "Silver Edition" on. |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 11 Jan 2004
19:18 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | But the 83+ -> 84+ (se) is faster. The speed helps a little for graphs. The 84+ se replaces the 83+ SE, even if it's mostly a cosmetic upgrade.
It makes sense to call it the 84, would you want the 83++, and then 83++ SE. Just take the viewpoint that + in the 83 series means flash rom, or just don't care at all.
I hope TI still supports the Operating System of old 83+'s and 89's.
Pro: Fixes calculator bugs and keeps user satisfaction
Con: There would be less reason to upgrade, the new calculators would have few advantages over the old |
Ray Kremer
Ultralisk
Posted: 12 Jan 2004
16:57 GMT
Total Posts: 310 | >But the 83+ -> 84+ (se) is faster.
Yes, but you and TI both talk as if this speed increase is a new thing. It's not. The 83+ was already obsoleted by the 83+SE, the fact the it's obsoleted again by the 84+ is moot.
>would you want the 83++, and then 83++ SE
Scrap the 84+, rename the 84+SE to "83 Plus Titanium Edition" or "83 Plus Platinum Edition" or some such thing. There are ways to maintain name continuity without artificially inflating the model number. Or even just plain old "TI-84". You don't need a stupid Plus on there to designate Flash ROM, just look at the 89.
>I hope TI still supports the Operating System of old 83+'s and 89's.
I would be surprised if the 84+ OSes were substantially different from the 83+ OSes. It'll be simple enough to release new versions for both at once like they do now with the 92 Plus and Voyage 200 OSes. |
BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 12 Jan 2004
20:48 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | I was discussing these "new" calculators with my math teacher and he seems to think that they're just a move by TI to put out new products - that are relatively the same - so as to keep the revenue coming in. After a while, the price of things just go down so they have to do something...
I just think that TI put these out to compete with HP's USB concept that they did on the 49g+ and other calcs. (They already had the USB graphlink. Why these new "ultra-convenient" links?)
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 12 Jan 2004
20:52 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | the 83+ wasn't obsoleted by the 83+SE, the 84, or the 84+SE, if you need to do math or play games, they're all nearly the same, very few things can even take advantage of the SE's superior speed.
The consumer would see the 83+, and then 84, and think the + must make it better in some way. How would calling it Titanium or Platinum be any different than calling it the Silver Edition? It'd just mean they have to change the color, and Silver Edition has more brand recognition.
The numbering system is as much the fault of odd consumer thinking as TI.
I WOULD be surprised if the OS was substantially different, don't fix what ain't broken. Also, to keep full 83+ compatibility, it will require using an OS that is quite similar to 83 series |
Barrett
Administrator
Posted: 12 Jan 2004
20:53 GMT
Total Posts: 1676 | just look at the spec sheets.... they are pretty much the exact same except extra memory and speed depending on which one you get.
the OS's are the same as well.
btw, my avatar is THE best one EVER.
rikku is so hot.
---
-Barrett A |
Ray Kremer
Ultralisk
Posted: 14 Jan 2004
20:31 GMT
Total Posts: 310 | >so as to keep the revenue coming in. After a while, the
>price of things just go down so they have to do something...
I doubt it's that. Even if they had just left it to the old 83, you'd still have a large number of freshmen going to the store to get one every fall. The developement costs of new models cut into the profits, but with existing models the development costs are already paid for. Nor would TI have to lower prices on a particular model just because it's been out for a few years. Price cuts on old model electronics on happen because newer superior models compete with them. Since TI doesn't have competition to speak of except their own new models, there reall isn't a need for them to have the new models at all. I think it's just a force of habit, a general mentality of doing new products on a regular basis to keep up with the competition, and TI's calculator division isn't exempt from it even though they have no competition.
>the 83+ wasn't obsoleted by the 83+SE, the 84, or the 84+SE,
>if you need to do math or play games, they're all nearly the same,
The 83 isn't obsoleted in the terms that it's no longer useful, but in the strictest terms of its specifications the 83+SE does defeat it. I realise that the distinction is similar to saying that a 2003 Ford Taurus obsoletes the 2001 Ford Taurus when of course they are almost identical, but go to a Ford dealer and you can't get the '01 Taurus even if you wanted one, they only have the '03 model.
I'm just saying it's misleading to say that the 84+ is "faster than the 83+" as if that's something TI just thought up.
>The numbering system is as much the fault of odd consumer
>thinking as TI.
Perhaps. I just think it's amusing in retrospect that the quite significant addition of Flash ROM only got a "Plus" added to the name, but something dinky like changing the link port to USB warrented a model number increase. |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 15 Jan 2004
01:00 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | "I think it's just a force of habit, a general mentality of doing new products on a regular basis to keep up with the competition, and TI's calculator division isn't exempt from it even though they have no competition."
Well, among students there is little competition. But i've heard that many engineers prefer the Hp calculators, RPN, some other functions.
Well, the 84+ actually is faster than the 83+, I believe i've seen that if you graph an function like sin(x), it's faster on the 83+ SE, but mostly the difference is small.
I think that TI chose not to call it just plain 84, because then it would be associated with the 83. Since most teachers recommend an 83+, people would see 84+ and immediately associate it with the 83+. As I said earlier, they can't just keep adding pluses. I wonder what they'll do in 4-5 years when they upgrade the line again, can't call it the 85. Of course, it'll hopefully be a bit more powerful and standard processor by then. |
BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 15 Jan 2004
09:28 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | Perhaps they'll jump to the 87/88, if those are still available. Or even start into "Titanium Edition," or "Gold Edition"...
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt |
Billy
Ultralisk
Posted: 15 Jan 2004
11:06 GMT
Total Posts: 260 | Also, how does this new USB port affect link-up options? |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 15 Jan 2004
11:37 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | According to TI it won't complicate matters beyond basic common sense. |
BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 15 Jan 2004
14:27 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | If memory serves, the I/O port on the bottom of the calculator will remain there for communication with other calculators.
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 15 Jan 2004
16:42 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | I wonder with the next iteration of calcs, if they'll now have USB, i/o port, and something else. That'd be cool if the USB was comaptible with other things, like mouse and keyboard (but i would highly doubt it). I wonder if USB will be any faster, I/O is relatively.
Btw, B, nice avatar. I still like yuna more than rikku tho. |
calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 15 Jan 2004
16:45 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | The fact that Ti has another new calculator out so soon worries me.
Why not just update the calculator fully? Make an 84 after waiting a year or two to fix it?
There are many problems on the calculator, but they ought to fix them all instead of producing new calcs, with only half of the problems fixed.
Don't beleive me? Try this problem:
-2 squared.
You'll get -4. This has been the same with the 81,82,83,83+,83+ SE.
Why, I ask, don't they fix all the problems instead of making the calculators "look cooler?" |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 15 Jan 2004
18:07 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | -2^2 = -4 is correct.
It's simple order of operations PEMDAS, parans, exponent, multiply/divide, add/subtract. -2 is really -1 multipled by 2. Thus, the exponent takes precedent over the negative symbol, and -(2x2)
If you do (-2)^2, then you will get 4, parantheses take precedent over exponent, so it becomes (-2)x(-2) |
calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 15 Jan 2004
18:10 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | Spiral, when you square -2, you expect to get 4. The calculator uses PEMDAS, but math teachers don't and Students don't while squaring 2.
I mean, no duh, negative 2, squared, is, four. It's not according to PEMDAS, but it is according to how the real world uses it. Because of my calculator, my teacher counted my answer wrong.
Ticalc.org should fix this . . . |
BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 15 Jan 2004
18:23 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | Dude, look. (-2)^2 = 4. Obviously. Due to the order of operations, or PEMDAS, your calculator treats -2^2 like -(2^2). Just like the real world. Duh.
[Edited by BullFrog on 16-Jan-04 03:27]
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt |
calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 15 Jan 2004
18:31 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | Thats what I said Bullfrog!
This is a B-U-G! No way around it. And after about 6-7 calculator models-ticalc.org still doesn't fix it?
The Silver Edition has LOADS of problems! They ought to fix these. But, so far all I've heard is that it has "larger capabitlites", and looks better. Big woop. I want these problems fixed. |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 15 Jan 2004
19:22 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | Uh, i thi nk bullfrog was agreeing with me.
If you're doing -2^2=4, you're just doing math wrong. Sometimes in writing it out on paper, we assume the parantheses. And Ticalc.org has NOTHING to do with calculator OS's.
It's not a bug. And what are all these "LOADS" of problems on the 83+ SE? It's exactly the same as the 83+ but with a faster pocessor and more memory, almost any problem with the 83+ is in the 83+ se. |
calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 15 Jan 2004
19:28 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | Spiral-when you square a negative number it comes out positive!
My teacher, my math teacher, won an arizona award for best teacher of the year, in 1995-6. He knows what he's saying.
Look spiral, when you square a negative, a negative times a negative is a postive, you get a postive number! NBEGATIVE two times NEGATIVE two equals POSITIVE four. |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 15 Jan 2004
19:52 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | i really don't care about your teacher.
You are correct, -2*-2=4. However, -2^2 is really -1*2^2 because of order of operations. A positive squard, is positive, multiplied by a negative is negative. |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 15 Jan 2004
21:04 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | One of calcfreaks earlier posts is correct. (-2)^2=4 and -2^2=-4. Talk to your math teacher if you don't want to believe me (I'm in second semester Calculus). Typically we assume that -2^2 is (-2)^2. So if you write on a test -2^2=4 your wrong because mathematically you square two and then apply the negative sign, but (-2)^2 you square negative 2 which is 4. This is not a bug in the calculator, it is a bug in your guys' heads because you haven't learned/been taught math properly. The calc is right and PEMDAS is applied corretly in both situations. |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 15 Jan 2004
23:13 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | "(-2)^2=4 and -2^2=-4"
yes...that's what i've been saying the WHOLE TIME. I even wrote, "sometimes when writing it out, we assume parentheses"
I'm 2 weeks away from second semester of calc. But that high school calc, so it's closer to about the first 1/3 of a year of college calc. AB and BC equal the whole year of college calc supposedly, so i've finished A. |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 16 Jan 2004
11:37 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | Next time I might take the time to read the posts. This topic is way OT, closed. |
spiral
Wraith
Posted: 16 Jan 2004
15:40 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | who says the thread is closed? Well, I do, muhahaha
"He who laughs last laughs best"
Well, it's only the 2nd time, there are a whole bunch of closed threads.
[Edited by spiral on 17-Jan-04 01:30] |
Digital
Guardian
Posted: 16 Jan 2004
16:03 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | I knew you were going to do that, you did it lst time a topic was closed to. For pity's sake, continue... |
