Slashdot Mirror
Color-Screen TI-84 Plus Calculator Leaked
KermMartian writes "It has been nearly two decades since Texas Instruments released the TI-82 graphing calculator, and as the TI-83, TI-83+, and TI-84+ were created in the intervening years, these 6MHz machines have only become more absurdly retro, complete with 96x64-pixel monochome LCDs and a $120 price tag. However, a student member of a popular graphing calculator hacking site has leaked pictures and details about a new color-screen TI-84+ calculator, verified to be coming soon from Texas Instruments. With the lukewarm reception to TI's Nspire line, it seems to be an attempt to compete with Casio's popular color-screen Prizm calculator. Imagine the graphs (and games!) on this new 320x240 canvas."
Will this be a "certified dumb enough for school use during tests" device?
Yet, for $100+, they still can't beat the resolution of gift-shop picture slideshow keychains. Obligatory XKCD reference.
I seem to recall the major feature of any electronic calculator was the ability to write 80085 and make your classmates giggle.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
HP still offers RPN on a few of their calculators. In the graphing-calculator department, there's the HP 50g, which can switch between RPN and non-RPN modes.
They have a list of the six RPN calculators they still sell here (bottom of the page).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Wouldn't our smartphones be capable of everything of what a calculator can do?
Yes, and more, like allowing a student to text an answer to another student during a test. Still, it is impressive that they think they can charge so much for a device whose only selling point is that it is too hobbled to cheat with.
Last time I checked the 50g was their top of the line calculator. Well built, powerful enough and with a good, clear, easy to read BW lcd. Software wise... it has not changed much. The 50g uses its "powerful" 200mhz processor to emulate the old 4-8mhz saturn one, the software in gneneral is just a minor evolution from the one found in an older 49g, it runs faster but thats about it. The one gripe I have with the 50g is its battery life, probably related to the fact that it its running everything emulated.
Do I hope HP will do something about its aging calculator lineup? No.
Am I happy with the current calculators? Yes.
Will I be tempted to buy a Casio or a TI? Hell no, once you go RPN you never go back.
This is 2012. Not 1982 anymore.
The only reason TI is popular is because they pay off textbook makers and contribute to elections for school board executives. $120 for something with 1/5000th of the computing power of a smart phone? A rip off.
When I moved to Canada senior year at highschool they were all dumbfounded why I had such a strange device that costed so much. In this day and age wouldn't an Android shit tablet for the same price with a crippled version of Maple be better?
Call me cynical but I did not understand why 32k of ram more is still a premium for these calculators when I went back to school in 2004. I felt like I was living in 20 years in the past. The profit margins have to be insane
http://saveie6.com/
TI-fail. We've been talking, they haven't been listening. We don't want this (and I'm fairly sure I speak for Faculty and Students alike)
Don't get me wrong, color and higher resolution would be nice, but I'd much rather they sell the current device for what is more along the lines of what it costs to produce. Probably TI would still do quite well if they sold these beasts for $20....$120 is just ridiculous highway rapery prices.
Look, we (the faculty) need our students to use these. Are they outdated? Yes....but even though the students would get much more use out of tablets (which cost about the same) the TI83/84 are designed to be hard to program (and easy to reset). That coupled with the fact that they are the most sophisticated computational device that doesn't have WIFI access, we can be confident they give the students a level playing field during an exam of what is pretty much still the accepted amount of technological reliance needed to assist (but not interfere) with instruction of concepts from College Algebra/Calculus/Trig, etc. This is why we continue to use them. However, at the college I teach at, most of these are purchased by students who use them for one semester and then they become a worthless brick to the student. There isn't anything you can do with them besides try to resell them to someone else, and the cost is comparable to the textbook price, ie, significant (and don't get me started about book prices)
Its been a policy at my college that College Algebra (and above) courses require TI-83/84 calculators. However, as college continues to become more expensive many faculty are piloting alternatives. We're even getting to the point where we're considering letting the students use tablet/smartphone calculator apps (if they want) and just requiring they use a TI-83/84 at exams, which they would be able to check out or rent from the department during exams.
Power usage. I've got the same set of AAA batteries in my TI83+ that I put in back in college, and the thing still works. iphones and their ilk need to be recharged every day, sometimes more than once, just to run basic functionality. For quick calculations at your desk, or more to the point, away from your desk, nothing will beat a dead simple, low power device with physical buttons.
a student member of a popular graphing calculator hacking site
yeah, that my kind of crowd!
Three Squirrels
for me RPN, LISP and FORTH are the same in that regard: instead of coding, you built the parse tree explicitly the way you wanted it to be, not the way the interpreter/compiler decide to interpret your code. You do not think about operator precedence and evaluation order, you explicitly formulate it the way you want it to be evaluated and event tough it seems like that explicitation should increase the cognitive load its most good programmers that I know found that it decrease it... Now, rightfully, you could ask why... and to that question I have no answer.
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
Unless you are writing British English instead of American English, in which companies or organisations are considered plural entities in and of themselves, therefore the OP's grammar is just fine.
So I ask: Why do you, Slashdot users, like RPN?
I don't know that I can really articulate it, either, but I can report the results of an interesting experiment I participated in about 20 years ago.
I was an RPN-lover even then, having recently graduated from my 15C to a 28S, but most of the other geeks in the university computer lab where I spent a ridiculous amount of time couldn't see the sense in it. Late one night the discussion got somewhat heated and someone said that an advantage of RPN was that it was faster because it required fewer keystrokes. A measurable claim like that immediately sparked a demand for proof, so we decided to do some comparisons.
One guy got on the whiteboard and wrote down four very complex arithmetic expressions. Then for each expression, two candidates were selected, one from the RPN camp and one from the infix camp. Each was to write down on the board, under the expression, the series of keystrokes that would be needed to evaluate it. In all cases the RPN keystroke list was shorter, often considerably, but after the first was done everyone noticed a second interesting and unexpected outcome: The RPN-wielder finished writing down his keystroke list long before the infix-wielder -- and not just because of the number of keystrokes. Everyone watching noticed that the infix-proponent often paused for a second or two to think about how to handle the next bit, or stopped for a moment to go back to count up parentheses. In contrast, the RPN-er never paused, never hesitated, just wrote down keystrokes as fast as he could.
After that, we all decided that we should also time the remaining trials, which were all conducted with different candidates. The RPN user consistently finished 25% faster than the infix user, even though the keystroke list was only about 5% shorter.
Then someone (I think it was actually someone from the RPN camp) decided to write a truly horrendously complex expression. It had fractions nested at least ten layers deep and was, frankly, ridiculous. Two more stepped up to try and, once again, the RPN user wrote down keystrokes in a long list, without any more hesitation than it took to find his place in the expression. The infix guy, on the other hand got badly bogged down, backed up several times and ultimately gave up after his RPN competitor had been watching him struggle for five minutes.
To top it all off, actually punching all those keystrokes into real calculators showed that RPN was more accurate. On only one of the five problems was the RPN calculation not correct, while the infix calculation was incorrect on three out of five (determining which answers were correct took significant time and much arguing).
Bottom line, per our impromptu tests and my personal experience, RPN is faster and easier.
I could easily explain why it requires fewer keystrokes, but why exactly it requires less cognitive effort is harder to describe. I believe, though, that it's because when you use RPN you pick a "path" through the expression, and then just follow it. At each point along the path you only have to remember where you've been and where you're going. The calculator keeps track of the stack. With infix you have to manage the "stack" in your head, figuring out when to add and remove nesting levels with parentheses. That's not exactly right, but it's as close as I've been able to come.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.