This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - CVSoft
46
« on: December 20, 2012, 09:13:18 pm »
I was thinking of something along the lines of Pterodactyl, which gives 16 kB on a TI-86 but breaks compatibility with assembly and ASAP programs. Edit: The 86 already supports RAM paging. That makes it easy.
47
« on: December 20, 2012, 09:09:35 pm »
:Pause "HI"
continues to amaze my fellow classmates to this day.
48
« on: December 20, 2012, 09:04:48 pm »
With enough hacking, would it be possible to patch the 84+ calcs to use the extra 16 KB? Or does the OS use it?
49
« on: December 20, 2012, 08:58:27 pm »
TI doesn't plan on adding support for more RAM (AFAIK), so why include it?
The TI-86 can have 102 KB of RAM, but they reserved a page for Assembly. The MEM screen also didn't support 6-digit numbers.
50
« on: December 13, 2012, 08:26:31 pm »
Wonderflonium edition?
When you drop a calc, they tend to bounce...
51
« on: December 13, 2012, 08:15:38 pm »
when will they make a ti-84+CGE?
(gold edition)
with 10MB RAM 
I think 'Platinum Edition' or 'Plutonium Edition' would sound better. I'm just deeply saddened by the lack of RAM; hopefully programs can run from archive, like the 68k calcs could.
52
« on: November 23, 2012, 06:36:17 pm »
Wow wtf? Is it just because it can be used in business/retail?
Printing calculators tend to be disproportionally expensive because the printers are expensive. There's also quite a bit of profit because printing calculators are a niche product necessary to a business. Although I live right next to OfficeMax, I can't go and look at their prices 
53
« on: November 17, 2012, 01:02:57 pm »
Looking around on Datamath and eBay, they all appear to be first-generation TI-81s manufactured in the second half of 1992, which is immediately before the release of the TI-82. I'm not sure if it had to do with a limited supply of the screens or just profit-reaping.
54
« on: August 14, 2012, 05:43:38 pm »
I couldn't find anything about a P129-1, but I did find a P124-1. Perhaps the numbers could have been read incorrectly. Do you have a picture of it?
55
« on: July 26, 2012, 07:22:30 pm »
"Outputting something at the end of a program no longer prevents the "Done" message from displaying."
That's my problem. I'll just downgrade to 2.43, as that seems to be the solution.
56
« on: July 26, 2012, 06:16:21 pm »
I just got my TI-84 Plus with 2.55MP. When I put my TI-83 programs on it, they had the accursed "Done" after execution. They all end with an Output( command. Is there any BASIC code I could put at the end of the program to prevent the "Done" from appearing? If not, is there any program that will remove it for me?
57
« on: January 27, 2012, 05:53:11 pm »
Looking closer, it seems the gray screens are more pixely than the blue screens. That means only the third one used a blue screen, which seems correct. I should look before I post  .
58
« on: January 27, 2012, 05:23:22 pm »
I found clearer pics of TI-81 screens on Datamath via web archive. Those show a change in screen starting in ~1995, consistent with below. However, there were only two at the time.
Based on comparison, I noticed the following trend, listed in order of appearance on the current Datamath page:
The ES cannot be determined, appears blue
The second appears to have a blue screen
The third has a blue screen
The fourth has a gray screen
The fifth has a gray screen
Seems they reduced quality then. For cost reasons they probably put in a lower-quality screen in the very first ones to see how well it performed in the market (?). That's just my guess.
eBay also makes a good photo repository IMO.
60
« on: January 03, 2012, 06:43:35 pm »
I've forgotten to say that the returned key may need to be stored (many complicated reasons [simulated keypresses over link on 83+]) but that's an easy fix.
Parser: This code only seems to work on the 83 series; it returns 0 for Ans on the 85 series. It is about as small as it gets without starting any contests.
Builderboy: That code works well for the 85/86; I realized the 0→x part was unnecessary as Repeat doesn't test before running.
Thank you both for your help!
|
Show Posts