Calculator Community > TI Calculators
Is it possible to run a TI-84+ OS on a TI-84+CSE?
Xeda112358:
Yeah, but those are all part of the OS.
dreamdragon:
--- Quote from: DJ Omnimaga on January 17, 2014, 12:07:21 pm ---From what I remember, the bottleneck is really the LCD itself. The CPU is only capable of updating 4 LCDs worth of data every second because there's just too much data to update. Of course the LCD driver might be at cause too, but since the CPU is too slow for the large LCD itself to begin with, it barely makes a difference. On the older models, there is barely any data to send to the LCD so yes the slow LCD driver can make a noticeable difference. It's possible that the CSE has no LCD driver delay, though.
I think DrDnar once posted the t-states calculations showing the max possible frame rate on the CSE. Kerm's ball program also demonstrates how slow it can be by changing the entire LCD color before the ball animation starts.
EDIT: Ok I found it: http://ourl.ca/18368/338852
--- Quote from: DrDnar ---More technically, the controller only accepts 16- or 18-bit color, meaning 2 to 3 writes per pixel. Outputting a single pixel takes at least 29 clock cycles (for filling the screen with a single color). By contrast, the old controller needed about 100 clock cycles per write, but each write could send 8 pixels, so each pixel only averaged 12 clock cycles. So it takes three times as long to write a single pixel (if you want actual graphics), and the screen has 12.5 times as many pixels. The old controller can accept 120 96x64 frames per second (but it only displays at 60 fps); the new one, displaying only a shrunken 96x64 subsection, can only manage 60 fps. So, the maximum frame rate for full-screen display is 7 fps (0.15 sec/frame), and that's only possible if you're filling the screen with a single color. In practice, 5-6 fps (about 0.2 s/f) is the best you can possibly get for full screen graphics.
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
woah woah.
why would they put a slow cpu to run a bigger screen?
ordelore:
Because TI-CARESTM.
Anyway, as anyone who has seen a TI calculator at full retail price can attest to, TI wants to squeeze as much of our money as they can while also increasing their own profits. Look at the TI-84+, it used to come with extra Flash but then TI cut it to save ~$0.05. Still confused?
[xkcd=768]Explained[/xkcd]
DJ Omnimaga:
--- Quote from: ordelore on January 26, 2014, 06:51:59 pm ---Because TI-CARESTM.
--- End quote ---
They care?? O.O
--- Quote from: dreamdragon on January 26, 2014, 06:15:05 pm ---
--- Quote from: DJ Omnimaga on January 17, 2014, 12:07:21 pm ---From what I remember, the bottleneck is really the LCD itself. The CPU is only capable of updating 4 LCDs worth of data every second because there's just too much data to update. Of course the LCD driver might be at cause too, but since the CPU is too slow for the large LCD itself to begin with, it barely makes a difference. On the older models, there is barely any data to send to the LCD so yes the slow LCD driver can make a noticeable difference. It's possible that the CSE has no LCD driver delay, though.
I think DrDnar once posted the t-states calculations showing the max possible frame rate on the CSE. Kerm's ball program also demonstrates how slow it can be by changing the entire LCD color before the ball animation starts.
EDIT: Ok I found it: http://ourl.ca/18368/338852
--- Quote from: DrDnar ---More technically, the controller only accepts 16- or 18-bit color, meaning 2 to 3 writes per pixel. Outputting a single pixel takes at least 29 clock cycles (for filling the screen with a single color). By contrast, the old controller needed about 100 clock cycles per write, but each write could send 8 pixels, so each pixel only averaged 12 clock cycles. So it takes three times as long to write a single pixel (if you want actual graphics), and the screen has 12.5 times as many pixels. The old controller can accept 120 96x64 frames per second (but it only displays at 60 fps); the new one, displaying only a shrunken 96x64 subsection, can only manage 60 fps. So, the maximum frame rate for full-screen display is 7 fps (0.15 sec/frame), and that's only possible if you're filling the screen with a single color. In practice, 5-6 fps (about 0.2 s/f) is the best you can possibly get for full screen graphics.
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
woah woah.
why would they put a slow cpu to run a bigger screen?
--- End quote ---
The color screen was added as a gimmick to attract customers. Today, most kids are attracted by color screens, not monochrome screens that are hard to read. However, they decided to stick with the same hardware because they're greedy enough to save $0.05, as ordelore says.
If they replaced the Z80 CPU with an EZ80, I bet they would use this as an excuse to increase the price by $30-40. Just remember how the TI-83+SE costed $30-40 higher than the 83+ even though it only had an extra 1.3 MB of archive and a twice faster CPU.
--- Quote from: ordelore on January 26, 2014, 06:51:59 pm ---Because TI-CARESTM.
Anyway, as anyone who has seen a TI calculator at full retail price can attest to, TI wants to squeeze as much of our money as they can while also increasing their own profits. Look at the TI-84+, it used to come with extra Flash but then TI cut it to save ~$0.05. Still confused?
[xkcd=768]Explained[/xkcd]
--- End quote ---
Actually, it's RAM that was cut down (from 128 KB to 48). Flash remained intact. However, in the color model, RAM went back to 128 KB (for now).
fb39ca4:
I wouldn't call it greedy so much as doing business. They know the customer is willing to pay these prices for outdated hardware because of their near-monopoly in schools, so they can get away with it. Yes, the cost of production might not be much higher to add more flash memory, but like any sensible business, they set their prices to make the most profit. We will only see change if there is more significant competition from other companies.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version