conte@crest.crhc.uiuc.edu (Tom Conte) (09/06/90)
Today I took a look at one of the first TI-81's that our bookstore received. Here are some (rather sketchy) first impressions: The calculator is about as long and wide as the 48SX, but not quite as thick. It had a snap-on cover that swings around and locks onto the back. The keys have three functions: primary (on the key face), 2nd (above) and alpha (to the lower left). There are no soft keys, but there are cursor keys. There are also menu keys. Let me explain. Instead of having a menu appear in the last line, the menu's appear in vertical lists: 1: Prgm1 2: Prgm2 3: Prgm3 And there are functions (written in all-caps) that appear above the menus. One selects a function using (48SX-style) cursor keys, it hightlights, then one hits ENTER. The cursor suggests the mode. Alpha mode has a blinking `A' as the cursor, for example. The display is an LCD of better-than-28S quality contrast (IMHO). The keys are the (in)famous `squishy' type. I believe the display had eight lines to it. It uses algebraic logic (of course) and has a last value stack (or paperless printer) much like the 27S. Graphing is done in several steps: you hit `Y=' which displays a menu of formulas to graph. You enter the formulas using `X|T' as the independent variable. the RANGE key brings up a menu to select an appropriate range (no auto-ranging, aparently), and GRAPH performs the graphing process. You can digitize points using the arrow keys. There seems to be symbolic math support, with differentiation (symbolic integration? I don't know). The inside cover claims the overall design was inspired by a text on calculus published by Addison-Weseley. The memory seems flat (no directories), but values and equations can be named. Programs occupy a different `space' from variables. Programming is imperitive in nature, much more an outgrowth of the earlier `keystroke programming' style than RPL is. Control flow is via a GoTo to a line number, with a compliment of traditional conditional tests. I don't know how much memory the machine has. I don't know if it is expandable, but the manual mentioned nothing of the sort. The case seemed to not have any places for modules, but again, I'm not sure. Overall, the machine was easier to use than a 28S (dag nammit). Of course TI is famous for taking ideas from HP, improving on them a touch, and packaging them at a lower price. This feels like an improved 28S, targeted to catch that market, not something that compares to the 48SX. No equation writer on the 81. No polar plots. No directories, no libraries, etc. However, It is the first TI in a very long time I actually contemplated buying. I'm an HP calculator collector (the few, the proud). Liking a TI for me means they've come a long way. ------ Tom Conte Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing conte@uiuc.edu University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois Bachelor tip #48: used gym socks make great no-pest strips!
jurjen@cwi.nl (Jurjen NE Bos) (09/06/90)
conte@crest.crhc.uiuc.edu (Tom Conte) writes: [ Information about TI81 deleted ] ] The memory seems flat (no directories), but values and equations ] can be named. Programs occupy a different `space' from variables. ] Programming is imperitive in nature, much more an outgrowth of the ] earlier `keystroke programming' style than RPL is. Control flow ] is via a GoTo to a line number, with a compliment of traditional ] conditional tests. ] Overall, the machine was easier to use than a 28S (dag nammit). Of ] course TI is famous for taking ideas from HP, improving on them a ] touch, and packaging them at a lower price. This feels like an ] improved 28S, targeted to catch that market, not something that ] compares to the 48SX. No equation writer on the 81. No polar ] plots. No directories, no libraries, etc. Sounds like an improved 28C to me, not S. -- | | "Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what | | Jurjen N.E. Bos | it might appear to others that what you were or might | | | have been was not otherwise than what you had been | | jurjen@cwi.nl | would have appeared to them to be otherwise." |
wscott@ecn.purdue.edu (Wayne H Scott) (09/06/90)
In article <2073@charon.cwi.nl> jurjen@cwi.nl (Jurjen NE Bos) writes: >conte@crest.crhc.uiuc.edu (Tom Conte) writes: > >[ Information about TI81 deleted ] > >] Overall, the machine was easier to use than a 28S (dag nammit). Of >] course TI is famous for taking ideas from HP, improving on them a >] touch, and packaging them at a lower price. This feels like an >] improved 28S, targeted to catch that market, not something that >] compares to the 48SX. No equation writer on the 81. No polar >] plots. No directories, no libraries, etc. > >Sounds like an improved 28C to me, not S. > I don't think so. I feel on the the main advantages of the 28 machines, once you get past the fancy features, is the RPN programming language. The 28s have a programming language not a fancy scripting language. It would not be where it is now if a program was just a sequence on key strokes with gotos. -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Wayne Scott | INTERNET: wscott@en.ecn.purdue.edu Electrical Engineering | BITNET: wscott%ea.ecn.purdue.edu@purccvm Purdue University | UUCP: {purdue, pur-ee}!en.ecn.purdue.edu!wscott