Talk:TI-89 series

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Computing: Software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Merge with TI-92 article?

Should this page be moved to "TI-89 and TI-92" or something (with redirects from both calculators)? Each calculator needs only about a paragraph of differentiation.... Paullusmagnus 17:31, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There is a confusion between TI-92 and TI-92+. The TI-92+ is the TI-89 with a qwerty keyboard and bigger screen. The TI-92 is _much_ different, inferior: no flash rom (AMS is not upgradable), less ram, and no support for other programming languages than ti-basic (though a very nice hack by David Ellsworth (Fargo) allowed the execution of assembly program, which opened the door for C, pascal, etc.). The TI-92+ was originally a TI-92 with a so called "plus module" plug in the back. Texas Instrument later dropped the TI-92, and made "native" TI-92+. I don't know anything about ams-dev either... (sorry to just comment and not contribute to the article... I'll do when I have time)

Eldacan 23:34, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No. They are distinct things. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ams-dev notability?

Someone should check the information about ams-dev, I can't find anything on it anywhere else on the net. In fact, googling "ams-dev" and "TI-89" returns one page - the Wikipedia article. Sam5550 01:18 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

TI-89 Titanium section

Can we move the TI-89 Titanium header of this article because the TI-89 Titanium has its own article?? Any objections?? 66.245.80.45 16:15, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I merged the Titanium content into the Titanium article, and added a short note to this article. --bdesham 16:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect root

How is the root of x+1 x^2 /2 +x?? lysdexia 04:24, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's an integral. Any idea on how to make that look more clear? We could just put it in a math block, but that doesn't make sense, because the problem is entered as a string of characters. Paul Stansifer 03:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

TI-89 Plutonium

I saw a section on the TI-89 Plutonium here a while ago. Was that for real? I was at ARML when they announced they were giving out TI-89 Plutonium calculators to the third place team: Lehigh Valley Fire. The whole auditorium was pretty surprised, and I haven't found anyone who knows whether this was a mistake or if it is really in the pipeline. Any insights? 69.117.13.253 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC) ARML NassauA[reply]

That sounds like patent nonsense. :) The Slimey 23:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Case swapping

I've never heard of "case swapping". Does this happen in the real world? The Slimey 02:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know its been done with the TI-83+ and 89. I actually seem to recall someone getting in trouble from collegeboard for doing this and taking the ACT with the "83+". Its been suspected, actually, that one of the reasons TI made the 84 and 89t's keys different shapes to prevent things like this occurring. Allynfolksjr 04:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone provide a source for this or is it just original research cruft. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section, for one of two reasons: it lacked resources, and was simply an instruction for such an act (assuming the possibility even exists). See: Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. - C.J. 19:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Case swapping" does exist. I know, first hand, "at least" ten kids who have done so themselves. I do, however understand that Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Therefore, I will re-post the "Case-Swapping" section and leave out the instructions on how to do so. I hope you respect my descion to spread this knowledge and not remove my contribution again. Thank You

Please sign your post (four tildes). Regardless of the fact that I have never heard of case-swapping outside of Wikipedia (and I've been active in the TI-89 community since 2001), I believe that the section as currently written is too short. I'll allow it to stay in. HOWEVER, it is (a) too short and (b) lacking resources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). Your interest in sharing your knowledge is appreciated. It just takes lots of work (look at my contributions and you'll see that I don't have time for major contributions). The Slimey 00:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm...I didn't realize there was discussion about this previously. I removed it from the article...We can add it in again if we find a reputable source which indicates this is a notable practise with the calculators. --HappyCamper 01:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I feel like I'm being inconsistent. Basically, yesterday (28-Apr-2007), someone with no editing history (User:169.232.90.122) deleted the section. I've reverted the deletion, because they didn't provide any rationale. The Slimey 05:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TI-89, not Ti-89 or ti-89

Texas Instruments' website refers to the calculator by the name "TI-89", so that is the name that should be used throughout the article Dav2008 01:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TI Connect

Perhaps it would be worth while mentioning its syncing software TI Connect. I've worked a little with the article and I think adding a link would be approprate, as it is one of the features (the ability to download new software) to the TI89 or any other TI calculators that support this function. Thanks! Xaios 07:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. My Titanium came bundled with that software, so it should at least be mentioned in the article. --Kamasutra 20:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computer vs. Calculator

How in the world does the shape of the keyboard determine whether something is a "computer" or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.76.192 (talk • contribs)

It doesn't. I'm not exactly sure what was meant by the statement so I don't know how it should be changed (removed?). --Kamasutra 20:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's really in the eye of the beholder. The TI-92 easily gives the impression of a PDA, while the TI-89 removes most of the keys and sticks to the form factor of a graphing calculator. BioTube 02:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Kamasutra. I think that the College Board disallows the TI-92 from SATs because the alphabetic keyboard would allow for people to type in the test questions, whereas it's harder to type fast enough on a normal calculator keyboard. (Don't trust this as fact, though.) The Slimey 02:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HW4patch.

Someone should post an external link to an asm patch for hw4. All I've been able to find are the outdated patches for hw2 and 3. Does anyone know where I can obtain this patch? --Nintendorulez talk 21:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HW3Patch v.1.03 added support for HW4. --Kamasutra 22:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TI-84's and -89's case swapping?

The cases of the TI-89 and TI-84 Plus can NOT be swapped, as the shape of the buttons at the top is different. I've edited this information out of the article.

Well, you might have to cut the plastic in places, but it's still possible... --Nintendorulez talk 20:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The case of the TI-98 Titanium and the case of the TI-84 Plus/Silver can be switched with out any trouble. --Harrisonhjones 02:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that information, Harrisonhjones. However, according to WP:CITE we need a real citation "for material that has been challenged". I'd consider this topic to have been challenged. Does anyone wish to come up with a citation? The Slimey 08:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance at the keys of the 84+ and 89T show that they are differently shaped, and while I haven't seen it explicitly stated from TI, possibly one of the main reasons for the difference is to prevent the case swapping that was easily accomplished using a 83+ and 89 (which used the same keyshapes). Allynfolksjr 19:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High School Math?

Can someone explain why this article consists mostly of the calculator's ability to perform/simplify algebraic and trigonometric expressions? Many calculators can do this, and it is certainly not the primary function of the machine. 130.134.81.16 20:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to add more content on other topics? The Slimey 04:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case swapping section (word choice)

I changed the phrase "switching on" to "turning on" because I personally had to reread the sentence several times to understand the meaning. "Switching" is poor word choice to describe powering the calculator on, as the entire section pertains to "switching" the cases of calculators in the first place. To avoid this problem, I changed the phrase to something less confusing. It looks like it's since been changed back and I'm not sure why anyone would think it's better the way it was. (My apologies if I'm not following conventions with this comment, this is my first time using a talk page. I rarely edit anything on the site besides typos and word choice.) 71.58.102.233 17:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even thought this is probably pushing tombstones.. both are valid.. switching is derrived from the action of moving the blade of a switch.. as in "switching the position of the on/off switch", and turning was taken from the early light switches in homes, and engines. Early light switches were screw type terminals, where you turn the plastic/baccalite knob until two internal metal plates made contact.. hence "turning on or off the light". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.32.105 (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, I never knew all that. Quite interesting to know, and explains maybe how all-in-one on/off-and-dimmer knob-type light controls came to be.

ANYWAY ... how about "powering on / off"? That would be the clearest. Though "turning" is the most common way to say "supplying or removing power from a system" that I've seen in daily parlance, so it should be acceptable without any explanation.

(And ... might it not trace back both further, and far more recently - to the turning of a key in a barrel-lock type switch? Both for lights (early electric lights did indeed use a key, though AFAIK it was more a traditional ward-key than a cylinder type), and for car engines...) 146.90.199.209 (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor math edit

Would anyone here be offended if I changed the ${\sqrt {3}}/2$ block to ${\frac {\sqrt {3}}{2}}$ , since that's how my 89 Titanium displays it? --T3thys::ben (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Case swapping" section

I'm here wondering about the case swapping section. Should we delete it altogether or put it in a more appropriate article such as the graphing calculator or case modding. My thoughts on moving the section are that it seems too generalized to be in an article about a specific calculator model and should go elsewhere if there is enough reliable sources about it. Any ideas? - Dlrohrer 2003 20:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the paragraph on "reverse case swapping" because I can't really find anything online about it, and there aren't any citations. The Slimey 00:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 68000 is "32 bit" now?

Er ... it has certain technically "32 bit" features (mainly a certain pair of registers), but even the most charitable observers usually put it in the 16-bit category - given the data bus width and most internal data operations are 16-bit, it only has 24-bit memory addressing (same as the 80286 (and crippled may-as-well-be-a-16-bit 386SX)), etc, etc. I don't see many opining that the original Mac, Atari ST, Amiga, Genesis etc are 32-bit machines. Motorola's 32-bit era didn't really kick off until the 68020 came along. So can I change that "32" to a "16"? After all, a 10mhz, cycle-efficient-instruction-set 16 bit processor with 256kb of working memory and 2mb of program storage still puts it streets ahead of a lot of the (Z80-based) opposition... 146.90.199.209 (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is that it implements a 32bit Instruction Set Architecture (the one named after itself, 68000), thus it is a 32bit CPU. Implementation details "it has a 16bit ALU inside" or "it communicates over a 16bit bus outside" are actually just implementation details. Today we have CPUs implementing RV64GC with flexible 4-64bit ALUs to fit a range of FPGA sizes (which doesn't make them 4-64bit CPUs), and microcontroller chips without a CPU bus outside (which doesn't make them 0bit CPUs). Only the ISA matters for calling a CPU 32bit or else.37.133.96.191 (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Online version of TI-89

The online version of TI-89 Titanium is named TI-89 Online Simulator. The name is not Emulator

source: https://ti89-simulator.com/

TI-89 Online Simulator has the same features as the calculator.

MacApps (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)MacApps[reply]

References for "Hardware versions"

I noticed that the "Hardware versions" subsection has no citations whatsoever. As I'm unfamiliar with Wikipedia customs, I won't add references to https://web.archive.org/web/20230606134357/http://tict.ticalc.org/docs/J89hw.txt (the original went down last week) or https://debrouxl.github.io/gcc4ti/ as neither (especially the first & more useful page) probably qualify as a reliable source. Out of my experience with these devices, I don't know of any better sources for the subsection though. Asdf2jkl (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]