0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
It seems there's been some confusion bewteen RAM and ROM in some posts above.TI's applications are stored in ROM (Flash-ROM).Casio's add-ins are equivalent, and are stored in ROM too.So the geometry add-in has nothing to do with the RAM of the Prizm.Let's sum up things again! To my knowledge:TI-83: 6MHz, 32Kb RAM (27Kb available to the user), 256Kb ROMTI-73: 6MHz, 32Kb RAM (24Kb available to the user), 512Kb ROM (64-192Kb available to the user, depending upon the installed OS)TI-83+: 6MHz, 32Kb RAM (24Kb available to the user), 512Kb ROM (160Kb available to the user)TI-83+SE: 16MHz, 128Kb RAM (24Kb available to the user), 2Mb ROM (1.5Mb available to the user)TI-84+ old: 16MHz, 128Kb RAM (24Kb available to the user), 1Mb ROM (480Kb available to the user)TI-84+SE old: 16MHz, 128Kb RAM (24Kb available to the user), 2Mb ROM (1.5Mb available to the user)TI-84+ new: 16MHz, 48Kb RAM (24Kb available to the user), 1Mb ROM (480Kb available to the user)TI-84+SE new: 16MHz, 128Kb RAM (24Kb available to the user), 2Mb ROM (1.5Mb available to the user)TI-Nspire with 84+ keypad: ??MHz, 128Kb RAM (24Kb available to the user), 2Mb ROM (1.5Mb available to the user)All those RAM/ROM informations are gathered in my following (french) document, and illustrated by various charts:http://ti.bank.free.fr/index.php?mod=archives&ac=voir&id=1130
Double-post Do any of TI's calcs support C by themselves?
It seems there's been some confusion bewteen RAM and ROM in some posts above.TI's applications are stored in ROM (Flash-ROM).Casio's add-ins are equivalent, and are stored in ROM too.So the geometry add-in has nothing to do with the RAM of the Prizm.Let's sum up things again! To my knowledge:TI-83: 6MHz, 32Kb RAM (27Kb available to the user), 256Kb ROMTI-73: 6MHz, 32Kb RAM (24Kb available to the user), 512Kb ROM (64-192Kb available to the user, depending upon the installed OS)TI-83+: 6MHz, 32Kb RAM (24Kb available to the user), 512Kb ROM (160Kb available to the user)TI-83+SE: 16MHz, 128Kb RAM (24Kb available to the user), 2Mb ROM (1.5Mb available to the user)TI-84+ old: 16MHz, 128Kb RAM (24Kb available to the user), 1Mb ROM (480Kb available to the user)TI-84+SE old: 16MHz, 128Kb RAM (24Kb available to the user), 2Mb ROM (1.5Mb available to the user)TI-84+ new: 16MHz, 48Kb RAM (24Kb available to the user), 1Mb ROM (480Kb available to the user)TI-84+SE new: 16MHz, 48Kb RAM (24Kb available to the user), 2Mb ROM (1.5Mb available to the user)TI-Nspire with 84+ keypad: ??MHz, 128Kb RAM (24Kb available to the user), 2Mb ROM (1.5Mb available to the user)All those RAM/ROM informations are gathered in my following (french) document, and illustrated by various charts:http://ti.bank.free.fr/index.php?mod=archives&ac=voir&id=1130
I think there's also a slight difference in speed between the 84+ and the 84+ SE.
Quote from: Deep Thought on October 11, 2010, 08:18:02 pmDouble-post Do any of TI's calcs support C by themselves?The 89/92+/V200 have an official SDK from TI for the making of flash apps, programmed in C.But it's a crappy C compiler, so no one uses it anymore (unless someone needs to make a flash app). People use TIGCC/GCC4TI or maybe GTC instead.
Yeah I remember downloading that from TI website. MY TI-83+SE CD has an even older version that has no TI-83+SE support and doesn't support 8xg files.
@Qwerty not really, it's pretty much the same. There are reports that the 83+SE BASIC is slightly faster than the 84+ and 84+SE though.
Quote from: TC01 on October 11, 2010, 08:48:51 pmQuote from: Deep Thought on October 11, 2010, 08:18:02 pmDouble-post Do any of TI's calcs support C by themselves?The 89/92+/V200 have an official SDK from TI for the making of flash apps, programmed in C.But it's a crappy C compiler, so no one uses it anymore (unless someone needs to make a flash app). People use TIGCC/GCC4TI or maybe GTC instead.The TI-73/83+/84+/83+SE/84+SE also have an official SDK including an emulator and a debugger.
Quote from: DJ Omnimaga on October 11, 2010, 08:50:22 pm@Qwerty not really, it's pretty much the same. There are reports that the 83+SE BASIC is slightly faster than the 84+ and 84+SE though.I remember something about the 84+ being a couple of cycles faster for some commands than the 84+ SE.