AAARGH! It doesn't do that to me. Mine's a TA3 (port 15=69d/45h).

Also, you're right chickendude about the typo. The hex code by that instruction, however, is correct. Unfortunately, there was a different error in the hex codes; see above for the correction.

EDIT: I had posted another here but it's broken and I don't know why.

Now the second test gives me an instant "RAM cleared".

Are you sure it says 69? Double check that you typed in everything correctly.

If this is for-real, then it's released to the public. It's just no in brick-and-mortar stores yet. It makes sense for TI to divert the initial production runs to online retailers, who can sell them directly to the limited number of customers who want one now, rather than having them languish in stores, during the months when few students are looking to buy a calculator.

Although we know a lot about the TI-8x ASICs, there still remains significant work to be done. Recently, I have discovered something new that needs to be confirmed. You can help confirm this by typing in the following program and posting your results. This test can be performed by TI-83+SE, TI-84+, and TI-84+SE users; the TI-83+ is not relevant. If you have a MathPrint OS, disable MathPrint before trying this and clear the homescreen. The information from this test relates to port 27h and is realted to accessing the extra RAM pages. It may be of use to operating system writers, assembly programmers, and Axiom writers.

:AsmPrgm
:DB156F2600
:EF0745EF2E45
:F31E801686
:0E052100C173
:ED51723EFF
:D327463CD327
:ED79FB260068
:EF0745EF2E45
:C9
(For assembly experts:)
; Yes, I know you can optimize this by at least two bytes.
in a, (15h) ; DB15
ld l, a ; 6F
ld h, 0 ; 2600
b_call(_DispHL) ; EF0745
b_call(_NewLine) ; EF2E45
di ; F3
ld e, 80h ; 1E80
ld d, 86h ; 1686
ld c, 05 ; 0E05
ld hl, 0C100h ; 2100C1
ld (hl), e ; 73
out (c), d ; ED51
ld (hl), d ; 72
ld a, 0FFh ; 3EFF
out (27h), a ; D327
ld b, (hl) ; 46
inc a ; 3C
out (27h), a ; D327
out (c), a ; ED79
ei ; FB
ld h, 0 ; 2600
ld l, b ; 68
b_call(_DispHL) ; EF0745
b_call(_NewLine) ; EF2E45
ret ; C9

Run this like a regular assembly program. It should print two numbers. The first will is the ASIC ID and will be either 51 (TI-83+SE), 68 (TA2), 69 (TA3), or 85 (TA1, what all new calcs have); the second will be either 128 or 134.


If you don't mind causing a RAM reset, there's a second test you can perform. This test is related to custom interrupts. The test will cause a crash, hang, freeze, or otherwise errant behavior if it fails; if it passes, the busy indicator will keep scrolling until you press CLEAR (give it half a minute or so). If the above code printed 69 for the first number, this should pass if I'm right. If I'm right, all other values will cause a crash. Do not use any shells. Doing so is likely to cause a false negative. The test is simply this:
:AsmPrgm
:FBED46FD3421
:10FBEF1840
:FE0F20F1
:ED5676C9
Assembly = _: ei \ im 0 \ inc (iy+asm_flag1) \ djnz $-3 \ b_call(_GetCSC) \ cp skClear \ jr nz -_ \ im 1 \ halt \ retIf this test passes with the first number from the above test being anything other than 69, let us know; it could provide a great optimization for Axe.

The flash chip is unlikely to be worn out. The TI-89 AMS operating system is smarter than the TI-83+ EOS. It avoid unnecessary un/archiving. It's more likely to be a corruption issue, but I sadly can't really help you with fixing that. The TI-89 platform doesn't have (to my knowledge) a program like MicrOS that could be used to identify and fix the corrupted data.

I don't recall anything in particular about 1.17. According to WikiTI, there are no known differences between 1.16, 1.17, and 1.18; but the Wiki might just be out of date. Regardless, 1.17 won't prevent you from downgrading or upgrading. I do recall having it on my TI-83+SE for a while without causing any unique issues.

And after all, since when did TI made sense?

They made sense in the 90s. Paying more than $100 for a TI-83+ was perfectly reasonable in 1997. A TI-83+ back then might well be the only computer a student owned; indeed, for many families, it was likely the only user-programmable computer in the house. The TI-83+SE was a nice upgrade over the TI-83+. However, the increasing presence of the personal computer and advances in portable consumer electronics have made the devices nearly obsolete. The only reason a student should use a graphing calculator rather than a smart phone is the graphing calculator is approved for classroom use.

But, I think the TI-83+ can still have a market presence. If the MSRP for the TI-84+ was dropped to around $30, TI could still turn a profit, and students would be more likely to buy a real calculator. Moreover, they aren't capitalizing on its educational use correctly. They should add a blinking test-guard LED to the TI-84+CSE and switch to an eZ80, or at least one of the other more advanced derivatives of the Z80. The eZ80 would make the TI-84+CSE faster and therefore more pleasant to use. Moreover, they could develop new software for it cheaply using C, furthering its educational potential, while simultaneously maintaining compatibility with existing software. Namely, the OS itself could run on an eZ80 without substantial changes. (But, it would be wise to deprecate the paging functionality. That might not play well with pipelining, because the memory mapping change might not reach the memory mapper until after subsequent instructions have already been fetched. This is not a hard problem to overcome.)