Talk:Comparison of Texas Instruments graphing calculators

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 January 2015 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Computing 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 Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Predecessors[edit]

Does anybody else think that the predecessors list is a dumb addition to this page? They're in order! In addition, the 81 lists "no predecessors," but what about the 80? 159.250.29.18 20:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The TI-89 Titanium isn't in order. The TI-92 was actually before it.--71.255.53.94 (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the TI graphing calculators are in several different families. The 81,82,83s, and 84s are all in a family geared toward high school students. The 85 and 86 were geared toward college and engineering. The 89s, 92s were geared for very advanced applications, etc. The 80 was designed, I believe, for middle schoolers as an entry level graphing calculator. That was the reason for the predecessors and superceedors. However, it is a feature that could be done without. Anyone else have thoughts on this? Benrr101 (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How could a calculator that was released in 1995 have been superseded by a calculator that was released in 1990? Is this some new usage of "superseded" that I am unaware of? 75.72.244.42 (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The TI-80 was designed for middle-school students so it had some features removed. 108.86.226.157 (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TI-Nspire Specs[edit]

Am I the only one that is curious of where the unconfirmed 2.53GHz processor in the Nspire came from? That would put the CPU in the range of at least a P3 assuming its cache and everything other than speed was atrocious. I'm currently looking at mine I doubt it's that powerful. It should probably be changed to unconfirmed unless someone sources it.- Nintendonien (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted the 2.53 GHz clock speed since I didn't find anything to corroborate that while searching. Although I did find a few sites saying that it could be around 90 MHz, though none of them seemed authoritative enough to reference. - Dlrohrer 2003 19:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decimal vs. Binary[edit]

The lack of consistency between using decimal and binary notation for memory here confuses me. Would it be correct to replace every instance of KB with KiB and MB with MiB here, or are the values correct as stated? I apparently missed the big SI vs IEC nerd-fest in college, so I'm not crystal clear on whether using the SI units is ever appropriate when talking about computer memory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.254.126 (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They need to replace every appearance of "KB/MB/GB/..." with "thousand/million/billion/..." or "binary kilobyte/binary megabyte/binary gigabyte/..." to be less ambiguous. KiB/MiB/GiB works but only for the obvious cases like size of RAM. The fact that even in 2011 this was still a problem (and I still get asked this) shows it was a political decision with no concern for practicality or understanding how (human) languages actually work. No exceptions to spell out the (proper, decimal) powers using a second letter is why it failed as a 'patch' to incorrect usage. 47.221.236.73 (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nspire Programming[edit]

Should we note that the Nspire Basic is very limited in the programming section? 108.86.226.157 (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, but I don't know in what way it should be noted. JosJuice (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the TI-Nspire X TI-Basic grid say "Yes, but very limited." Also use yellow. 108.86.226.157 (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calculator sizes[edit]

We should add a column listing the physical dimensions of the calculators, because that may be important to someone who is looking for a calculator that, for example, can fit comfortably in their pocket.12Me21 (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TI 84 Plus CE[edit]

Is it appropriate to mention the TI 84-Plus CE. It is an upgrade from the TI 84-Plus and adds a color screen and more memory at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.164.12.95 (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Character Sets[edit]

Just as it was done in Comparison of HP graphing calculators, it would be useful to insert a column describing what character set was used by each calculator in the main table. ‑‑🌀⁠SilSinn^AL982100⁠💬 19:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_Texas_Instruments_graphing_calculators&diff=prev&oldid=939842354 Yeah, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't just randomly start deleting entire columns after people went to great effort to check and enter them. This happens enough as it is on technical articles. It devalues the comparison tables when someone actually wants that information, regardless if "too much information" (in a column people can ignore). It's not just irrelevant information, either. 47.221.236.73 (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]