Talk:TI-83 series

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).

Request for external link addition

I would like to make a formal request to add http://www.celtickane.com/programming/ to the external links section of this page. It is my own website, so I wouldn't like to add it myself, but I would prefer that someone else review the website, and make the decision to add it. It contains some examples of programs that can be done on the TI-83 calculator. --Sugarskane 03:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links should be reserved for significant sites related to TI calculators only. The URL above also seems to have been removed. TI-42 Plus (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Series and the TI-84

To make it clear to whomever added "Series and the TI-84": The 84 is in the 83 series. I'm not going to revert that, but the calculators are essentially the same. --Andy Janata 4 July 2005 15:48 (UTC)

ticalc.org link

TiCalc.org no longer points to a useful site, so I have removed its link in the TI-83 series article -Chrono 04:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look more closely at any of the links, you'll see it's an april fools joke. Allynfolksjr 06:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link port

Does anyone know what type of port the "Link port" is? It look's like a 2,5mm jack or even 3,5mm... but I find it unlikely that it is. [—User:Aphex]

I think it's some other size between 2.5 and 3.5 mm. I had to cut one of the link cables in half to use for my own connector because a 3.5 mm plug doesn't fit and a 2.5 mm one is too small. Vadmium 23:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a 2.5mm plug. Allynfolksjr 23:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

What are the sources for the tech specs? Because they don't agree with the specs at http://www.ticalc.org/basics/calculators/ti-83plus.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Treasuretron (talk • contribs) 21:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Do you mean the 24 vs. 32 KB RAM and 160 vs. 512 KB Flash ROM? The page here on Wiki gives the hardware specs, ticalc tells what is available to the user. Technically (no pun intended) those specs are correct, but I don't mind doing a rewrite to make it correct and clear (such as on the TI-86 page, including 'user-accessible' everywhere it is appropriate). That would be quite a major edit, so I'll wait until someone agrees with me before actually doing it. RobVW 17:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that as long as you specified what is user-accessible and what isn't, and edit will be fine. Threefingeredguy 10:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C Programming

I have found no links regarding C Programmin on the 83 series. Are you sure this is possible?24.247.9.25 22:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a few pseudo-c compilers were made for the 83 series, but they were more of a proof of concept nature as the code is much too bloated and slow for the z80 CPU. Allynfolksjr 22:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a C compiler, orignally for the Z88 portable computer, and called Z88DK. It's been expanded to produce code for many other Z80-based micros, and isn't bloated or slow. C itself isn't too far from assembly language, a proper C compiler should produce fast and small code, subject to the source it's compiling of course. The TI-83 is one of Z88DK's supported machines. http://www.z88dk.org/ .

Secondly, a small point, but a "compiler" for assembly language is properly called an "assembler". The process is different from compiling, and so is the name. A good assembler might be a "macro assembler" or "symbolic assembler" depending on it's features. 188.29.165.69 (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think C should be removed as it is not a "real" language -Luby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.76.253 (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, assembly programming/compiling is possible on the TI83+ with the AsmPrgm command: http://tibasicdev.wikidot.com/asmprgm backstabb 00:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lowercase

How come my TI-83 can write in lowercase by pressing Alpha twice, but no one else's can? It's not a casemodded TI-89, and when i press it twice it ghanges from an uppercase A to a lowercase a. I can then write in full lowercase. Why? ~~mcfaddenator~~

You most likely have MirageOS or some other 3rd party application that has enabled a hook which allows this feature. Allynfolksjr 04:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pic of TI-83 plus

ive got a TI-83 plus (regular edition) that i could take a picture of. unless anyone thinks that 3 pics would be too much Connör 05:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not compatible with college calculus courses?

This section at the bottom about the TI-83 not being compatible with calculators designed for college calculus classes does not cite any sources, and just doesn't make sense. Why isn't it compatible? And if this is true then what calculators were the author comparing it to that are designed for college calculus courses? I've taken Calc 1-3, at more than one school, and the TI-83/83 Plus was the standard calculator...and furthermore, the TI-89 was explicitly not allowed. The only course I took in which the professor wanted us to use the TI-89 instead was differential equations. Although it has been a couple of years since I was in school, I still doubt this statement. Dstroma (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

83 development "codename"?

Did the 83, 84, or any of the TI calcs have internal development "codenames" at TI, like the codenames for Windows versions? --75.163.175.29 (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]