PDA

View Full Version : Why doesn't TI at least miniaturize their graphing calculators?



Dustin2128
August 9th, 2010, 10:18 PM
I've looked at what kind of hardware TI's major graphing calculators (84, 89, 91) have on wikipedia. I understand they can't advance beyond a certain point because of school restrictions, but it's so incredibly poor, it just makes me wonder why they aren't miniaturized. My calculator is about 3/4 inch thick and weighs a pound. For what it has (2MB ROM, 128K RAM, 15Mhz processor) it should be... inconceivably small. Basically what I'm asking is: what's with the bulky form?

Bachstelze
August 9th, 2010, 10:19 PM
Cause they're for geeks, and geeks love to have the biggest one.

earthpigg
August 9th, 2010, 10:30 PM
Basically what I'm asking is: what's with the bulky form?

what motive do they have to spend the money to retool their factories to make the device smaller?

do students have any real choice about who they purchase their graphing calculator from?

this is why monopolies are a problem.

it would cost money to retool the factories, and it would not result in any greater profits.

cutting production costs really isn't a problem, because they can arbitrarily change the prices to whatever they want and students will still be forced to purchase.


TI-83: $80.
old laptop capable of running TI-83 emulator: $0.

i have several old laptops sitting around that i'd be happy to give you, if you want to come pick em up.

you will need to convince your teacher to let you use it on the test, though.

Dustin2128
August 9th, 2010, 10:33 PM
TI-83: $80.
old laptop capable of running TI-83 emulator: $0.

i have several old laptops sitting around that i'd be happy to give you, if you want to come pick em up.

you will need to convince your teacher to let you use it on the test, though.
Already purchased, the damage is done. Meh, at least I got one for 45$.

earthpigg
August 9th, 2010, 10:43 PM
Already purchased, the damage is done. Meh, at least I got one for 45$.

Friend gave me mine.

Anywho, the reason is because TI has no motive to make them smaller. It will cost them money, but not make them any money.

If math teachers force students to use decade old computers (TI-XX) on tests and disallow modern computer hardware, that merely tells me that I will never actually need to use any of the methods they are teaching me.

Once I am at the level of math wherein there aren't artificial restrictions on the computer I can use, I will know I have reached the level where I am actually learning useful stuff and not just being taught & tested on background theories used to build on future things.


I'd like to see math tests and the like broken into a few categories:
-normal mathematical problems. no computer, or no modern computer.
-application problems. allowed to use whatever will be at the disposal of a modern professional solving that problem in the field. netbook or laptop, at least.


I can't help but read application problems as having the unwritten prefix of "(Using crappy hardware and crappy software) John needs to find out the altitude of an aircraft bla bla bla..."

or maybe, "Jessica is unemployed and cannot afford a bus pass to the computers at the public library, but needs to find out..."

angryfirelord
August 9th, 2010, 11:52 PM
Probably because that would require changing its layout. I can pick up a TI-82 and a TI-84 and still be able to find most of its functions, despite them being more than a decade apart technology-wise. If you go any smaller, then that means adding more functions per button (to reduce buttons) and/or making the buttons smaller, which will create usability issues. I'm sure TI could make it smaller, but I don't really see how doing so would be beneficial for the average high school or college student.

MCVenom
August 9th, 2010, 11:59 PM
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/1996.png

Queue29
August 10th, 2010, 12:13 AM
1) They have a monopoly over the calculators-in-education market, meaning there is no incentive to change the product. Making changes would cost TI money, and they would make nothing extra in return, because they have basically already maximized their potential userbase.

2) Perhaps durability. The way the calculators are now, you can literally throw them against a brick wall and they will survive. I've seen it done.

Dustin2128
August 10th, 2010, 12:27 AM
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/1996.png
I knew it wouldn't take long.
And I agree with earthpigg. Or at least I would if owning a graphing calculator didn't make my math courses so easy.

angryfirelord
August 10th, 2010, 01:13 AM
2) Perhaps durability. The way the calculators are now, you can literally throw them against a brick wall and they will survive. I've seen it done.
Yeah, that's probably a good reason. I certainly couldn't see something like the iPhone being able to take the same amount of punishment.

TriBlox6432
August 10th, 2010, 01:37 AM
I don't know. I agree with XKCD. They need to make the displays a lot better, and they need to add a lot better specs for that price. For what it actually gives you, I should be spending change on it. Like just a couple bucks for how crappy it is.

Dustin2128
August 10th, 2010, 01:40 AM
I don't know. I agree with XKCD. They need to make the displays a lot better, and they need to add a lot better specs for that price. For what it actually gives you, I should be spending change on it. Like just a couple bucks for how crappy it is.
I agree.
The reason why the hardware is so terrible is so that you can never do too much with it, a big deal in a standardized environment. The main reason they somehow cost more than an (older) droid with orders of magnitude more power is because the school system has given them a total monopoly without a thought to the consequences.

TriBlox6432
August 10th, 2010, 02:05 AM
We need some competition. Seriously.

Simian Man
August 10th, 2010, 02:07 AM
We need a TI emulator for Android.

Legendary_Bibo
August 10th, 2010, 02:10 AM
I just wished they updated the hardware, they have better processors, and memory of that magnitude that'll suck up just as much battery power. I remember using my laptop for some math problems for the first time when we had to do 3d graphing. For my calculator it can take a while depending on the problem. For my laptop, it took 1/1,000,000th of a second, and it even had the heart to color it for me, smooth out the curves, and add a little reflection to it to make it look like plastic or something so I could easily examine it. My calculator gave me "Memory Error".

Dustin2128
August 10th, 2010, 02:20 AM
We need a TI emulator for Android.
:lolflag:

CJ Master
August 10th, 2010, 02:28 AM
inb4xkcd... oh wait.

Well this (http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/) should keep you xkcd lovers busy for a while at least ;)

I think we all with TI would improve their terrible hardware, but honestly they have no pressing need to. It won't happen for a while.

earthpigg
August 10th, 2010, 02:57 AM
the school system has given them a total monopoly without a thought to the consequences.

im certain they are aware of the consequences, but "everyone is doing it, so who cares?"

consider math text books.

unless you are a grad student, the stuff you are learning hasn't changed in a decade or more. so why are math professors OK with a new text book being required every year or two?

easy: they don't pay for the teacher's edition. it's free for them.

So... professor needs a new teacher's edition book because theirs got worn out? the professor gets a free copy if s/he switches to the newest edition.

ya, its unfortunate that the professor is forcing students to purchase new books instead of digging into the 'used' bargain bin... but all the other professors are doing it, so the 'guilt' is communal.

there have been lots of experiments and studies that reveal how communal guilt works.

slightly off topic, but revealing in an oblique way:

if you have ever wondered why various armies have automatic weapons in the exact same caliber as the rifle being used and not significantly more complicated, but train them to be fired as crew-served weapons with two people doing the killing instead of one... now you know.

from the Ancient world up until fairly recently, individual soldiers with individual weapons not actually trying to kill the enemy was a continual concern. this book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Killing:_The_Psychological_Cost_of_Learning_to_ Kill_in_War_and_Society) has a few chapters on the subject.

As I remember:
After the Battle of Gettysburg, it was found that some ridiculous percentage of rifles had never been fired. Soldiers where loading, aiming, not firing, lowering the rifle, and loading again on top of the previous charge. unfired rifles where found with 5 and more charges of gunpowder and minie balls all loaded on top of each other.

Part of why green units where less effective is that green units where not sufficiently dehumanizing the enemy, while veteran units had some genuine hate in their hearts - and thus where all shooting & doing so to kill. back to the green units, those did shoot could always shoot over the heads of the enemy to avoid having to kill. volley fire (introducing the communal element) was one way to address this, but not always possible given the chaos that would frequently exist.

From the 18th century up until ww2, artillery almost always killed more of the enemy than individually fired weapons - even when very little artillery was present at the given battle. same with crew-served machine guns, where the responsibility is shared amongst two or more men.

This has mostly been addressed by Western armies today. If learning the technical ability to fire a rifle is paramount, a round bulls-eye is the ideal target. This is what was used by armies starting at the advent of the accurate rifle. this (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/39828/2/M16_Series_Target.jpg) is what modern soldiers are trained to shoot at from day one. note the circle that continues to fulfill the role of the bulls-eye -- the thin circle cannot be seen from very far away, leaving only a human shape to shoot at. Dehumanization is doctrine.


back on topic -

ever met a teacher that is both very condescending to students, and has no problems handing out failing grades like candy without ever considering the possibility that perhaps his/her teaching methods have room for improvement? think there might be a correlation between the two?

Dustin2128
August 10th, 2010, 03:09 AM
Also rather off-topic, but I'm a huge supporter of open source text books, because as you said, chances are that the info in the text books hasn't changed in years. FOSS text books just make sense. Earthpigg, I thank you for writing such a long post, but I unfortunately fail to see the military analogy you were trying to make. Clarify perhaps?

My hopes are that in 10-20 years, school work will be done on a touch screen eink device. All books freely available, with a TI-whatever emulator as well.

red_Marvin
August 10th, 2010, 03:13 AM
If you are doing a level of math where you would actually need something more powerful than the t83, you are likely no longer restricted to it. I agree though that it is overpriced for what it can accomplish, and TI-BASIC can die in a fire (but is still somewhat useful).

wewantutopia
August 10th, 2010, 03:21 AM
HA... TI-BASIC! I remember in high school in the mid 90's when we were first allowed/required to have a graphing calc. Algebra class was teaching BASIC on early macs. We realized that the potential of the calcs and started making our own games and trading them. Found out people at other schools did the same thing and trading with them too. We were young game devs and didn't know it! Some kids made some pretty nice games too. I guess they were all FOSS too since you could see the code. I used to tweak other's games too.

TI should upgrade the screen/specs if only for better/faster games!

earthpigg
August 10th, 2010, 03:22 AM
Earthpigg, I thank you for writing such a long post, but I unfortunately fail to see the analogy you were trying to make. Clarify perhaps?

If all of the teachers are together participating in something that screws students over, then none of them feel guilty over it or see any need to change things.

like requiring students to have the nth edition of a text book, thus forcing them away from supercheap used text books.

imagine how stellar it would be if math professors used one of the many Free (speech) text books out there for a given subject. it would be great for students, but professors would not get the $0.00 teacher's edition. no professor feels guilty over this, because the professors as a community are doing it - and not that one individual professor.

when i, individually, tutor others in math (usually in preparation for placement tests) i use one of the many creative commons books instead of requiring that they purchase the book i already have.

i'd feel guilty for making them waste the money on a specific book for no reason because i am individually making that choice - even if it where more convenient for me.

im the rifleman, groups of professors are the machine gunners. if something is done as a community, little individual guilt is felt - so the community of professors gladly accept a brand new teacher's edition book every few years. even if it costs the students thousands of dollars that don't need to be wasted every time a new edition is introduced. even if it means an additional forest or two needs to be cut down.

the individual professor isn't killing those trees for no good reason or forcing students to chose between education and eating healthy. they are, together. and individually, feel little to no guilt.

brb, gonna make some top ramen and enjoy my vegetable-free dinner. :D

Dustin2128
August 10th, 2010, 03:36 AM
If all of the teachers are together participating in something that screws students over, then none of them feel guilty over it or see any need to change things.

like requiring students to have the nth edition of a text book, thus forcing them away from supercheap used text books.

imagine how stellar it would be if math professors used one of the many Free (speech) text books out there for a given subject. it would be great for students, but professors would not get the $0.00 teacher's edition. no professor feels guilty over this, because the professors as a community are doing it - and not that one individual professor.

when i, individually, tutor others in math (usually in preparation for placement tests) i use one of the many creative commons books instead of requiring that they purchase the book i already have.

i'd feel guilty for making them waste the money on a specific book for no reason because i am individually making that choice - even if it where more convenient for me.

im the rifleman, groups of professors are the machine gunners. if something is done as a community, little individual guilt is felt - so the community of professors gladly accept a brand new teacher's edition book every few years. even if it costs the students thousands of dollars that don't need to be wasted every time a new edition is introduced. even if it means an additional forest or two needs to be cut down.

the individual professor isn't killing those trees for no good reason or forcing students to chose between education and eating healthy. they are, together. and individually, feel little to no guilt.

brb, gonna make some top ramen and enjoy my vegetable-free dinner. :D
ah, thanks, that clears it up.

lisati
August 10th, 2010, 03:42 AM
Here's a novelty: make a calculator that can do basic arithmetic and not much else, and that costs about $80.

Wait..... that's similar to what I had 30-something years ago when I was at school, when hand-held calculators were still a fairly new idea, and home computers were even rarer.

<nostalgic rant begins>
My first x86-based machine, when new, would have cost something like $NZ3000. I got it second hand for $500. It had an 80286 running at 10MHz, a 10Mb hard drive (I think), Hercules graphics card that wasn't compatible with some of the games I wanted to run (there were CGA emulators that helped with some games), a Z80-based network card with a BNC connector rather different to the ethernet connectors we're used to these days, a 25-pin printer port, a serial port, a 1.2MB 5.25" floppy drive and it ran MS-DOS 3.21. No GUI, unless you count the runtime version of GEM that was included with a desktop publishing program I purchased. These days, for the same amount of money, you can get a lot more.
</end rant>

wewantutopia
August 10th, 2010, 03:51 AM
Here's a novelty: make a calculator that can do basic arithmetic and not much else, and that costs about $80.

Wait..... that's similar to what I had 30-something years ago when I was at school, when hand-held calculators were still a fairly new idea, and home computers were even rarer.

<nostalgic rant begins>
My first x86-based machine, when new, would have cost something like $NZ3000. I got it second hand for $500. It had an 80286 running at 10MHz, a 10Mb hard drive (I think), Hercules graphics card that wasn't compatible with some of the games I wanted to run (there were CGA emulators that helped with some games), a Z80-based network card with a BNC connector rather different to the ethernet connectors we're used to these days, a 25-pin printer port, a serial port, a 1.2MB 5.25" floppy drive and it ran MS-DOS 3.21. No GUI, unless you count the runtime version of GEM that was included with a desktop publishing program I purchased. These days, for the same amount of money, you can get a lot more.
</end rant>


That makes sense, $80 for a basic calc when it was new tech. They are obviously not new tech anymore and the price reflects that... heck you can get them for free some times or close to it.

Now imagine if you still had to pay mid `80's price for the same mid `80s computer TODAY when there are 6 core cpus 330+core gpus etc. Thats the issue with the TI-graphing calc. Crappy.

If they aren't going to (barely) improve the product in the past 1.5 decades, the price should at least be dropped substantially! (yeah, I know, monopoly created by school system)

wewantutopia
August 10th, 2010, 03:58 AM
Here's an interesting link to see how far the TI-graphing cals have come (or not)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Texas_Instruments_Graphing_Calculato rs

Legendary_Bibo
August 10th, 2010, 04:29 AM
Here's an interesting link to see how far the TI-graphing cals have come (or not)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Texas_Instruments_Graphing_Calculato rs

The best one was three years ago, and it's weaker than a cell phone. I bet you it's the most expensive too.