Author |
Message |
|
critor
Member
Joined: 04 Feb 2009 Posts: 132
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ztrumpet
Active Member
Joined: 06 May 2009 Posts: 555
|
Posted: 04 Oct 2009 05:42:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How do you know which are the TI-REF 83PLUSB/TA2 chips and which are the TI-REF 83PLUSB/TA2 chips? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
critor
Member
Joined: 04 Feb 2009 Posts: 132
|
Posted: 04 Oct 2009 11:38:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ztrumpet wrote: How do you know which are the TI-REF 83PLUSB/TA2 chips and which are the TI-REF 83PLUSB/TA2 chips?
Only by opening the calculators...
And you can't open your friend's calculator of course :biggrin:
My guess is:
* TI-84+(SE) manufactured by S with 1.00 boot code, have the TI-REF 83PLUSB/TA2
* TI-84+(SE) manufactured by S with 1.02 boot code, have the TI-REF 84PLUSB/TA3
* TI-84+(SE) manufactured by P with 1.02 boot code, have the TI-REF 84PLCR/TA1
(and for the 3 last days, I think I've been guessing quite well )
But it'll be very helpful too, if you report us some serial+test during "critic" periods.
The important think for the moment, is to determine more precisely "when" the changes did happen. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
thepenguin77
Advanced Newbie
Joined: 17 Jul 2009 Posts: 72
|
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 02:36:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well I've got some interesting updates.
S-0607H FAIL (I tested this a few times to make sure)
P-0308K FAIL
K-0308J ???? Just another number for organizing purposes. But manufacterer K?
Still working on that other H, it also failed.
Last edited by Guest on 05 Oct 2009 02:40:00 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
critor
Member
Joined: 04 Feb 2009 Posts: 132
|
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 03:17:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
thepenguin77 wrote: Well I've got some interesting updates.
S-0607H FAIL (I tested this a few times to make sure)
P-0308K FAIL
K-0308J ???? Just another number for organizing purposes. But manufacterer K?
Still working on that other H, it also failed.
Very interesting information.
So the S-0607H did fail.
Maybe the S-factory sarted including the new TA1 chip, before production was transfered.
To be sure, it would be interesting to open that TI-84+, and look at the chip.
P-0308K did fail, that's coherent.
K-0308J did fail.
It's interesting to know there has been another manufacturer.
Note we have no TI-84+ manufactured between 06/2007 and 03/2008.
Maybe calculators manufactured during that period, comes from the K-factory.
I've updated the table -> http://www.unitedti.org/index.php?showtopi...st&p=137113
Other tests for H-L revisions (2007-2008) are very welcome.
(because that's where the problems are... to check other H-revisions... a L-revision did strangely pass the test too, serial unknown for now... to check if there are other calculators manufactured by K...)
Other revision tests are welcome too - to confirm (I hope) our hypothesis.
If there wasn't that L-revision which did pass the test, I would say:
hardware revisions H and above don't have the 128K RAM chip
That calculator (if ever found back) really needs to be opened...
By the way, a big thanks to everybody who conbrituted to our tests or analysis.
I would have done nothing without you.
Last edited by Guest on 05 Oct 2009 03:30:12 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ztrumpet
Active Member
Joined: 06 May 2009 Posts: 555
|
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 04:00:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Critor, we would have done nothing without you. Thanks for the big push!
===========================================
I checked the L that passed again. It did not. I mis-recorded it. Sorry
I was not able to "look at" my teacher's calc ( #8 ) today. Mabey tomorrow...
Here are the ones I tested.
Code: # |Serial |128K RAM test |LCD FPS test |Boot Code |CPU |Type |OS |ALCDFIX|Date (approx.)
| |(OK/FAIL) |(120/240/280) |(1.00/1.02) |(MHz) |(BE/SE)| | |
--+--------------------+----------------+---------------+------------+------+-------+-------+-------+--------------
1 | 2635016775 P-0509M |FAIL |240 |1.02 |15.9 |SE |2.43 |No |9-9-09
2 | 1142038377_K-0906B |PASS |120 |1.02 |15.4 |BE |2.40 |Yes |8-07
3 | 2154083172 S-0505D |PASS |120 |1.02 |14.6 |SE |2.30 |No |???
4 | 2375092915 S-0307G |PASS |120 |1.02 |15.3 |BE |2.40 |No |8-07
5 | 2365063662 S-0207G |PASS |240 |1.02 |15.1 |SE |2.43 |No |8-07
6 | 2375073100 S-0307G |PASS |120 |1.02 |15.6 |SE |2.40 |Yes |8-07
7 | 2508109508 P-0408L |FAIL |120 |1.02 |15.9 |SE |2.43 |Yes |8-08
9 | 2335046124 S-0507H |FAIL |240 |1.02 |15.7 |SE |2.40 |No |8-07
10| 2518146239 P-0508M |FAIL |240 |1.02 |15.7 |SE |2.43 |No |8-08
11| 2395046321 S-0507H |FAIL |240 |1.02 |15.7 |SE |2.40 |No |8-07
12| 2478028453 P-0108K |FAIL |240 |1.02 |15.6 |SE |2.43 |No |8-08
For now, it seems that all TI-84+ made in the P-factory fails the extra-RAM test, and the S made H. There is also a K manufacture.
Note: There is an underscore before the K on #2. #2 also was bought in 07, yet is a "B" with a really low serial number. Wierd?
Also note: My calc (the first on this list) was already on the main table.
It just occurred to me: We don't have any "I"s.
Last edited by Guest on 05 Oct 2009 04:08:13 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
critor
Member
Joined: 04 Feb 2009 Posts: 132
|
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 04:09:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ztrumpet wrote: Critor, we would have done nothing without you. Thanks for the big push!
===========================================
I checked the L that passed again. It did not. I mis-recorded it. Sorry
I was not able to "look at" my teacher's calc ( #8 ) today. Mabey tomorrow...
Here are the ones I tested.
Code: # |Serial |128K RAM test |LCD FPS test |Boot Code |CPU |Type |OS |ALCDFIX|Date (approx.)
| |(OK/FAIL) |(120/240/280) |(1.00/1.02) |(MHz) |(BE/SE)| | |
--+--------------------+----------------+---------------+------------+------+-------+-------+-------+--------------
1 | 2635016775 P-0509M |FAIL |240 |1.02 |15.9 |SE |2.43 |No |9-9-09
2 | 1142038377_K-0906B |PASS |120 |1.02 |15.4 |BE |2.40 |Yes |8-07
3 | 2154083172 S-0505D |PASS |120 |1.02 |14.6 |SE |2.30 |No |???
4 | 2375092915 S-0307G |PASS |120 |1.02 |15.3 |BE |2.40 |No |8-07
5 | 2365063662 S-0207G |PASS |240 |1.02 |15.1 |SE |2.43 |No |8-07
6 | 2375073100 S-0307G |PASS |120 |1.02 |15.6 |SE |2.40 |Yes |8-07
7 | 2508109508 P-0408L |FAIL |120 |1.02 |15.9 |SE |2.43 |Yes |8-08
9 | 2335046124 S-0507H |FAIL |240 |1.02 |15.7 |SE |2.40 |No |8-07
10| 2518146239 P-0508M |FAIL |240 |1.02 |15.7 |SE |2.43 |No |8-08
11| 2395046321 S-0507H |FAIL |240 |1.02 |15.7 |SE |2.40 |No |8-07
12| 2478028453 P-0108K |FAIL |240 |1.02 |15.6 |SE |2.43 |No |8-08
For now, it seems that all TI-84+ made in the P-factory fails the extra-RAM test, and the S made H. There is also a K manufacture.
Note: There is an underscore before the K on #2. #2 also was bought in 07, yet is a "B" with a really low serial number. Wierd?
Also note: My calc (the first on this list) was already on the main table.
Thanks!
I'm updating my table.
I couldn't find any information about a K-manufacturer (although it does exist).
Here is a small list of TI common manufacturer locations:
I - Taiwan
K - ?
N - China
P - China
S - China |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ztrumpet
Active Member
Joined: 06 May 2009 Posts: 555
|
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 04:12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow!
Cool info. Where are the "I"s and "N"s? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calc84maniac
Elite
Joined: 22 Jan 2007 Posts: 770
|
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 04:15:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Also, when I was asking around for the last letter (not including the rest of the serial), I was unable to find an E or I either. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
thepenguin77
Advanced Newbie
Joined: 17 Jul 2009 Posts: 72
|
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 04:36:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
critor wrote: thepenguin77 wrote: Well I've got some interesting updates.
S-0607H FAIL (I tested this a few times to make sure)
P-0308K FAIL
K-0308J ???? Just another number for organizing purposes. But manufacterer K?
Still working on that other H, it also failed.
K-0308J did fail.
Sorry if I wrote it wrong but I did not have time to test the K-0308J so it is unknown (but probably a fail, I'll test tomorrow), I just was giving a time stamp sort of thing. But the K had an underscore before it and it was engraved and written in white.
Edit: I think I've seen an "I". But I may be wrong.
Last edited by Guest on 05 Oct 2009 04:39:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ztrumpet
Active Member
Joined: 06 May 2009 Posts: 555
|
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 04:36:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What chip do you think the K manufactures have?
If you tell me how and I can convince me friend (Who's RAM I've wiped 3-4 times ) I will open his calc up and check.
Edit: I'll check tomorrow if it was written in white or black.
Post 300!
Last edited by Guest on 05 Oct 2009 07:45:31 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
critor
Member
Joined: 04 Feb 2009 Posts: 132
|
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 04:39:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ztrumpet wrote: Wow!
Cool info. Where are the "I"s and "N"s?
I and N are for other TI calculators.
I couldn't find any on a 84+.
calc84maniac wrote: Also, when I was asking around for the last letter (not including the rest of the serial), I was unable to find an E or I either.
Maybe they're very rare collector TI-84+ ...
Or maybe E- and I-revisions were never released, and only existed as internal beta.
Table updated -> http://www.unitedti.org/index.php?showtopi...st&p=137113
That K-factory is really stranged... manufacturing a B-harware in 2006.
Anyway, thanks ztrumpet, for rechecking the L-hardware.
With that correction, there is no problem any more.
Any TI-84+ with hardware H and above is failing the X-RAM test.
I'm not sure (because some H-calculators would need to be opened), but we may assume they're all using the new TA1 chip.
Step 1 (completed): determining which calculators have the problem.
Step 2 (completed): determining where the problem comes from (TA1 chip)
Step 3 (to be completed): determining if the 128K are still there, in the TA1 chip
Step 4 (to be completed): finding a way of accessing those 128K (if they do exist...) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ztrumpet
Active Member
Joined: 06 May 2009 Posts: 555
|
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 04:45:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know what happened for that "B from K". It's just wierd. I might be able to open it up...
Are the ones at the begining of the table without a revision on purpose?
Last edited by Guest on 05 Oct 2009 04:47:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
thepenguin77
Advanced Newbie
Joined: 17 Jul 2009 Posts: 72
|
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 04:52:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As far as K's go. I've seen K revision O and K revision (none).
Maybe I's and E's were omitted because they look like 1's and 3's? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
critor
Member
Joined: 04 Feb 2009 Posts: 132
|
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 05:05:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ztrumpet wrote: I don't know what happened for that "B from K". It's just wierd. I might be able to open it up...
Are the ones at the begining of the table without a revision on purpose?
The serials without a revision, are in fact the 1st hardware version.
So serials ending with A are the 2nd hardware version. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ztrumpet
Active Member
Joined: 06 May 2009 Posts: 555
|
Posted: 05 Oct 2009 07:43:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
thepenguin77 wrote: As far as K's go. I've seen K revision O and K revision (none).
Maybe I's and E's were omitted because they look like 1's and 3's?
Revision O!!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mapar007
Advanced Member
Joined: 04 Oct 2008 Posts: 365
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2009 10:32:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
I thought M was the highest till now... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ztrumpet
Active Member
Joined: 06 May 2009 Posts: 555
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2009 04:56:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm pretty sure M is the highest.
Here is my table again, with my teacher's calc ( #8 ) in it.
Code: # |Serial |128K RAM test |LCD FPS test |Boot Code |CPU |Type |OS |ALCDFIX|Date (approx.)
| |(OK/FAIL) |(120/240/280) |(1.00/1.02) |(MHz) |(BE/SE)| | |
--+--------------------+----------------+---------------+------------+------+-------+-------+-------+--------------
1 | 2635016775 P-0509M |FAIL |240 |1.02 |15.9 |SE |2.43 |No |9-9-09
2 | 1142038377_K-0906B |PASS |120 |1.02 |15.4 |BE |2.40 |Yes |8-07
3 | 2154083172 S-0505D |PASS |120 |1.02 |14.6 |SE |2.30 |No |???
4 | 2375092915 S-0307G |PASS |120 |1.02 |15.3 |BE |2.40 |No |8-07
5 | 2365063662 S-0207G |PASS |240 |1.02 |15.1 |SE |2.43 |No |8-07
6 | 2375073100 S-0307G |PASS |120 |1.02 |15.6 |SE |2.40 |Yes |8-07
7 | 2508109508 P-0408L |FAIL |120 |1.02 |15.9 |SE |2.43 |Yes |8-08
8 | 2144005137 S-0405C |PASS |120 |1.02 |14.4 |SE |2.30 |No |???
9 | 2335046124 S-0507H |FAIL |240 |1.02 |15.7 |SE |2.40 |No |8-07
10| 2518146239 P-0508M |FAIL |240 |1.02 |15.7 |SE |2.43 |No |8-08
11| 2395046321 S-0507H |FAIL |240 |1.02 |15.7 |SE |2.40 |No |8-07
12| 2478028453 P-0108K |FAIL |240 |1.02 |15.6 |SE |2.43 |No |8-08
By the way, the lettering on this K ( #2 ) is just like the other P's and S's. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
thepenguin77
Advanced Newbie
Joined: 17 Jul 2009 Posts: 72
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2009 08:55:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ztrumpet wrote: By the way, the lettering on this K ( #2 ) is just like the other P's and S's.
Are you sure? Because those K's give really weird Revisions. A "B" long after it was produced, one with no letter also long after those were produced, and a letter "O". I think something is different with the K's. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calc84maniac
Elite
Joined: 22 Jan 2007 Posts: 770
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2009 09:33:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe the "O" is a zero? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|