| Author |
Message |
|
DrDnar
Member
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 116
|
 Posted: 03 Oct 2009 09:40:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
The 84s have an ASIC that has the CPU, RAM, bus, USB controller, and other things integrated into one chip. We couldn't verify the amount of RAM present without cracking the chip open and looking at it under a microscope. And even then most of us wouldn't know enough about what we're doing to identify the RAM and the amount present.
It would make no sense for TI to manufacture two different versions of the hardware at once, or to go back and forth. Either someone's made a mistake in collecting the data or the problem is an obscure configuration error. Although that doesn't make much sense either since the boot code on the different models is (presumably) the same. Someone should dump their boot code for comparison.
Last edited by Guest on 03 Oct 2009 09:41:07 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
critor
Member
Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 132
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2009 09:57:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
calcdude84se wrote: So there is not a strong correlation between hardware version and the availability of XRAM. It appears there is no easy way to say whether it is available without running a program.
Also, have I missed something, or have we already decided that these "no XRAM" calculators only have 48KB of RAM? Did someone physically verify the number or RAM chips, or are we going on without solid information?
It's not easy either to check the RAM by opening the calculator.
Because both RAM and CPU are included into a single TI specific chip (ASIC). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calcdude84se
Member
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 207
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2009 09:58:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've already made a ROM dump. If you need it, I can send it to you in a PM. Sorry for the complete lack of knowledge in asking that question (I feel like an idiot :biggrin:).
If TI isn't going back and forth with hardware, then we're dealing with a bad port or something else (that hypothesis was discussed somewhat earlier on this topic) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
critor
Member
Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 132
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2009 10:26:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
calcdude84se wrote: I've already made a ROM dump. If you need it, I can send it to you in a PM. Sorry for the complete lack of knowledge in asking that question (I feel like an idiot :biggrin:).
If TI isn't going back and forth with hardware, then we're dealing with a bad port or something else (that hypothesis was discussed somewhat earlier on this topic)
Thank you, but the dumps have allready been checked.
Operating systems, and boot codes are byte-to-byte identicall on the 128K and 48K calculators. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calcdude84se
Member
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 207
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2009 10:28:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So we're just left with the hardware question... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
critor
Member
Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 132
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2009 10:30:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
calcdude84se wrote: So we're just left with the hardware question...
Yes...
And it seems we can't deal on hardware revision letters either... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calcdude84se
Member
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 207
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2009 10:36:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I'm just re-posting information now, but there are two possibilities:
- TI cut the RAM to 48KB
- The ports are messed up/ we access the extra RAM differently
Both have their problems. The goal of this topic has become finding out which possibility is correct and work out the implications, or if it is some bizarre alternative I skipped over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
critor
Member
Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 132
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2009 10:41:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've got another idea...
Let's look at the serial number again.
If I'm right, it's too simple...
If I'm partially right, it may be a good hint...
If I'm wrong, sorry...
Before the datestamp and hardware revision letter, there is another letter...
A full serial is like that:
111111111 X-9999Y
Y is the hardware version.
9999 is the datestamp.
What's X? Manufacturing place?
I've got 5 TI-84+(SE).
4 of them have the extra 128K RAM.
1 of them is failing the tests...
On 4 of them, the X letter is S.
On 1 of them, the X letter is P.
Did you guess?...
Yes...
The calculator failing the extra RAM test has the P letter.
Full serial is 2498025203 P-0308J.
So people, can you please check if the letter on the failing calculators is S or P?
And does anybody know what the S or P means?
S = SuperRAM
P = PoorRAM ?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calcdude84se
Member
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 207
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2009 10:45:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting... I have a "P" too. Again, we don't know if the RAM was cut or if access was changed.
We need more people's info...
Note: I also have revision M |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
critor
Member
Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 132
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2009 10:53:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
S/P is for the manufacturing place.
Both manufacturing places are in China.
But maybe one of them did use different chips (different quality - different specifications) for some hardware revisions or period.
So people please, let's test again.
Please report the end of your TI-84+(SE) serial number, and if the extra RAM is working or not.
End of serial number will look like that: A-1111A
I'm starting:
S-0504 OK
S-0305C OK
S-0506F OK
S-0307G OK
P-0308J FAIL
Last edited by Guest on 03 Oct 2009 10:54:36 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calcdude84se
Member
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 207
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2009 11:00:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mine is P-0508M |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
critor
Member
Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 132
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2009 11:10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
calcdude84se wrote: Mine is P-0508M
and the extra-RAM doesn't work 
thanks
So we have:
S-0504 OK
S-0305C OK
S-0506F OK
S-0307G OK
P-0308J FAIL
P-0508M FAIL
Please go on reporting the end of your TI-84+(SE) serial numbers, and if the extra-RAM is working.
It would be interesting to have:
- a recent calculator from the the S-factory (if it does exist)
- an old calculator from the P-factory (if it does exist)
- many tests for JKLM hardware revisions 2008-2009
Last edited by Guest on 03 Oct 2009 11:15:21 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrDnar
Member
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 116
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2009 11:24:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's an interesting observation. My old TI-84+SE is labeled S-0605D.
Are you sure that doesn't just indicate whether the unit is an SE or Plus? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
critor
Member
Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 132
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2009 11:32:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote name='Dr. D'nar' post='137098' date='Oct 3 2009, 04:24 PM']That's an interesting observation. My old TI-84+SE is labeled S-0605D.
Are you sure that doesn't just indicate whether the unit is an SE or Plus?[/quote]
I'm sure of that.
I've got 2 SE, and 3 BE.
I've got 4 S, and 1 P.
So it doesn't match.
So I suppose your old TI-84+ has the full extra-RAM?
I've gathered some serial numbers from DataMath.org.
Of course, we don't know about the extra-RAM...
But it may show us a correlation between hardware revision / date / manufacturing place.
S-0304
S-0504 OK
S-0804
S-0305C OK
S-0605D OK
S-0506F OK
S-0606F
S-0307G OK
S-0407G
P-0308J FAIL
P-0308L
P-0408L
P-0508M FAIL
P-0808M
If I'm guessing well...
Sometime between 2007 and 2008, TI started transfering TI-84+(SE) production from the S chinese factory to the P chinese factory, which did use cheaper/different memory chips.
The different results we got for some hardware revisions, may depend of the manufacturing place and date.
JKL calculators have passed and failed the test.
Those hardware revisions fall right during the "S to P production transfer".
So under my hypothesis, the last JKL manufactured by S have a working X-RAM...
And the first JKL manufactured by P have a strange X-RAM (or no X-RAM at all).
Please go on reporting TI-84+(SE) end of serial numbers.
Question: how can I make a nice table? tabs don't seem to work...
Last edited by Guest on 03 Oct 2009 11:55:42 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ztrumpet
Active Member
Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 555
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2009 01:39:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mine is P-0509M FAIL
I will have the others after I go to school on Monday.
Edit: (Good screen by the way.)
Last edited by Guest on 03 Oct 2009 01:44:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepenguin77
Advanced Newbie
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2009 01:42:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I have a P-0508M with bad ram and screen. Maybe there is screen correlation also? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
critor
Member
Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 132
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2009 01:54:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks thepenguin77 and ztrumpet for your serials 
thepenguin77 wrote: I have a P-0508M with bad ram and screen. Maybe there is screen correlation also?
How can I test the screen?
And how can I make a table to report the results?
I'm including your results:
S-0304
S-0504 OK
S-0804
S-0305C OK
S-0605D OK
S-0506F OK
S-0606F
S-0307G OK
S-0407G
P-0308J FAIL
P-0308L
P-0408L
P-0508M FAIL
P-0808M
P-0509M FAIL
I wasn't sure at the beginning...
I thought it was too simple...
But I'm quite confident now.
More tests on TI-84+(SE) with serials ending with JKL would be interesting.
Please go on reporting the 7 last characters of your TI-84+(SE) serial (like above) with the X-RAM test result - thanks.
If I was right, then we'll at least know what to compare: a P-manufactured TI-84+ with a S-manufactured TI-84+. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepenguin77
Advanced Newbie
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2009 02:16:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you want to test your screen use this program. LCD FPSs of 120 need ALCDFIX, 240 do not, and some revision Ls can run at 280 FPS.
I have never seen any other values and I have tested about ten calcs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
critor
Member
Joined: 04 Feb 2009
Posts: 132
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2009 02:49:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
thepenguin77 wrote: If you want to test your screen use this program. LCD FPSs of 120 need ALCDFIX, 240 do not, and some revision Ls can run at 280 FPS.
I have never seen any other values and I have tested about ten calcs.
Thanks
Here is what I'm getting.
Code:
End of Serial 128K RAM test LCD FPS test Boot Code
(OK/FAIL) (120/240/280) (1.00/1.02)
S-0304
S-0504 OK 120 1.00
S-0804
S-0305C OK 120 1.02
S-0605D OK
S-0506F OK 120 1.02
S-0606F
S-0307G OK 120 1.02
S-0407G
P-0308J FAIL 240 1.02
P-0308L
P-0408L
P-0508M FAIL 120
P-0808M
P-0509M FAIL
Last edited by Guest on 03 Oct 2009 03:08:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepenguin77
Advanced Newbie
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: 03 Oct 2009 02:59:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well that's interesting. But I have to break the trend with the P-0508M FAIL 120. Boot code 1.02
Last edited by Guest on 03 Oct 2009 03:26:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Calculator Tech Support => Technology & Calculator Open Topic
