I think a lot of people are getting annoyed that a graphing calculator costs as much as it does today as it did 6 years ago. Working in retail, I hear this commonly as well. When I try to upsale people to a graphing calculator - not for company profits, mind you, but for the added benefits and likely future needs - a lot of people are perfectly content purchasing a scientific or an engineering calculator. Those who have to buy a graphing calculator, aren't too pleased. I hear stories about the cost of TVs going down while the graphing calculator is still the same price as it was when they were in high school.

Not to mention that the education curriculum doesn't have the speed to adopt a new calculator, and if you're like the public schools in my city there's no funding to purchase books for an updated curriculum. I'm not saying that every math-related textbook can't be used with a Casio Prizm or the TI-84+CSE, but there are text books with screen shots and calculator specific tutorials - I wasn't able to find any for this post but I'll keep looking.

Looking forward, if the new calculator can't hold a distinct advantage over its predecessor people aren't going to buy it.

I'd really love to hear TIs' reasoning behind a color calculator - other than "Casio has one! " - and why it's so much.

Unfortunately, the Casio Prizm is still lacking a lot of documentation, and no math books that I know of discuss it directly. I say unfortunately because I think the Casio Prizm was the start of something great with Casio, but they just don't have the momentum to give it the wide acceptance that it needs. One of the nice things about the TI-84+CSE (math-wise) is that you can type in the same things you could type on a TI-84+SE and get the same result; it just looks a little different. In other words, you can get away with using a TI-83 Plus/TI-84 Plus book for the CSE; you just need to think a bit.

I think the simple fact that it has a shiny color screen is going to make a lot of lay users (ie, parents) think it's a big step up from the previous calculators, even though the internal hardware is ironically identical. This is good and bad for us.

The Prizm... Is a locked up tight piece of iPod hardware.

I say unfortunately because I think the Casio Prizm was the start of something great with Casio, but they just don't have the momentum to give it the wide acceptance that it needs.

The Prizm... Is a locked up tight piece of iPod hardware. I'm sorry, but the ti calculators before these were the real deal because they were well-rounded. They may be pieces of junk, but they were pieces of junk we all liked and that were well-ronded.

others counter that our dear Casio Prizm is "nothing but over-rated junk".

Actually, I started to get used to the javascript emu, which made it even slower, sadly, so when I actually see it for real, it doesn't look so slow anymore
Of course, when put next to another z80 calc, it's clear that's it's slower.

However : (and don't get me wrong, I obviously think TI should have put a better CPU >.>, but that's my personal opinion) :
We are *used* to our other z80 and prizm/nspire/etc. So any comparison we make is kind of biased already.
The thing to see would be to make someone who's never used a graphing calc before try out the 84C, and ask him for any feedback, and that is in all the domains the calc is made for : math, programming features, color-screen, big screen, etc etc.
Then, I wouldn't know if the speed issue would really come first (or at all). Maybe the lack of CAS (yes, I am talking of someone who never used a graphing calc before, so....) would come first, but then we would explain him that's normal on this type of calc, and then maybe he would tell feedback about things we wouldn't even have though about ourselves, since we cannot speak as "new" users.
As you know, TI is insisting a lot on Math and Science etc., so if we consider that part for the 84C and as experimented-users, try to "ignore" the slowness issue, it will probably get the 84C to appear as the best non-Nspire calc out there. And that's because the reaction of the reviewer isn't focused on programming easeness etc. And obviously we, programmers, are at the opposite side, since a lot of us don't even use the calc mostly for math (we probably represent less than a few percents....) Any company (especially big ones) have to go with the majority, whether that's sad or good for its end-users. I guess that's why the 84C is seen as revolutionary to the math teachers I've talked with or heard, and that do not focus on programming with it.
(the best exampel they tell you is how you can differentiate the equations drawn on the graph screen, with the color, and how "beautiful" it is compared to older models. Of course, how can you even go against that argument with other calcs ?
In conclusion, it's all a matter of point of view, and that's pretty much unarguable.

My opinion again on this calc is not really interesting since I'm not a high-schooler anymore, and pretty much all the calcs I got don' get much attention nowadays, since I actually neither don't have much time to use them, nor my school allows any for exams. Sometimes I still use my Nspire CX CAS during lessons, for practical reaons, but that's all.
For me, if I'm asked whether I'd buy this calc, I'd probably say no because I don't *need* it. If I needed a calc and was looking for math, I'd seriously consider it (ignoring the Nspire series, again). As a programmer, I would probably lean towards an 84+ Pocket SE, *for now*. ; But as a "collector", I certainly can't wait to own a 84C, so....


Edit : Oops, I forgot to talk about the slowness impacting key responses issues : that's definitely a bad point. I have kind of 0 knowledge on ASM programing, but unless the skilled community programmers find a way to fix that, it's going to be a major problem with users who get used to the calc and start typing faster than what the calc can handle (and that's getting ridiculous...). But yet again, this is addressing a very minor percentage of all users TI's targeting..

Though its not necessarily over-rated junk, i do think its over-priced and under-powered.

Actually, I started to get used to the javascript emu, which made it even slower, sadly, so when I actually see it for real, it doesn't look so slow anymore. Of course, when put next to another z80 calc, it's clear that's it's slower.

However : (and don't get me wrong, I obviously think TI should have put a better CPU >.>, but that's my personal opinion) :
We are *used* to our other z80 and prizm/nspire/etc. So any comparison we make is kind of biased already.
The thing to see would be to make someone who's never used a graphing calc before try out the 84C, and ask him for any feedback, and that is in all the domains the calc is made for : math, programming features, color-screen, big screen, etc etc.

Then, I wouldn't know if the speed issue would really come first (or at all). Maybe the lack of CAS (yes, I am talking of someone who never used a graphing calc before, so....) would come first, but then we would explain him that's normal on this type of calc, and then maybe he would tell feedback about things we wouldn't even have though about ourselves, since we cannot speak as "new" users.

As you know, TI is insisting a lot on Math and Science etc., so if we consider that part for the 84C and as experimented-users, try to "ignore" the slowness issue, it will probably get the 84C to appear as the best non-Nspire calc out there. And that's because the reaction of the reviewer isn't focused on programming easeness etc. And obviously we, programmers, are at the opposite side, since a lot of us don't even use the calc mostly for math (we probably represent less than a few percents....) Any company (especially big ones) have to go with the majority, whether that's sad or good for its end-users. I guess that's why the 84C is seen as revolutionary to the math teachers I've talked with or heard, and that do not focus on programming with it.

As a programmer, I would probably lean towards an 84+ Pocket SE, *for now*. ; But as a "collector", I certainly can't wait to own a 84C, so....

Edit : Oops, I forgot to talk about the slowness impacting key responses issues : that's definitely a bad point. I have kind of 0 knowledge on ASM programing, but unless the skilled community programmers find a way to fix that, it's going to be a major problem with users who get used to the calc and start typing faster than what the calc can handle (and that's getting ridiculous...). But yet again, this is addressing a very minor percentage of all users TI's targeting..

Most people use a TI-84 Plus in my math/science classes, almost entirely due to its design. By tossing in a color screen, TI should make a lot of money and no longer have to pay for outdated screens. As I found, what the common user wants is a faster processor. However, the nSpire is a PITA to use IMHO, compared to the ill-fated TI-89 Titanium. It's also prohibitively expensive ($150 for the CX) compared to the $105 TI-84 Plus and the $80 Casio fx-9850G.

Comparing the graphing speed, the Casio is always the first calculator done graphing something, and the TI-86 is last. TI should set themselves a goal to have sin(x) graph at about 100 pixels per second, so that people don't have to wait so long to see results.

The rechargeable battery is a nice inclusion for the average user, but limits the lifetime of the device to a few years before a new battery needs to be bought. Considering TI-81s are still in use, the 84+C won't get the longevity praise older models once got. People don't like having to pay for new hardware anyways.

TI should be following Casio in using a fast processor, having plenty of RAM and Archive, and backlit screens for darkened rooms with projectors showing SmartView. I feel that color was just a ploy to prevent competition. It's as if they're listening to the community and users a lot less now than they did 15 years ago. People don't need to put pictures on the graph screen, then wait about a minute to see they typed an equation or graph range in wrong.

Edit: TI should focus on making a faster TI-68k model. The nSpire is slowly being forgotten, and 68k devices have more potential than TI might see. If they toss the V200's screen onto the TI-89 and add a backlight, they'd have one of my dream calcs. And from a programming view, the lack of the modulo function and the menu system on the 84+ series makes math programming more difficult. Dialogs or the TI-73's SetMenu( make input a lot easier.

Edit: TI should focus on making a faster TI-68k model. The nSpire is slowly being forgotten, and 68k devices have more potential than TI might see. If they toss the V200's screen onto the TI-89 and add a backlight, they'd have one of my dream calcs. And from a programming view, the lack of the modulo function and the menu system on the 84+ series makes math programming more difficult. Dialogs or the TI-73's SetMenu( make input a lot easier.