| Author |
Message |
|
calcdude84se
Member
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 207
|
 Posted: 20 Sep 2009 07:31:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, we already have an idea of what is going on. We'll wait for brandonw's results, and then (or before then) we'll see how many pages there really are, and if they are still there, how to access them if possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calcdude84se
Member
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 207
|
| Posted: 24 Sep 2009 04:23:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, TI is definitely not helping:
Quote: "From time to time, Texas Instruments re-evaluates its hardware. Technical details on hardware updates are not disclosed, however, TI does attempt to preserve compatibility with 3rd party programs and applications where possible. Texas Instruments does not guarantee compatibility for all 3rd party programs and applications for all revisions of the hardware."
The TI-Cares representative quoted it from the TI-84 Plus developers.
This is, of course, completely expected, but it's still annoying. At least we have an idea of what is going on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FloppusMaximus
Advanced Member
Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Posts: 472
|
| Posted: 24 Sep 2009 05:44:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You know, Michael's comment about "Belinda" notwithstanding, I do think they provided somewhat better technical support in the past. Consider the additional documentation they provided when the 83+ SE was released - they didn't publish all the hardware details by any means, but they gave us the most important information (such as how to control the CPU speed, the hardware link assist, LCD_BUSY_QUICK, maybe a few other things I'm forgetting.) In fact, I think even the 128k RAM chip was listed in some official documentation at some point.
Compare that to the amount of documentation they've provided about the 84+ hardware. Or the Nspire's 84+ emulation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrDnar
Member
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 116
|
| Posted: 24 Sep 2009 07:03:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FloppusMaximus wrote: Compare that to the amount of documentation they've provided about the 84+ hardware. Or the Nspire's 84+ emulation. You mean like none?
At least the acknowledge that they don't care about us.
Last edited by Guest on 24 Sep 2009 07:04:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mapar007
Advanced Member
Joined: 04 Oct 2008
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: 25 Sep 2009 12:21:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I've asked some people in my class to test omnicalc on their revision L calculators (I have G myself). I'll post back when they have provided me with results (not guaranteed). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calcdude84se
Member
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 207
|
| Posted: 25 Sep 2009 06:04:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
The more people we have testing it, the better.
The more leads we have for testing it, the better.
Hope you find something |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ztrumpet
Active Member
Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 555
|
| Posted: 25 Sep 2009 06:40:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mapar007 wrote: I've asked some people in my class to test omnicalc on their revision L calculators (I have G myself). I'll post back when they have provided me with results (not guaranteed).
I've got "M" and would like to test.
What do I do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrDnar
Member
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 116
|
| Posted: 25 Sep 2009 10:37:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Run the program I posted here. Post its output. This program may also be of interest to you, but I don't think it's as important now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ztrumpet
Active Member
Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 555
|
| Posted: 25 Sep 2009 02:38:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
K, I'll try that on Monday (next time I can link.)  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepenguin77
Advanced Newbie
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2009 11:30:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If more testers are good, then I got the exact same result for banktest that calcdude84se got. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrDnar
Member
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 116
|
| Posted: 26 Sep 2009 12:33:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is the expected output (xx=garbage bytes):
Code:
Test 1:
xx00820000000000
xx00008300000000
xx00000084000000
xx00000000850000
xx00000000008600
xx00000000000087
My TI-84+SE gives this output. The program doesn't test RAM pages 80h and 81h (so I can't say weather the paging ports are broken) because it would make coding the loops a little harder and I'm lazy. But feel free to try playing with the source. You could easily include page 81h in the test, but be sure to back up C000h--C007h or you'll clobber any user data there. Which isn't a problem if you don't have any data in memory.
Last edited by Guest on 27 Sep 2009 05:25:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calcdude84se
Member
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 207
|
| Posted: 27 Sep 2009 04:03:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If thepenguin77 got the same results I did, then he didn't get the expected output. He got the output that says: "I have a new calculator that either has only one extra RAM page or a different port configuration." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepenguin77
Advanced Newbie
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: 27 Sep 2009 05:30:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's correct. I got mine last year and it is hardware M.
Also, RealSound and Omnicalc (virtual calculator and ram recovery) don't work either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calcdude84se
Member
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 207
|
| Posted: 27 Sep 2009 07:48:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Again, the same thing. At least this is consistent (errors on new TI-84+(SE) calcs). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ztrumpet
Active Member
Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 555
|
| Posted: 27 Sep 2009 08:17:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm curious: How many of you with the "newer" calculators need ALCDFIX? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calcdude84se
Member
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 207
|
| Posted: 28 Sep 2009 12:40:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I have never needed it. The games that it claims to fix (Desolate and Falldown) work fine without it. I'm pretty sure that most of the newer calculators do not need it any more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepenguin77
Advanced Newbie
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: 28 Sep 2009 03:14:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I tested some calculators at school today and found about half needed ALCDFIX. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calcdude84se
Member
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
Posts: 207
|
| Posted: 29 Sep 2009 06:35:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Any correlation with revision letters? (Did you check? :biggrin:) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ztrumpet
Active Member
Joined: 06 May 2009
Posts: 555
|
| Posted: 30 Sep 2009 07:32:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
calcdude84se wrote: If thepenguin77 got the same results I did, then he didn't get the expected output. He got the output that says: "I have a new calculator that either has only one extra RAM page or a different port configuration."
I also got calcdude's results.
My calc:
Bought on 9-9-09
Version M
Does not need ALCDFIX |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepenguin77
Advanced Newbie
Joined: 17 Jul 2009
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: 30 Sep 2009 02:39:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There was no correlation to hardware since all were M. Most were bought before the 08-09 school year.
But now that I think about it. The people who bought them for this year do not need it.
Maybe there are multiple revisions of M? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Calculator Tech Support => Technology & Calculator Open Topic
