> USB-C charging—no more scrambling for AAA batteries
Bear with me if you’ve already seen this comment, but I dug out my old TI-89 a while ago for some reason, and all I had to do was plug in four AAA batteries and it worked.
If it had been fitted with a rechargeable battery, 30 years ago, even assuming it was still functional, I would have needed to recharge it... but with what?
Now we have USB-C rechargeable AA/AAA batteries, so there’s really no excuse.
I haven't seen that comment, but please keep making it every time it's relevant.
Non-user-replaceable batteries are terrible. It turns devices into e-waste. I wish device manufacturers would understand that. I wish consumers would understand that.
Alkaline batteries also create e-waste when they leak and destroy the contacts. Only a few people will be able to repair it.
I agree with you, also for things like radios alkalines are great as a battery that stays outside of the radio and is used when you need it, and doesn't leak much charge at all.
The reason it would be a problem is because USB didn't have a suitable port in 1998.
Upgrade to 89 Titanium and it already has a USB (mini) port built in. Mini is not ideal but it's fine. You can get a whole pile of mini and micro adapters for a couple dollars.
The fact that batteries wear out is a significant issue for longevity. Backwards compatibility is a solved problem if you use USB.
No approval for AP/IB/SAT/ACT, as far as I can see.
No RPN. Every modern graphing calculator needs a mode (doesn't have to be the default) with RPN and a visible (4+ entry) stack. Once people actually learn how to use that for rapid, efficient calculations, they won't go back, but they never learn because all the major calculators don't even offer it as an alternate mode. That's the killer app for "graphing" calculators, because they can show multiple stack entries.
RPN may not be useful for math classes, which tend not to have as many problems involving many sequential calculations, but it's extremely valuable for science and engineering.
Funny you mention that. I had to get special permission to use my HP-15C on a "calculators allowed" exam in a first-year "calculus for non majors" course, and had to show the instructor how to reset its memory.
Which I found amusing, because the list of approved calulators included several graphing calculator models with computer algebra systems in ROM sufficient to produce correct answers to every problem on the exam, and they're worried about what I might have stored in the memory of a (then) 15-year old keystroke programmable calculator with a single line, ten digit, seven segment numeric display.
It doesn't look like it has a CAS (so it's not for mathematicians), and the scientific notation key isn't prominent (so it's not for scientists or engineers), so... who is it for? Part of the thing with the older TI calculators is that they were good for professionals, too, not just students. (My TI-89 is still in intermittently-very-heavy use 30 years later!)
Is there actually a use case for graphing calculators anymore? Desmos provides a great graphing program for free in a web browser. In any professional capacity you would be using MATLAB, Mathematica, or the scientific Python ecosystem.
I mostly remember playing games on my TI-84 in high school. We used it in class maybe once or twice. None of my college classes allowed graphing calculators on tests, so ironically I had to buy a "dumb" calculator even though I owned the fancy one.
I don't think there was ever a solid use case for graphing calculators in school, at least not in my experience? The curriculum didn't make good use of them and I'm not convinced it could have. There's little value in having every kid in the classroom replicate the same plot of y = sin(x) or whatever on a tiny screen. And other than such demonstrations... what are you gonna do with it? It was never flexible or powerful enough for serious math. You weren't going to run circuit or physics simulations on a TI-89.
There are other features that can be useful - scientific notation, symbolic solver, unit conversions, etc - but graphing as such always seemed like a gimmick.
I think it's more of a not-entirely-rational appeal to parents: "if my kid has a top-notch calculator for high school / college, maybe they're gonna be better at math". And kids did not object, but in the end, mostly just sideloaded games and horsed around.
> You weren't going to run circuit or physics simulations on a TI-89.
Well, I wrote a couple of programs that were useful for quite a while. They involved electromagnetism and changing frames of reference. I definitely was able to do quite a lot of Physics with my Ti-89.
When my daughter finally needed one of those godawful monopoly-priced calculators for school, we went to the nearest pawn shop and found a TI 84 Plus, opened, for $40, and a TI 84 Plus CE in its unopened (but roughed up) original packaging for $65.
It's the same price as a "standard" TI graphing calculator, has ugly buttons, and doesn't appear to have any special features in the software to distinguish it from competitors. What exactly is supposed to be better about this?
The standard TI graphing calculator offered to schools is the TI-84 Plus CE, which is generally 140USD and up. This calculator is currently offered for 89USD so you're already immediately incorrect on the pricing. The battery in this one is roughly 50% larger but that doesn't translate to better battery life necessarily. They both allow for programming with Python but this calculator would have to try incredibly hard to be worse at Python that the TI calculator, so I'd probably say it has an edge there too.
I've always seen TI-84s being advertised for $90-$100 new and often being given away for free as hand-me-downs. Amazon also shows me many models from 90-110.
Graphing calculators are one of those markets that barely moved for 30 years because TI had schools locked in. Anything that breaks that is worth paying attention to.
Zero BASIC feels quite close to Casio's programming language.
Now apparently MicroPython has replaced BASIC in most calculators, the issue is that apparently always lags a bit behind, this one appears to still use Python 2.7.
32 comments
> USB-C charging—no more scrambling for AAA batteries
Bear with me if you’ve already seen this comment, but I dug out my old TI-89 a while ago for some reason, and all I had to do was plug in four AAA batteries and it worked.
If it had been fitted with a rechargeable battery, 30 years ago, even assuming it was still functional, I would have needed to recharge it... but with what?
Now we have USB-C rechargeable AA/AAA batteries, so there’s really no excuse.
Non-user-replaceable batteries are terrible. It turns devices into e-waste. I wish device manufacturers would understand that. I wish consumers would understand that.
> I wish device manufacturers would understand that.
Device manufacturers want you to buy another one. They understand. Consumers, not so much.
I agree with you, also for things like radios alkalines are great as a battery that stays outside of the radio and is used when you need it, and doesn't leak much charge at all.
But e-waste is still a problem.
No need to think about charging the controller - just have a pair of charged AAs nearby and switch them out when it becomes necessary.
> but with what?
The reason it would be a problem is because USB didn't have a suitable port in 1998.
Upgrade to 89 Titanium and it already has a USB (mini) port built in. Mini is not ideal but it's fine. You can get a whole pile of mini and micro adapters for a couple dollars.
The fact that batteries wear out is a significant issue for longevity. Backwards compatibility is a solved problem if you use USB.
No RPN. Every modern graphing calculator needs a mode (doesn't have to be the default) with RPN and a visible (4+ entry) stack. Once people actually learn how to use that for rapid, efficient calculations, they won't go back, but they never learn because all the major calculators don't even offer it as an alternate mode. That's the killer app for "graphing" calculators, because they can show multiple stack entries.
RPN may not be useful for math classes, which tend not to have as many problems involving many sequential calculations, but it's extremely valuable for science and engineering.
Which I found amusing, because the list of approved calulators included several graphing calculator models with computer algebra systems in ROM sufficient to produce correct answers to every problem on the exam, and they're worried about what I might have stored in the memory of a (then) 15-year old keystroke programmable calculator with a single line, ten digit, seven segment numeric display.
If this had RPN, I’d likely purchase one. Without, it’s a pass.
HP were cool, yet Casio FX tablets with plain BASIC dominated engineering in Portugal, FX-850P were the models we were after.
I mostly remember playing games on my TI-84 in high school. We used it in class maybe once or twice. None of my college classes allowed graphing calculators on tests, so ironically I had to buy a "dumb" calculator even though I owned the fancy one.
There are other features that can be useful - scientific notation, symbolic solver, unit conversions, etc - but graphing as such always seemed like a gimmick.
I think it's more of a not-entirely-rational appeal to parents: "if my kid has a top-notch calculator for high school / college, maybe they're gonna be better at math". And kids did not object, but in the end, mostly just sideloaded games and horsed around.
> You weren't going to run circuit or physics simulations on a TI-89.
Well, I wrote a couple of programs that were useful for quite a while. They involved electromagnetism and changing frames of reference. I definitely was able to do quite a lot of Physics with my Ti-89.
Now apparently MicroPython has replaced BASIC in most calculators, the issue is that apparently always lags a bit behind, this one appears to still use Python 2.7.
> without the high price tag.
Seems only superficially cheaper than the TI-84 ($89 vs $112)
Does it have a CAS?