16 replies to this topic

[Mikael]

Hi guys!

EDIT: Okay, it seems I messed up a little. There's no Algebra FX 1.0, but it seems like you can get the functionality of an AFX 2.0 with a little bit of tinkering.

I'm going to sell my trustworthy CFX-9850GB+ and get an AlgebraFX instead. The problem is that I can only get the 1.0 or 2.0 without the "plus".

- What are the main differences between these three versions?

- Do they all use the same hardware?

- Both the AFX 2.0 and AFX 2.0 Plus have CAS, but it is updated in the Plus-version. What is updated, exactly?

- Can one turn an FX 2.0 into a 2.0 Plus?

- Can the FX 1.0 bli turned into an AFX 2.0 or 2.0+?

Also, it would be nice to know if there are any performance advantages when running BASIC code and graphing.

Thanks in advance!

[CrimsonCasio]

for gaming purposes the Plus version is actually worse (doesnt apply to Basic), but other than that its not a really big difference.

[Mikael]

for gaming purposes the Plus version is actually worse (doesnt apply to Basic), but other than that its not a really big difference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why is it worse!? Gaming isn't really that important, but I plan on writing some programs myself so I might as well go with the one that's better in this aspect.

Also, I have a quite important specific question. I have a friend with a Texas Instruments Voyage 200 and he can just write expand(*insert complicated fraction here*) and get a sum of simple fractions back. This is a very handy function and as I understand it the Algebra FX also has an expand function in it's CAS module. Can it perform the same actions? It would be a little stupid if it couldn't, since it's a pretty common procedure that can be a little tedious to do by hand.

This question has been brought up once before in this thread, but I'm not satisfied with the conclusion they arrived at. There must be a better way!

[Marco]

Well, it's a bit hard to believe, but in pure execution of BASIC commands (no text / graphic commands, just if~then, while, -> and so on) the AFX is about 30% or 40% slower than the CFX, I've tested it with both my calcs once.

Drawing commands however (such as FLine) are much faster on the AFX, cause it doesn't need a display refresh like the CFX and furthermore it uses just one color layer (BW) in BASIC, whereas the CFX has four.

So viewing the (BASIC) programming aspect, when you want to write games with much graphics using BW only, you should use the (A)FX, it's faster. When you want to write programs doinmg only lots of calculations, you better should use the CFX.

---Edit:---

The CFX having 4 color layers doesn't affect the graphics speed, as you anyway can access one color (= one layer) at one time only. The reason why CFX graphics is so much slower is (besides the slower CPU) definitely this display refresh = passing the content of a pseudo video buffer to the display adapter (I tested this with M. Poupes Xpanded Matrix System), whereas the content of AFX video buffer affects the display directly.

[Mikael]

Thanks for the info, Marco!

It's a little strange that BASIC is slower on the FX... Can it possibly be due to some emulation or shoddy implementation from Casio's side? Given a faster CPU it should perform better...

I've thought about another thing: Is it in any way possible to write assembler programs directly in the calc? I know that it isn't supported directly, but has someone been able to make an add-in or something that enables this (if possible at all)? It could be useful for making small programs that do a lot of calculations. That way you could get past the "BASIC bottleneck".

Also, this page at Casio outlines the changes that were made to the FX 2.0 Plus:

http://world.casio.c...s/algebra_fx20/

It says that it has a differential equation solver among other things. Would I get the exact same functionality by just installing the add-in "Differential Equation v. 1.20" from Casios site? Does the same apply for pretty much all of the new features?

EDIT: I found this reference to the expand command. It looks as if it should be able to do what I want. Could anyone with an AFX test this? Please.

[CrimsonCasio]

Mikael, the "Basic bottleneck" wont last much longer, several programmers are working very hard to make Basic obsoleat as an on-calc language.

[Bob Vila]

Mikael, the "Basic bottleneck" wont last much longer, several programmers are working very hard to make Basic obsoleat as an on-calc language.

cant wait

[Mikael]

Mikael, the "Basic bottleneck" wont last much longer, several programmers are working very hard to make Basic obsoleat as an on-calc language.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great!

Can you answer this question too: "It says that it (the AFX 2.0 Plus) has a differential equation solver among other things. Would I get the exact same functionality by just installing the add-in "Differential Equation v. 1.20" from Casios site? Does the same apply for pretty much all of the new features?"

Would be great to know!

Also, here's a fraction that you could try in the CAS module along with the expand command:

x/((x^2+1)(x+1))

The result I'm looking for is:

(0.5x+0.5)/(x^2+1) - 0.5/(x+1)

Please test this, it can't take more than 30 seconds.

If I get positive answers to these questions, I think I'll go for the AFX 2.0. It's about 20% cheaper than the TI-89 and can do everything I need it to do.

[Marco]

Mikael, the "Basic bottleneck" wont last much longer, several programmers are working very hard to make Basic obsoleat as an on-calc language.

Do you mean an Add-In that will provide some kind of new built-in (on-calc) language?
Wow... Who is working at it and when it will come out?

[CrimsonCasio]

Do you mean an Add-In that will provide some kind of new built-in (on-calc) language? 
Wow... Who is working at it and when it will come out?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

does nobody click the second link in my sig?
ah well, it only became public recently so i dont blame you

(and we're still keeping it quite so im not going to start a topic on it and i'd appreicate it if you ask questions about it on the MLC forum (you'll need ot register to even see the forum))

[Mikael]

Hmmm... Why does it feel as if my posts are getting ignored?

[Andy.Davies]

@Mikael:

We are a friendly forum, let us banter!
And if no one has tested the equasion by the time i get new batteries for my calc, the i will test it for you.

[Mikael]

@Mikael:

We are a friendly forum, let us banter!
And if no one has tested the equasion by the time i get new batteries for my calc, the i will test it for you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That sounds great!

[2072]

Also, here's a fraction that you could try in the CAS module along with the expand command:

x/((x^2+1)(x+1))

The result I'm looking for is:

(0.5x+0.5)/(x^2+1) - 0.5/(x+1)

on my AFX 2 (not +) the expand doesn't work, it returns the expression as it is, but the contrary works.

For your first question, yes there is an addin you can upload to your calc to use differential equations but it takes a lot of memory flash space...

And about another question, the plus models have less memory for binary program to use, so some games cannot run without a few tricks.

And yes you can turn a FX (not AFX) to an AFX because all the programs are present but hidden.

[Mikael]

Thanks for your answers, 2072!
I read somewhere that newer FX calcs could have trouble with this... Maybe it only applies to the Plus models? Here's a thread with some info:

http://www.casiocalc...?showtopic=1613

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay, I wrote that without being logged in, but I guess you understood that anyway.

Another q: How does the AFX compare, performancewise, to the TI calcs (both lower end like the TI-83 and higher end like the TI-89) when it comes to running assembler (and possibly C) code?

[huhn_m]

this problem with the modding only seems to affect newer + models.
(Those with ROM 1.5)

If you really can get a FX 1.0 (without plus) it should not be a problem.
For the other you must try to find out the rom verison first.