Re: determing date on TI 99/4 computers.

[Ed via cctalk]

Thanks  to all that  provided  on list and off list   material on the  TI 
99/4 systems. 
It was very helpful.
 
Still looking for  some hi res  ad art work...
Thanks  Ed#  _www.smecc.org_ (http://www.smecc.org)  
 
 
In a message dated 9/7/2017 5:24:45 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time,  
cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:

On 7  September 2017 at 04:07, Sam O'nella via  cctalk
 wrote:

> I don't know if it  was my newb brain/false memory but i thought I saw 
someone post a ti-99/2  prototype before

It was a  thing:

http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=267

Never  made it onto retail sale, though.

-- 
Liam Proven • Profile:  https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • Google  Mail/Talk/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven •  Skype/LinkedIn/AIM/Yahoo: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 •  ČR/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +420 702 829  053

Re: determing date on TI 99/4 computers.

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On 7 September 2017 at 04:07, Sam O'nella via cctalk
 wrote:

> I don't know if it was my newb brain/false memory but i thought I saw someone 
> post a ti-99/2 prototype before

It was a thing:

http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=267

Never made it onto retail sale, though.

-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • Google Mail/Talk/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven • Skype/LinkedIn/AIM/Yahoo: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 • ČR/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +420 702 829 053

Re: Scavenging higher-end models (Was: Re: determing date on TI 99/4 computers.)

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On 6 September 2017 at 20:46, Tapley, Mark  wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk  
> wrote:
>
>> It shows what the machine could have been, if TI hadn't crippled it
>> for fear of competing with its higher-end models.
>
> I have heard similar arguments repeatedly, in reference to systems 
> from multiple different companies (DEC in particular, but also IBM, TI as 
> above, etc.).
>
> It seems so short-sighted as to be almost improbable to me. Of 
> *course* if a company can offer similar performance in a cheaper model, they 
> should do that. The high-end customers will still pay premium for the slight 
> extra performance, but the lower-end model will enable a whole cadre of users 
> and developers which would otherwise have been priced away to the competition.
>
> Is this just 20/20 hindsight on my part, or are there factors I don’t 
> understand in this decision? If it’s just internal company politics - 
> high-end system group doesn’t want to get squeezed from below - the CEO’s job 
> is to put a stop to that, I would think.

If there is a general case to be made -- and it's a bit tricky -- then
it's perhaps this:

[1] Make the best system you can for a particular price-point. If
hitting a particular price-point is going to mean horribly
compromising the product, then you probably shouldn't be competing in
that market.

[2] Recognise that home computers are not business computers. What a
home/leisure user wants is not the same as what a professional wants.
Don't attempt to price-gouge the pros, don't attempt to fob home users
off with second-rate rubbish.

[3] If attempting to do both of these means that you have either type
of product stomping all over the other, then you have failed to
properly identify and differentiate your 2 separate markets.

Examples...

The Commodore VIC-20 and the Sinclair ZX-81 were both horribly
compromised, lousily-specified toys, useless for anything serious. But
at the time, that's all a budget home machine could do, and because
the companies' rivals were not offering budget home machines -- they
offered $1000+ pro-level kit -- the machines were huge successes.

Both companies did successor models that were significantly better
(the C64 and ZX Spectrum) and which sold very well.

Then both companies lost the plot a bit and the successor models to
_them_ were both rather poor.

CBM fooled around with incompatible machines that didn't advance the SOTA much.

Sinclair flailed and adapted an uninspiring Spanish model, the
Spectrum 128, which failed to address one of the older model's most
serious failings -- its poor graphics. This is doubly tragic as Timex
_had_ addressed this in the TS2068. If Sinclair had adopted Timex'
improved ULA, the Spectrum 128 would have been a significantly more
competitive machine.

(Another more niche tweak is that the Timex machine could page RAM in
in place of the ROM, enabling it to run CP/M. The Sinclair model
couldn't until years later with the Amstrad designed-and-built
Spectrum +3.)

TI was afraid its home computer would compete with its business
machines, so it crippled it, leaving an uncompetitive product. But the
business machines weren't competitive anyway, and weren't big sellers.

Either it could have just made a more expensive but uncrippled TI99/4A
-- with, say, 32 kB of 16-bit RAM directly attached to the CPU, a
native-code BASIC interpreter instead of 2 different ones, and dumped
the cartridge port and the PEB.

It would have been considerably more expensive than the VIC-20 that it
tried to compete with. The smarter choice would have been to embrace
that and just go with it, IMHO.


-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • Google Mail/Talk/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven • Skype/LinkedIn/AIM/Yahoo: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 • ČR/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +420 702 829 053

Re: determing date on TI 99/4 computers.

[Sam O'nella via cctalk]

http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/1344/Texas-Instruments-TI-99-4A/ has 
interesting knowledge of the serial for dating. 
I don't know if it was my newb brain/false memory but i thought I saw someone 
post a ti-99/2 prototype before (vcfed search can probably prove me right or 
wrong). But the models really were already stated as the 99/4 being the first 
and noticeable from chicklet keyboard and orange?/red keys on the bottom 
corners.
Then i think they had an expansion system that my memory gets confused with the 
trs-80. 
I didn't realize it was a 16-bit system though. That's intriguing and worth 
some more reading to see what it did vs the competition.
 Original message From: John Wilson via cctalk 
<cctalk@classiccmp.org> Date: 9/6/17  1:57 PM  (GMT-06:00) To: william degnan 
via cctech <cct...@classiccmp.org> Subject: Re: determing date on TI 99/4 
computers. 
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:07:22PM -0400, william degnan via cctech wrote:
>I'd double check that.   I have found, at least in my experience, that the
>beige are more plentiful than what you'd expect if they only made them for
>a few months.  I bet they were made for the last year or more of the run.

Is it possible to retrofit the beige keyboard?  I remember Radio Shack was
dumping surplus beige TI-99/4A keyboards super cheap for a while there, so
I was wondering if maybe people could've used them as repair parts?

Also, was there ever a TI-99, TI-99/2, TI-99/3 etc.?

The Bill Cosby TV ads were kind of embarrassing in retrospect ... but they
were funny at the time.  He didn't seem like much of a computer nerd.

John Wilson
D Bit

Re: determing date on TI 99/4 computers.

[John Wilson via cctalk]

On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:07:22PM -0400, william degnan via cctech wrote:
>I'd double check that.   I have found, at least in my experience, that the
>beige are more plentiful than what you'd expect if they only made them for
>a few months.  I bet they were made for the last year or more of the run.

Is it possible to retrofit the beige keyboard?  I remember Radio Shack was
dumping surplus beige TI-99/4A keyboards super cheap for a while there, so
I was wondering if maybe people could've used them as repair parts?

Also, was there ever a TI-99, TI-99/2, TI-99/3 etc.?

The Bill Cosby TV ads were kind of embarrassing in retrospect ... but they
were funny at the time.  He didn't seem like much of a computer nerd.

John Wilson
D Bit

Re: determing date on TI 99/4 computers.

[Yeechang Lee via cctalk]

* Black and chrome, chiclet keyboard - TI-99/4, the first TI home
  computer (1979).

* Black and chrome, typewriter keyboard - TI-99/4A, the revised
  version of the above (1981).

* Beige, typewriter keyboard - TI-99/4A, cost-reduced version of the
  above (1983). Manufactured for only a few months before
  discontinuation in late 1983.

Re: determing date on TI 99/4 computers.

[william degnan via cctalk]

>
> * Beige, typewriter keyboard - TI-99/4A, cost-reduced version of the
>   above (1983). Manufactured for only a few months before
>   discontinuation in late 1983.
>

I'd double check that.   I have found, at least in my experience, that the
beige are more plentiful than what you'd expect if they only made them for
a few months.  I bet they were made for the last year or more of the run.
I know there were more than one ROM variation within the beige as well.  If
could be the last ROM variation was produced for the last few months, but
not all beige models.  Check the ROM chip silkscreen date codes perhaps to
confirm this.

Bill

Scavenging higher-end models (Was: Re: determing date on TI 99/4 computers.)

[Tapley, Mark via cctalk]

On Sep 6, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk  
wrote:

> It shows what the machine could have been, if TI hadn't crippled it
> for fear of competing with its higher-end models.

I have heard similar arguments repeatedly, in reference to systems from 
multiple different companies (DEC in particular, but also IBM, TI as above, 
etc.).

It seems so short-sighted as to be almost improbable to me. Of *course* 
if a company can offer similar performance in a cheaper model, they should do 
that. The high-end customers will still pay premium for the slight extra 
performance, but the lower-end model will enable a whole cadre of users and 
developers which would otherwise have been priced away to the competition. 

Is this just 20/20 hindsight on my part, or are there factors I don’t 
understand in this decision? If it’s just internal company politics - high-end 
system group doesn’t want to get squeezed from below - the CEO’s job is to put 
a stop to that, I would think.
- Mark

Re: determing date on TI 99/4 computers.

[Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk]

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Liam Proven via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> On 6 September 2017 at 16:55, Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk
>  wrote:
>
> > There's a pretty good article about TI's home computers that I've been
> > trying to find that lays out a pretty convincing argument for why the 4A
> > was not successful in the market despite early success.
>
> https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/heroic-failures/
> the-texas-instruments-994-worlds-first-16bit-computer
>
> ...?
>

 That's a good article, but not the one I remember. The one I remember was
about three pages long and mentioned the AC adapter recall in particular.

Re: determing date on TI 99/4 computers.

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On 6 September 2017 at 16:55, Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk
 wrote:

> There's a pretty good article about TI's home computers that I've been
> trying to find that lays out a pretty convincing argument for why the 4A
> was not successful in the market despite early success.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/heroic-failures/the-texas-instruments-994-worlds-first-16bit-computer

...?

Also see:

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/whatever-happened-to-the-texas-instruments-home-computer/

A more positive, nostalgic look:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/27/community_builds_around_ti_99_4a/

There was a later successor model from another company, the Geneve
9640. A complete computer in its own right, it plugged into the
99/4A's Peripheral Expansion Box and totally replaced it.

It shows what the machine could have been, if TI hadn't crippled it
for fear of competing with its higher-end models.

http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=1208=1

A bit more info including a scan of the product brochure:

http://www.mainbyte.com/ti99/geneve/geneve.html

-- 
Liam Proven • Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • Google Mail/Talk/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven • Skype/LinkedIn/AIM/Yahoo: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 • ČR/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +420 702 829 053

Re: determing date on TI 99/4 computers.

[Geoffrey Oltmans via cctalk]

Depends on if you're talking about the 99/4 or 99/4A. The 99/4 was black
and silver and had a chiclet style keyboard and is rare. The 4A had a black
and silver finish first, and then later switched to beige I imagine in an
effort to curb costs since they were being undercut pretty badly by
Commodore.

There's a pretty good article about TI's home computers that I've been
trying to find that lays out a pretty convincing argument for why the 4A
was not successful in the market despite early success. Basically a costly
recall of the power supplies wiped out a lot of their profits, and the
system was too expensive due to the insistence of using as much in-house
parts as possible even when there were much cheaper components available in
the wider market, for example the CPU (Z80 or 6502).


On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Ed via cctalk  wrote:

> There is a white  or beige one
>
> then there is the black and chrome  one?
>
> which  first?  and  dates please?
>
> This is unfamiliar territory  for me.
> but need to pay homage to these
> in a museum display here.
>
> looking  for  good  hi res scans of
> adv. material etc. for  display??
>
> thanks  ed# _www.smecc.org_ (http://www.smecc.org)
>

Re: determing date on TI 99/4 computers.

[Ed via cctalk]

In a message dated 9/5/2017 11:27:04 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,  
p...@mactec.com.au writes:

Hi  Ed
Howdy!



Did you do any research on this at all?
 
Not a lot   found a few conflicting things
 



The beige one was later.
Thanks -



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_TI-99/4A


Bill  Cosby was their spokesperson. I can scan the advertising stuff that I 
have,  but I’m pretty sure that it is all online somewhere.

Good  hi  res scans  appreciated
 
Ed#..  Thanks !



> On 6 Sep 2017, at 4:00 pm, Ed via cctalk   wrote:
> 
> There is a white   or beige one
> 
> then there is the black and chrome   one?
> 
> which  first?  and  dates please?
>  
> This is unfamiliar territory  for me.
> but need to pay  homage to these
> in a museum display here.
> 
>  looking  for  good  hi res scans of
> adv. material etc.  for  display??
> 
> thanks  ed# _www.smecc.org_  (http://www.smecc.org) 

Re: determing date on TI 99/4 computers.

[Chris Pye via cctalk]

Hi Ed

Did you do any research on this at all?

The beige one was later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_TI-99/4A


Bill Cosby was their spokesperson. I can scan the advertising stuff that I 
have, but I’m pretty sure that it is all online somewhere.



> On 6 Sep 2017, at 4:00 pm, Ed via cctalk  wrote:
> 
> There is a white  or beige one
> 
> then there is the black and chrome  one?
> 
> which  first?  and  dates please?
> 
> This is unfamiliar territory  for me.
> but need to pay homage to these
> in a museum display here.
> 
> looking  for  good  hi res scans of
> adv. material etc. for  display??
> 
> thanks  ed# _www.smecc.org_ (http://www.smecc.org) 

determing date on TI 99/4 computers.

[Ed via cctalk]

There is a white  or beige one
 
then there is the black and chrome  one?
 
which  first?  and  dates please?
 
This is unfamiliar territory  for me.
but need to pay homage to these
in a museum display here.
 
looking  for  good  hi res scans of
adv. material etc. for  display??
 
thanks  ed# _www.smecc.org_ (http://www.smecc.org)