[ethbr1]

This. The thread's confusion comes from looking at these as computers: more capabilities are always an improvement.

In common use, they're intended as mathematical learning aids, a function for which very specific sets of functionality (and no more) are required.

F.ex. basic matrix ops but no auto-solvers

Similar to how you wouldn't give a kid learning how to construct an argumentative essay access to a full LLM if the goal is learning how to perform the task.

[kstrauser]

From a product POV, sure. From an end user’s perspective, I strongly dislike that. There’s no room for growth there. Buy the model that does matrices when you’re taking linear algebra, and you learn that model through and through. Then take an engineering class where you need a solved, and now you have to use a different device that works subtly differently in enough ways that you have to learn all about it.

I just want one device that does everything so my new learning can build on my old.

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere here, I love the TI-85 I used through college. I’m no partisan. However, I think that for anything outside a school context, that means skipping any device marketed as “ok to use on tests” and buying an HP. I scarcely need the cool stuff of the HP50g or DM42n I picked up along the way, but if I ever do, I know it’s already in there and waiting for me to discover it.

[ethbr1]

The smarter way for TI to market and grade segment would have been following IBM's supercomputing footsteps and firmware-locking feature sets.

So one could attest that a calculator was currently running the "Grade 6-US" feature set standard.

But I imagine in the 1990s doing so at consumer device scale was dicier. I.e. where would upgrades be applied?