Talk:Casio graphic calculators

AFX and bad flash

Can anyone tell my from where the rumour comes that the AFX has a flash memory of inferior quality that makes it inoperative after a few years? When I asked CASIO about this, they denied there was any truth in this. Also, on the internet there has been stated that the AFX is slower than the 9850 series. I fail to see how that would be true, since at least my 9850GB+ and 9970G are slower than my AFX 2.0 when it comes to massive programmed calculations, such as probability calculations and prime factorisation. (However a clogged or not optimised RAM memory on the AFX seems to slow it down a bit, at least when operating the menus.) I see both these claims over and over on the net, but no one seems to have any decent source about this. Aren't these just rumours without any facts to support them? Victor b04 (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ROM-DOS hidden operating System

I had a AFX 2.0 calculator, and I could see the real operating-system of this machines is a very lite version of ROM-DOS. It contains a lite version of COMMAND.COM (without any built-in commands), a tiny BIOS which even replaces IBMDOS.SYS and IBM.SYS, but uses the standard CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT to load the flash driver, set some variables and loads the AFX GUI (splited in two programs) that is no more than a standard MS-DOS aplication. Also it acts as a TRS program, prevent when an applications finishes to return to command prompt, and it will load the AFX GUI again. All maths software is located in several EXE that act more like dinamic libraries. Any add-in applications is just DOS programs that uses the AFX API. Basically Casio uses a standard operating system, but create some tricks to prevent normal users to go to command prompt level.

fx-CG10 or fx-CG 10?

The model names of the Prizm calculators (fx-CG10 and fx-CG20) can be spelled either without a space before the number, or with a space. Casio seems to use the fx-CG10/fx-CG20 form in pretty much all of their documentation and such. The place where the space is most prominent is the front of the calculator itself, but I'm not sure if it should be written like fx-CG 10/fx-CG 20 since there are other odd quirks when it comes to how the model name is written on the calc itself, such as the fx being italicized and the G being more bold than the C, which leads to something like "fx-CG 10". Any thoughts on this? JosJuice (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undid revision

Various external links were removed citing WP:EL

However, apart from the newest Prizm fx-CG section, the rest of the article is largely based on two of the removed references:

History of Casio Calculators
Model Numbers Equivalence Table

Therefore I have reinstated the links. You won't find any official Casio website that supports the content of this article because Casio's website doesn't cover the oldest models. 92.40.56.208 (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standardized tests

I'm a university educated Briton and have not heard of "ACT, SAT, and AP". Perhaps these should be prefixed with "American" or whatever to explain them better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.60.254 (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Casio graphic calculators. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Casio graphic calculators. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071230061840/http://www.casioworld.fr.st/ to http://www.casioworld.fr.st/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page in need of rewrite

I've rewritten this post a few times by now before publishing it, so I do apologize if it's not up to quota for this site. This article (English version, unsure if this discussion is global or just for English,) shows many errors throughout, including run-on sentences- the page starts with one, so that's a red flag, confusing paragraphs with no clear introduction or transition, missing punctuation- see the heading "7400 Series", second sentence; among other proofreading issues that interfere with the understanding of information otherwise appropriately present. I'd recommend that someone, or maybe even a small group, proofread the entire page. I've noticed that there's quite a few corrections that could be made on each section- but at this point I think a proper rewrite to the current material would aid this article. Originally I only noticed the lack of a comma following "For instance" in the paragraph for the 7400 Series, but as I went to fix such I noticed more errors not only within that paragraph but throughout the entire page.

I'm not in the best position currently to do such myself, thus the lack of an account associated with me; but if this page is to be marked for a revision, I have some more examples that are 100% erroneous.

Side cell labeled "Casio CFX-9850GB Plus", statistic for weight states "190 gram" instead of "190 grams". Within that same cell, statistic for user memory lists "32 kibibite", which is not a unit familiar to most readers, including myself- who thought that "kibibite" was a typo; this term should be plural and likely changed to reflect a more universally recognized unit such as the equivalent "kilobyte". Again, in that cell, the term "BASIC-like" is used, although other parts of the page refer to these calculators using "Casio BASIC". The first bullet list in the section "fx-CG Prizm prizes" is inconsistent in capitalization. Multiple sentences throughout the article do not include a comma where one should be placed, such as after "For instance" under section "7400 Series". "Power Graphic Series (1990)" sequentially lists several terms separated by commas, however changing abruptly to semicolons partway through- in addition to being a run-on sentence. I'm going to stop these examples here, since there's already enough reasoning for a rewrite of this article.

Sorry to the person who wrote most of this page. While the content is there, there's some serious need for proofreading and a lot of grammar fixes.

Rewriting would make the page much easier to understand, and would allow more people to learn about this topic: that's one of Wikipedia's philosophies, providing good information in ways anyone can understand- right?

I've never posted to Wikipedia before, so sorry if this is itself a hard read. - Anon 24.240.100.20 (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some good suggestions. I have re-written most of this article. Would certainly implement these suggestions as well. 223.29.234.202 (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

article is still questionable

new editor here, so sorry if whatever i'm writing doesn't make sense

this page is still rife with weird structural choices and grammar mistakes - what exactly is the difference between these "generations"? how are they defined? who decided on them? is this an official term?

there's alot of repetition and vagueness, for instance how were some of the 1993 models more advanced in terms of equation solving? which ones? that's just two examples, but this is a common occurrence for this specific article

i also find it weird how the french versions of these calculators are constantly mentioned? why?

i'll try to work on this on the next few days, but man is it hard when the entire article has gone through some rewrites and it still looks like this

Koriyamadesu (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]