This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - TC01
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24
316
« on: July 18, 2010, 04:04:53 pm »
I think factoring the Nspire keys should wait until assembly hacks are available for the existing Nspire operating systems (1.7, 2.0, 2.1). Consider that it was only around ten years after release to factor the other calculator's keys- calculators that had either already been hacked for assembly support or had built-in assembly support.
317
« on: July 17, 2010, 02:01:28 pm »
If you open up the Nspire OS with a text editor (without using 7-zip or some other program to extract the files contained within), you can clearly see the minimum OS version (in plain text, not even in hex).
Could you change it to "1.1.9523", save, and send to your calculator? Based on ExtendeD's and Goplat's posts on UTI, I assume this would work presuming you haven't already sent 2.1 to your calculator- unless of course it invalidates the OS in some way.
318
« on: July 17, 2010, 10:33:52 am »
Maybe you should also mention that original versions of the Nspire OS didn't even allow TI-Basic programming?
Like "(except for its very limited form of TI-Basic, which was not even made available until Nspire OS 1.3)"?
319
« on: July 16, 2010, 11:42:07 pm »
Perhaps also, you could find what causes the upgrade to lock out OS downgrading? I was just wondering, can you add/delete/modify files in the .tno file in the program you are using to extract these files. I am using 7-zip (on Windows 7) and I can access all of these files, but I cannot add/delete/modify them.
As a 7-zip user, I downloaded it (even though I don't have an Nspire, I just wanted to see if it would work) to see if I could open it. I found renaming the *.tno and the *.img files to *.7z allowed me to open/extract/edit them fine. I'm on my XP laptop at the moment so I don't know if it works on Windows 7, though.
320
« on: July 16, 2010, 03:54:52 pm »
To be honest, I'm not sure, which brings me to question 3: are there any advantages to writing 68k programs in flash apps, rather than normal programs? There are some advantages, indeed, but mostly for uncommon use cases, e.g.:
* deeper system integration, such as Greg Dietsche's SuperStart program decompressor & launcher. ASM programs would have to resort to event hooks;
* programs > 64 KB large. That said, those are pretty easy as well for ASM programs if relying on HW3Patch on all models (it's almost necessary for daily use of 89T calculators anyway; the production of the 89 and 92+ stopped long ago);
* FlashApps execute from Flash, so they don't need to take RAM for their own code, unlike ASM programs. That said, it's pretty hard to make a program that uses the entire RAM, the only example that comes to my mind is the Chrono Fantasy masterpiece.
Downsides of TIFS / FlashApps, including but not limited to:
* the crappy compiler, and the less efficient instructions used to read RAM from Flash memory;
* the smaller set of programmer-accessible functions, focused on higher-level things;
* no way to use the large set of external libraries designed for TIGCC/GCC4TI ASM programs, you're limited to what the OS proposes (and performance suffers because AMS's graphical functions are slow) or you have to make the new code yourself...
* TIGCC's documentation is much more complete (especially about low-level aspects) than that of TIFS, and GCC4TI's documentation is a superset of TIGCC's;
* FlashApps consume RAM permanently, for their own data (.data and .bss sections, where they store writable stuff). Many apps use several dozens of bytes, but several apps take up more than 1 KB (granted, the PreOS "kernel" consumes much more than 1 KB, but it yields more advanced functionality that ASM programs can build on, though almost nobody does nowadays);
(* compatibility with AMS 2.05 and later only, while many ASM programs happily run on AMS 1.01 92+ / AMS 1.00 89 - but nowadays, this is a weak argument, as AMS 2.05 was released in 2000)
Pretty much anybody in the community will tell you that you should make ASM programs, hands down. Except maybe if you have a specific use case that is better fulfilled with a FlashApp.
In all fairness, I should mention that the damage of TI's crappy compiler can be mitigated by compiling chunks with TIGCC/GCC4TI and somehow integrating them in the FlashApp. The only FlashApp doing this (that I know) is the GTC on-calc C compiler / ASM assembler FlashApp (which is a FlashApp because it contains > 64 KB of code and because the process of compiling with decent optimization requires significant amounts of RAM, so it had better run from Flash). But obviously, it's more complicated...
Ah, okay. So really, the only reason to use a flash app would be for very large programs and/or programs that would otherwise need to use event hooks. So, is there some reason why TIGCC/GCC4TI can't compile to flash apps? What I mean is, is there a reason why the feature was never added? Is this just not a feature that it's worthwhile working on (because there are only a few reasons why apps would be an advantage), or is it impossible to do for some reason? Because it looks like a lot of the downsides are simply related to TI's Flash Studio, not the app format itself.
321
« on: July 16, 2010, 01:43:46 pm »
Microsoft JVM is not available directly from Microsoft, but I found it on a third party website and I got TI Flash Studio working . I have never really tried to make a flash app for a 68k calc, but I have always wondered if this was possible. TI Flash Studio does not use the same syntax as TIGCC/GCC4TI so I can not copy and paste code to it, but I think I did make a small app once when I first got TI Flash Studio working that cleared the screen or something. If I am not mistaken, TI Flash Studio allows you to write flash apps in C.
EDIT: You should be able to download Microsoft JVM from one of the links on this website: http://java-virtual-machine.net/download.html. I think it is the site I used.
Okay, which brings me to question 2: would it work on Windows 7? The site doesn't list 7, but it does list Vista, and I assume it could be out of date. Is there any way to write flash apps for the 68k calcs anymore, without using TI's Flash Studio? Well, no. The only decent use case for TIFS is indeed FlashApps. But then you have to withstand the crappy C compiler which understands only an old dialect of C and generates bad code.
For what purpose would you like to write a FlashApp ? Better system integration ?
To be honest, I'm not sure, which brings me to question 3: are there any advantages to writing 68k programs in flash apps, rather than normal programs? I do have an idea for a 68k program, and having not done much 68k programming (I haven't done too much Z80 programming either, but I've done more of it than 68k programming), I'm just looking at different ways to do it. I know the differences between apps and programs on Z80 calcs (for the most part, anyway), but not on the 68ks. I'd have put this in either the ASM or C forums, but I'm not sure what language apps on 68k calcs are written in. As apcalc wrote, usually C. I'm not aware of full-ASM FlashApps. Some bits, such as the declaration of frames and string frames, may need to be in C.
Ah, okay.
322
« on: July 16, 2010, 12:58:36 pm »
Is there any way to write flash apps for the 68k calcs anymore, without using TI's Flash Studio? Because Microsoft's JVM is no longer available on their site, which is required for it to run.
TIGCC/GCC4TI doesn't support flash apps- are there no third-party programs that let you do this?
I'd have put this in either the ASM or C forums, but I'm not sure what language apps on 68k calcs are written in.
323
« on: July 16, 2010, 12:12:18 pm »
Some 68k programs, especially for Titanium users:
65. SuperStart
66. PreOS
67. Hw3 Patch
68. Command Post Plus
69. Noshell (for people who don't want a fancy interface)
324
« on: July 15, 2010, 10:02:26 pm »
Would it be possible for TI to remove assembly support on a newer version of the TI-OS (83+/84+) or AMS (68k calcs)?
Or, rather than outright do that, they could just release a really buggy OS that messes with a lot of existing assembly programs, slows down anything dealing with the home screen, introduces compatibility problems...
You know what? They allready did it.
OS 2.53MP for the TI-84+ is buggy, slows down anything dealing with the home screen, introduces compatibility problems...
TI is far more evil than you can imagine, you know...
I was referencing 2.53MP when I wrote that.  But what happened at TI? Was there a change in management or something? Because up to 2004 (Titanium's release) they seemed to be supporting on-calc assembly programming. Didn't they advertise it as a feature? Why are they against it so much now?
325
« on: July 15, 2010, 09:41:58 pm »
Hopefully this will inspire Ndless development to continue, or cause more people to get involved in the project?
I don't even have an Nspire, but this is ridiculous. Would it be possible for TI to remove assembly support on a newer version of the TI-OS (83+/84+) or AMS (68k calcs)? Would they be likely to?
Or, rather than outright do that, they could just release a really buggy OS that messes with a lot of existing assembly programs, slows down anything dealing with the home screen, introduces compatibility problems... if you were a conspiracy theorist there would be plenty of material for one right there.
326
« on: July 13, 2010, 08:53:28 pm »
o.O? Really?
Are you sure you are typing the program right?
Btw if by suspicious you mean that I am trying to crash people calcs, I do not understand why you think I would do this, considering I have been doing calc stuff for 9 years, got 7 programs featured on ticalc.org and am not the person to make junk programs.
If it still fails after double-checking, could you add the following after the DispGraph?
Repeat Getkey(15)
End
EDIT: Btw don't use SourceCoder to copy this. I did not copy the code with it, but by hand
Poorly-chosen word- I meant "why I think it's probably related to Axe and not the program/WabbitEmu's memory". Changed it to "strange". I didn't mean to imply anything, sorry. It compiles if I add the extra Enter at the end, thanks Quigibo.
327
« on: July 13, 2010, 07:23:23 pm »
StoreGDB
StorePic
For(Z,0,63)
Copy(Z*12+L3,L6+756-(Z*12),12)
End
DispGraph
This inverts the screen content, like they wanted to do in this topic: http://ourl.ca/6348 . However, it poses no compatibility issues between each calc hardwares. Screenshot below (added Repeat getkey(15):End inside the code).
When I try compiling just that in WabbitEmu (due to my calc's link port being broken), I get an Err:Out of Mem at 53%, pointing to that last DispGraph command. What's strange about this is that the only thing I have on WabbitEmu is Axe and prgmLCDFLIP (what I called it).
328
« on: July 13, 2010, 05:29:03 pm »
On my 83+, something different happens- the commands seem to alter how light/how dark the screen is. 0C makes it darker, 0F makes it lighter, and I'm not really sure what 0D and 0E do (reset it to the default, it looks like, but I'm not really sure).
329
« on: July 11, 2010, 06:56:01 pm »
Sorry, I never heard of those... Unfortunately, though, Chasm was never completed (and jr and djnz are, at least IMO, very important and necessary). I will look at Tasm_on_calc though, since it seems to be about equal to OTBP.
Hmm, it looks like Tasm_on_calc doesn't support relative addressing either. So OTBP Assembler appears to be the best on-calc assembler currently available.
330
« on: July 11, 2010, 06:26:19 pm »
ah, okay. So you're going to write something like the OTBP assembler in the end?
(At this point you'll want to use Axe, and then we'll eventually have on-calc ASM compilers in three languages: OTBP in basic, MASM in Axe, and Mosaic in ASM. That'll be awesome!  )
And Tasm_on_calc and Chasm, among others... They look like they're written in assembly (that is, from their file category on ticalc.org), but I took a look at the Tasm_on_calc source once and it appears to be Basic with random assembly mixed in. Whereas ChAsm is definitely assembly.
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24
|
Show Posts