Omnimaga
Calculator Community => TI Calculators => Topic started by: dreamdragon on January 15, 2014, 09:31:49 am
-
question from a crazy lunatic 15 year older... :crazy:
is there a way to run a virtual machine on the ti 84+c se?
the one os i want to be able to install & run would be the one for ti 84+se, or ti84+! ._.
-
A virtual machine can only emulate devices with lower specs than the machine you run it on. The ti-84+CSE has the same specs as the 84+ (apart from the larger archieve), so it won't be able to run the normal 84+ OS.
-
Technically, an emulator might be possible (emulating the 48KB RAM models), but it would take a lot of work and could be pretty slow.
-
A virtual machine can only emulate devices with lower specs than the machine you run it on. The ti-84+CSE has the same specs as the 84+ (apart from the larger archieve), so it won't be able to run the normal 84+ OS.
!
A mac os running on your windows compuer would actually be running on higher specs....not lower specs(especially if the pc is for windows xp) >:(
-
Except that the Windows computer wouldn't be actually emulating the Mac OS. It would be running it directly. Emulating takes far more resources. For example, the HP 50g OS runs on a Saturn emulator and is an updated version of the HP 48g OS. Even though the 50g is clocked at almost 70-90 MHz, it still only runs 7 times faster than the 48g, which is only 4 MHz.
A TI-82 emu for the 83+SE and older 84+SE models exist and it runs about twice slower than the original calculator, even if the original calc is 6 MHz and the emulator is 15. To run the 84+ emu at perfect speed on the CSE it would require the calc to be around 30-40 MHz.
-
A virtual machine can only emulate devices with lower specs than the machine you run it on. The ti-84+CSE has the same specs as the 84+ (apart from the larger archieve), so it won't be able to run the normal 84+ OS.
!
A mac os running on your windows compuer would actually be running on higher specs....not lower specs(especially if the pc is for windows xp) >:(
Sorry if I drift off-topic a bit, but I seem to have an English misunderstanding. Aren't dreamdragon and ben_g saying the same thing, like "emulating is a high resource device emulating a lower resource" ? If so, why do I have the impression dreamdragon is contradicting ben_g ?
Note: this might just be all me not understanding things.
-
This looks to me like a "Mac is better than PC" argument, which is not contributing to the topic at all. Thing is we are talking about hardware specs and not software. You can have a 64-bit Windows 8 running in a 32-bit Windows 2000 environment, as long as your computer supports Intel VT-x, which it will support if it is fairly recent.
And even in terms of hardware it is not as simple. You CAN have a virtual machine with more disk space and RAM than the host. Of course you have to swap part of the memory to the hard drive (Swap file) and you need to use a non-preallocated disk space, but it is possible. However this comes at the expense of execution speed.
But as a rule of thumb, yes, your host your should have better hardware specs than your guest.
(This being said, I am going to install Win2k on a computer and install Win8 with more RAM and Disk Space than the host, just to see the drop in performance this would do)
-
okay FINE. x.x
no emulate! <_<
my original question was this:
can i run a ti84 os on a ti84 +c se directly? :hyper:
[can someone please scratch my back?!?!?]
-
Yes, you can. However, the LCD driver is completely different so you would only see garbage.
-
Yes, you can. However, the LCD driver is completely different so you would only see garbage.
ROFL.
._.
garbage indeed...
until some smart guy(or girl) comes along and masters the art of the display! ;D :hyper: *.*
-
That would require a modified OS updating all of the graphics of the OS. This is essentially what the CSE OSes are ;)
Have you gotten to check out all of the fairly awesome projects already completed with the CSE? There are a number of people that know how to work with the LCD. Just look at KermM's DoorsCS8, tr1p1ea's xLIB CSE, the plethora of AsmBandit's programs.
-
That would require a modified OS updating all of the graphics of the OS. This is essentially what the CSE OSes are ;)
Have you gotten to check out all of the fairly awesome projects already completed with the CSE? There are a number of people that know how to work with the LCD. Just look at KermM's DoorsCS8, tr1p1ea's xLIB CSE, the plethora of AsmBandit's programs.
looked at xlib,
what the heck is that thing? ???
-
Please enlighten me. How did this end up on the front page?
-
Split this topic because it was pretty far off. ;) xlib is a utility that lets you do advanced graphics. It serves to add additional functionality to TI-BASIC.
*Edit*@linuxgeek: The original topic that this was split from was news, that's why.
-
okay FINE. x.x
no emulate! <_<
my original question was this:
can i run a ti84 os on a ti84 +c se directly? :hyper:
[can someone please scratch my back?!?!?]
That would require a modified OS updating all of the graphics of the OS. This is essentially what the CSE OSes are ;)
Added to that: Once you have a modded 84+ OS that works on the CSE, It will only be able to run BASIC programs correctly, and it will still run slower than the 84+ because it has to send more data to the screen. Assembly, axe, hybrid basic and probably also grammmar programs will still display garbage because they use their own routines to display stuff.
-
xLIBC is part of Doors CSE 8 along with Celtic 2 CSE. xLIBC/Celtic2CSE are both designed to enhance the capabilities of the TI-BASIC calculator programming language (basically, they let you do stuff that is normally impossible in TI-BASIC, without forcing you to learn Z80 assembly). However, it can be tricky to use and you really need to practice and read the doc on the DCS wiki. It requires you to have some will to learn how to program, though, because other people who also have limited free time are definitively not gonna want to do the job for you.
okay FINE. x.x
no emulate! <_<
my original question was this:
can i run a ti84 os on a ti84 +c se directly? :hyper:
[can someone please scratch my back?!?!?]
That would require a modified OS updating all of the graphics of the OS. This is essentially what the CSE OSes are ;)
Added to that: Once you have a modded 84+ OS that works on the CSE, It will only be able to run BASIC programs correctly, and it will still run slower than the 84+ because it has to send more data to the screen. Assembly, axe, hybrid basic and probably also grammmar programs will still display garbage because they use their own routines to display stuff.
Actually it depends. If you make the calculator in 160x240 mode and only display stuff every two line without stretching anything horizontally, the speed drop might not be that bad. However, the very small display might be annoying and since the CSE LCD only supports 16-bit data, there would still be the issue about every pixel containing 16 times more data than their 83+/84+ counterpart.
(http://img.ourl.ca/os271csemockup.png)
Also, in addition to drawing pixels being 16 times slower, the emulator would need to emulate motion blur as well (for grayscale), adding even more strain on CPU resources. EDIT: Nvm, it seems to be three times slower, since there's no more LCD delay.
EDIT: Not sure how this ended up as double-post, but I guess I forgot I already replied to something else then clicked post instead of edit x.x. Fixed.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the bottleneck here is the serial communication interface with the LCD display, over which we have no control. If we want the CSE to run an OS that would be fully compatible with games from the TI-84+, we would need to replace the screen with another one.
In this regard, it would be impossible to install an OS on the CSE that would fully support the TI-84+ and all of its programs.
-
From what I remember, the bottleneck is really the LCD itself. The CPU is only capable of updating 4 LCDs worth of data every second because there's just too much data to update. Of course the LCD driver might be at cause too, but since the CPU is too slow for the large LCD itself to begin with, it barely makes a difference. On the older models, there is barely any data to send to the LCD so yes the slow LCD driver can make a noticeable difference. It's possible that the CSE has no LCD driver delay, though.
I think DrDnar once posted the t-states calculations showing the max possible frame rate on the CSE. Kerm's ball program also demonstrates how slow it can be by changing the entire LCD color before the ball animation starts.
EDIT: Ok I found it: http://ourl.ca/18368/338852
More technically, the controller only accepts 16- or 18-bit color, meaning 2 to 3 writes per pixel. Outputting a single pixel takes at least 29 clock cycles (for filling the screen with a single color). By contrast, the old controller needed about 100 clock cycles per write, but each write could send 8 pixels, so each pixel only averaged 12 clock cycles. So it takes three times as long to write a single pixel (if you want actual graphics), and the screen has 12.5 times as many pixels. The old controller can accept 120 96x64 frames per second (but it only displays at 60 fps); the new one, displaying only a shrunken 96x64 subsection, can only manage 60 fps. So, the maximum frame rate for full-screen display is 7 fps (0.15 sec/frame), and that's only possible if you're filling the screen with a single color. In practice, 5-6 fps (about 0.2 s/f) is the best you can possibly get for full screen graphics.
-
Well, yeah, but that's not what you asked. Literally, here are the differences:
-There is more Flash
-The LCD is changed
-The OS code was changed accordingly
Nothing else has changed. In fact, the LCD uses the same two ports as before. The processor didn't change, and the memory map didn't change, so you can definitely put any monochrome OS on the color calc. It would still read keys, work with flash, the USB and I/O port would work (you could still send stuff to it or get stuff off of it with TI-Connect or TILP). You could even send an assembly program that does work properly with the LCD.
But otherwise, yes, it would be impossible to use an unmodified monochrome OS and fully support monochrome programs or apps. They have to be manually ported.
-
Actually, didn't some RAM/Flash memory areas like BCalls location move around a little bit too?
-
Yeah, but those are all part of the OS.
-
From what I remember, the bottleneck is really the LCD itself. The CPU is only capable of updating 4 LCDs worth of data every second because there's just too much data to update. Of course the LCD driver might be at cause too, but since the CPU is too slow for the large LCD itself to begin with, it barely makes a difference. On the older models, there is barely any data to send to the LCD so yes the slow LCD driver can make a noticeable difference. It's possible that the CSE has no LCD driver delay, though.
I think DrDnar once posted the t-states calculations showing the max possible frame rate on the CSE. Kerm's ball program also demonstrates how slow it can be by changing the entire LCD color before the ball animation starts.
EDIT: Ok I found it: http://ourl.ca/18368/338852
More technically, the controller only accepts 16- or 18-bit color, meaning 2 to 3 writes per pixel. Outputting a single pixel takes at least 29 clock cycles (for filling the screen with a single color). By contrast, the old controller needed about 100 clock cycles per write, but each write could send 8 pixels, so each pixel only averaged 12 clock cycles. So it takes three times as long to write a single pixel (if you want actual graphics), and the screen has 12.5 times as many pixels. The old controller can accept 120 96x64 frames per second (but it only displays at 60 fps); the new one, displaying only a shrunken 96x64 subsection, can only manage 60 fps. So, the maximum frame rate for full-screen display is 7 fps (0.15 sec/frame), and that's only possible if you're filling the screen with a single color. In practice, 5-6 fps (about 0.2 s/f) is the best you can possibly get for full screen graphics.
woah woah.
why would they put a slow cpu to run a bigger screen?
-
Because TI-CARESTM.
Anyway, as anyone who has seen a TI calculator at full retail price can attest to, TI wants to squeeze as much of our money as they can while also increasing their own profits. Look at the TI-84+, it used to come with extra Flash but then TI cut it to save ~$0.05. Still confused?
[xkcd=768]Explained[/xkcd]
-
Because TI-CARESTM.
They care?? O.O
From what I remember, the bottleneck is really the LCD itself. The CPU is only capable of updating 4 LCDs worth of data every second because there's just too much data to update. Of course the LCD driver might be at cause too, but since the CPU is too slow for the large LCD itself to begin with, it barely makes a difference. On the older models, there is barely any data to send to the LCD so yes the slow LCD driver can make a noticeable difference. It's possible that the CSE has no LCD driver delay, though.
I think DrDnar once posted the t-states calculations showing the max possible frame rate on the CSE. Kerm's ball program also demonstrates how slow it can be by changing the entire LCD color before the ball animation starts.
EDIT: Ok I found it: http://ourl.ca/18368/338852
More technically, the controller only accepts 16- or 18-bit color, meaning 2 to 3 writes per pixel. Outputting a single pixel takes at least 29 clock cycles (for filling the screen with a single color). By contrast, the old controller needed about 100 clock cycles per write, but each write could send 8 pixels, so each pixel only averaged 12 clock cycles. So it takes three times as long to write a single pixel (if you want actual graphics), and the screen has 12.5 times as many pixels. The old controller can accept 120 96x64 frames per second (but it only displays at 60 fps); the new one, displaying only a shrunken 96x64 subsection, can only manage 60 fps. So, the maximum frame rate for full-screen display is 7 fps (0.15 sec/frame), and that's only possible if you're filling the screen with a single color. In practice, 5-6 fps (about 0.2 s/f) is the best you can possibly get for full screen graphics.
woah woah.
why would they put a slow cpu to run a bigger screen?
The color screen was added as a gimmick to attract customers. Today, most kids are attracted by color screens, not monochrome screens that are hard to read. However, they decided to stick with the same hardware because they're greedy enough to save $0.05, as ordelore says.
If they replaced the Z80 CPU with an EZ80, I bet they would use this as an excuse to increase the price by $30-40. Just remember how the TI-83+SE costed $30-40 higher than the 83+ even though it only had an extra 1.3 MB of archive and a twice faster CPU.
Because TI-CARESTM.
Anyway, as anyone who has seen a TI calculator at full retail price can attest to, TI wants to squeeze as much of our money as they can while also increasing their own profits. Look at the TI-84+, it used to come with extra Flash but then TI cut it to save ~$0.05. Still confused?
[xkcd=768]Explained[/xkcd]
Actually, it's RAM that was cut down (from 128 KB to 48). Flash remained intact. However, in the color model, RAM went back to 128 KB (for now).
-
I wouldn't call it greedy so much as doing business. They know the customer is willing to pay these prices for outdated hardware because of their near-monopoly in schools, so they can get away with it. Yes, the cost of production might not be much higher to add more flash memory, but like any sensible business, they set their prices to make the most profit. We will only see change if there is more significant competition from other companies.
-
Is it possible to run TI-84 CSE on the Nspire?
-
I don't think that is currently possible. However, the nspire's hardware should be powerfull enough. There is already a z80 emulator for the nspire (for the monochrome models). Adding the bigger flash should be easy as the nspire has plenty of memory. Adding support for the screen would probably be a bit harder, but it should still be possible.
-
Yeah the screen will most likely need to be implemented via HLE for speed. The Nspire is able to emulate the ASIC accurately enough at full speed though.
-
I know this topic is SO old, but do you think anyone could assist pulling together a TI 83+ emu for nspire?
-
I know this topic is SO old, but do you think anyone could assist pulling together a TI 83+ emu for nspire?
Sounds like you should start your own topic instead of using this one.
-
You mean like this one? (http://<https://www.omnimaga.org/ti-calculator-programming-and-support/emulating-old-ti-calcs-on-nspire/?topscreen>)
-
You mean like this one? (https://www.omnimaga.org/ti-calculator-programming-and-support/emulating-old-ti-calcs-on-nspire/?topscreen)
Yes, like that one.