I must say that I'm glad to finnaly see some trickling of what I hope becomes a larger boom of Assembly for the 92+. Now if we could just get the Mac 92+ Graphlink;-)

SmithwickC

Great piece of work! I converted my first program within minutes after downloading :)

Have you (Rusty) talked with David Ellsworth about this? It seems to me that if you two worked together it would greatly speed up the development of a shell with Fargo II binary compatability.

I don't have "my" plus module yet, so what i am posting here is really not based on any fact. I seriously cannot believe that a person has or will ever create a FBrowser just like Ellsworth's. My advice is if you have the knowledge to program a shell like that, make it better than Ellsworth's FBrowser. Maybe not as much code wise as we would all like to see a graphical shell - a NICE graphical shell.
-Aj

You don't get it. the point of this shell is to give the TI92+ decent Asembly support. Since the FargoII port seems to be nowhere in sight I think the Plusshell is a welcome addition(Especialy since it offers quick modifications from FargoII to PLusShell).

SmithwickC

Not to so much argue with you, but the point is not as you say: "to give the TI92+ decent Asembly
support" It already has the asm support unlike the regular ti-92 which needed fargo.

I think what we are talking about here is keeping fargo on the plus series. For me to say more abotu that I would need to know if the shell that is made just looks like fargo, or has some code in it that bridges the gap between any incompatibilities between fargo and 92+ asm.
-Aj

Perhaps I need to clarify myself. What I meant by decent assembly support was the near compatibility with Fargo and library support. Making it so we(Plus Users) would have a decent choice in assembly programs.

SmithwickC

I am planning on obtaining my + module soon, but I would like to say that I must agree with AJ and Niklas. FARGO does not have any competition for the TI-92 and when it is modified to run on the TI-92+, I believe that it will wipe out the rest.

I am looking forward to seeing the Fargo for TI-92+ being compatible with Fargo I and II programs. That would be very nice.

I think a graphical program isn't necessary, but it would make it interesting. Actually I would like to see Fargo for the 92+ in two versions... standard (w/ FBrowser) and a graphical version. That would be cool... just like Usgard (different versions to choose from).

If PlusShell is compatible with Fargo I and II programs AND if it didn't have any shell-specific programs (like the TI-86 shells), that would be cool. If not, I can't say much for it, but at least it is something that can be used until Fargo for the TI-92+ is released.

Just an idea: Fargo PLUS would make a good name for the 92+ version of Fargo.

I don't know if Fargo will ever be ported to the TI-92 Plus by David. David is a fairly unpredictable person as programming work goes.

But I must agree, shell-specific programs are bad. Right now you don't need the PlusShell browser to run the programs, you can simply run them from the TI-OS. They of course do need the libraries.

I hope Rusty continues work on PlusShell and makes it better. And if David returns to the scene, I would like to see them work together on the shell, rather than having two shells. I think we can all agree on keeping the TI-92 Plus scene pure of the multiple shell madness right?

Did I miss something? I was under the impression David was actively programming and improving Fargo II. Has development halted on it? Also, isn't the source available for Fargo II (I'm going out on a limb here, because I really don't know). If so, someone who has access (perhaps this is the reason....DavidEll doesn't yet have access to a '92+) to a TI-92+ could port Fargo to it.

No one really knows what David is doing right now. He is pretty unpredictable. He starts some projects, then starts others and leaves others unfinished. I haven't seen him online in over a week.

The source to Fargo II has not been released. And David Ellsworth does have a Plus module.

One question: why? The Plus module already supports assembler! Why not just port the programs to native TI-Assembler? That would be just as easy (granted, I don't program in Assembler!) as porting the code for another shell!

Wouldn't it be nice, though, to have a listing of all of the ASM programs and a few decent utilities? Also, I would like to see an on-demand garbage cleanup option instead of having to fill the ROM to trigger the defragmentation process.

1) Availability. TI is "investigating what the users want" and we won't see any ASM support from their side for a while. Anyone remember how long it took them to get those support pages up for the 83/86?
2) Development environment. I for one think Fargo/PlusShell are great if teamed up with a nice text editor.
3) Library support. TI may decide that the users want this, but Fargo/PlusShell already has it - and it helps *a lot*.
4) TSR support. Fargo may get this if 0.3.0 ever sees the light of day :)
5) Software base. Fargo already has a largish amount of programs and games, and they are quite easy to port to the Plus if their programmers have any reason for it (like, say, owning a Plus module).

And finally:

6) Coolness factor. A shell (text or graphical) seems much "cleaner" than just launching the programs by writing their names, at least as long as the programs don't require any arguments.

I have what I think is a good idea for ANY 92+ shell. Why not implement a feature to keep programs in the archive memory? I don't know how the copy process works on the 92+, I don't have mine yet, but wouldn't it be nice to select a program, see "copying to main RAM..." (as the program is copied from the archive), run the program, then the copy is deleted. That would be really cool.

I may be wrong, but I think you can run programs that are in the main RAM or the user archive. It's just that you can't edit any program in the user archive.

They are copied into the real RAM before they are executed. This goes for the native assembly programs as well, but PlusShell doesn't support it yet. Try placing a library or program besides the actual shell executable in the Archive, and then run something - crash!
The fact that the program even shows up in the menu tells us that the programs are still in the VAT, which could cause some problems if a game that's supposed to run on the 92, 92E/II and 92+ need external files... :(

Well, instead of responding to each posting that i have something to say about, i am just gonna say something over all. The only reason I see to have plus shell right now is fargo compatibility. However, I see no reason to discourage others to not make shells for the 92+. I think that variety is good, as long as none of the shells demand something in the program so that you NEED that shell to run the game. SO what i am saying, as i try to make myself clear is, many shells are fine on the 92+. They can have different features. BUT....!!!there must be a uniform code to make fargo games playable on the shell.
-Aj