I, for one, would at least like to hear what h4xor himself has to say about the whole ordeal. Everyone has their own theories about what the real story is, including ticalc.org's "official" stance in the form of Nick's latest posting. But as I stated above, I think it would be most productive if we hear the *real* story from h4xor himself. If it's real, great...I think such an application and IDE as the one he describes in gooey89 and GIDE is a wonderful idea; if it turns out to be a hoax, we, being the TI programming community, should work on making something like gooey89 and GIDE a reality.

*/If/* it's a hoax, I'd like to uncover the truth: what, possibly, was your motivation? Surely you must have realized you would be exposed, and have a lot of people seriously pissed at you. It is also a very childish thing to do...if you have ideas, great, present them, and maybe someone will program/develop something that turns the idea into reality. But to fraud the whole community...that's just shameful. In my own opinion, though, judging from the screenshots alone, GIDE is probably fake. The "link" icons in the upper-right hand corner are obviously taken from gtktilink, the Linux ticalc linking program, for one. Now, this *could* just be a coincidence, sure. But until I hear from h4xor himself, I'm inclined to believe otherwise.

Now, regarding the community response...wtf? Andrew, especially. You informed us of your opinion the thing is fake like 20 freakin' times, man. Give it up...is it really *that* important to you that everyone know YOU spotted it before everyone else? How pathetic. And the TCPA guy, Scott Dial...his behavior wasn't any better. You basically encouraged people not to respond with lame one-liners like "your program sucks," but that's exactly what you did in your message to assembly-89. You seem to be defending TI for some reason..which leads me to my next topic.

I totally agree with h4xor on his position regarding TI. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should say "screw you, TI" or boycott their products. After all, they've made some great calcs, we can all admit...we use them, we should know foremost. But, and we all know this one firsthand as well, their support does truly suck. Releasing an incompatible hardware version (HW2), and a ROM which breaks compatibility with existing ASM programs and limits their size to 8K. Do these seem like the actions of a company who supports its developer community? Hardly... They made excellent calcs, but their support is lousy. So, if they aren't giving us what we what in terms of software, we *should* say screw them, and do it ourselves. They STILL don't seem to understand that the more programs, games, etc. available for their calcs, the /more/ popular they become. When they limit and restrict the hardware, this tends to make the programmers less than happy. I can understand defending proprietary information against possible competitors, sure, but all we want to do is make cool programs and games, not exploit TI by building a similar product and selling it.

Anyway, these are just some things I wanted to get off my chest. That's all.

.0.0.0.0. argoneus
--
"World domination...and scantily-clad females, of course. Who cares if it's twenty below outside?" - Linus Torvalds

Why would h4XOr tell you the truth? (He has not yet.) And another thing, Andrew is a member of the TCPA as well. Perhaps, just perhaps, you should think of people who argue that gooey89 is real in the same way that you think Andrew and Scott's posts were out of line.
Have you seen the 83+ sdk? 600 some-odd pages, surely you do not want more documentation. For all we know, the 68k SDK will be the same, and they say that they will release it in the first quarter of 2000.
On another note, h4XOr, in a email, told me that he was a part of the 68k SDK. I could have swore that the 68k SDK was going to be beta'd by third party developers (real developers).
One more thing, just how are we going to boycott TI? You have your calculators already, right?
- Matthew

I wasn't defending h4xor, if that's what it looked like. I was merely noting that some people went out of their way citing numerous reasons why the program is a hoax. If anything, I respect them (the TCPA guys), because they produce some cool programs for TI calcs. The others who believed it was real certainly didn't go to such lengths trying to prove it.

TI's SDK? A good think, if it's free. 600+ pages of documentation ("documentation likes there's no tomorrow" <--heh), even better. But, if it's $300? No way. That's outrageous, to expect developers to pay money for development software for a *calculator*, that costs more than the calc itself to boot. Especially since there's already a plethora of readily available FREE software and development apps. Do you call that support? I don't... And again, I don't suggest boycotting TI. Their calcs are great, if only for their amazing mathematical capabilities. But *why* on earth would someone pay $300 ... they want to make money, okay. Let those who wish to do so.

If the SDK were in the ballpark of the price of a TI-82, TI-83, or Ti-83+, then I think that the TI community might reconsider flaming TI about this...after all, we're all reasonable folk here . . .right???

--Bobman

You will (if this is anything like the 83+ sdk) be able to get the information and the software for free. You have to pay if you want an application signed.
- Matthew

Btw, check the posts by yousweetlady, they try to prove its real :)

Even I am now beginning to lose faith :(
though I couldn't think of any reason that anyone would want to waste all that effort in making a fake program, It doesn't seem like this is going to happen, especially since the one known as h4X0r seems to have disapeared. (I 'm pretty sure I know who he is)
Remember when the french guy released all that documentation about AMS 2.00? most people thought it was fake, but it turned out to be legit.
I can't figure out any reason for someone to fake a program.

>>Andrew, especially. You informed us of your opinion the thing is fake like 20 freakin' times, man. Give it up...is it really *that* important to you that everyone know YOU spotted it before everyone else?


No... its just that NO ONE else spotted this...

Lets use a analogy... If you have a pile of BS thrown in your face and you don't know it... wouldn't you want someone to tell you that its there... and if you didn't listen don't you think that you'd like to be told again? If i was me then I'd want to be told until I got it off!

I'm sorry, but my memory (and email client) must be flawed because I can't seem to find the one-line, "your program sucks" email by me... go figure.

check out the file dates or the txt file. it looks fake to me, but not by h4xor

Holy sheeot yer right! The date on the EXE is 10/27/99!
ZUH ZUH ZUH.

not everyone keeps the time and date on their computers correct....

but it's the same date as synedit. unless h4x0r is REALLY STUPID, why would he giveout the synedit exe with only changing the name. I think some one is framing him. God, i can make a program that looked like his screen shots in 20 mins. I think Someone is faking it to kill h4x0r.
This post WILL be DELETED

last line should read: kill h4x0r's name.

I just wanted to say, it is at least the base code of SynEdit. I ran it , and an Error box came up saying i didn't have the proper .OCX, and SynEdit was in the error box title area.

install snyedit, copy the exe into the dir and run it

Also, his computer clock is right, by email times of sent, that are right.

I don't want to offend ticalc.org or 89/92 users with this, but I can only expect flames:

I'm not too much agains't news articles being posted every time a program gets a new version (Ooooh! It went from 1.91 to 1.92!!!! Alert the public!!) But the fact is we have seen how 'glorious and powerful' these 89's and 92's are, and we get the fact that they are superior in 'every way' to 83's and 86's. And we also acknowledge the fact that they can have awesome greyscale in just about every game released. So why do we keep seeing such trite posted for news, I think that I would be happier seeing the 'fake news' revived (wasn't that a skit?). I'm sure most of us (of course not including the higher calc users) are tired of seeing such things posted, and would rather see some form of entertaining news. Oh well, its not my site, I'm just giving some input.

Dan

whatever happened to the Ti-Files? Have they released a program in the past couple months? I think when they cut the message board things died out there

(Yay! I get to do the first flame)

I can see your point about all this. I own a TI-83 and an 89 and I am glad that there is all of this news about my "superior" calculator. Don't forget that The TI-83, '82, '86, '85s also had there moment of fame too. They got all of the news before the TI-89 came out. This is simply (spelled it wrong probably) payback. When another new calc comes out, like a TI-93 or something, all of us "superior" calc people will start gettin ticked like you too. It's just a matter of time.

--Bobman

On the contrary! I'm a bit torqued about the sheer amount of news devoted to 83 and 86 games, whereas developments like the on-calc C compiler and graphical multitasking operating system for the 92 get a brief, late article--if an article at all. So it sounds like we're all feeling a little calc envy. :-)

On the contrary, I myself think the 86 is a much better platform for assembly games. I've owned an 85 for five years, an 86 for 2.5, and an 89 since when it came out, and I can honestly say with conviction that I prefer the 86 as far as assembly games.
They're (on the whole) faster, they're usually nicer looking (Matt Shepcar's programs come to mind), they're made by programmers who put love and insurmountable work into the medium, they use grayscale (a small plus but a plus nonetheless), they're built for a calculator with tons of memory which I had never filled to capacity, and they were, overall, much more entertaining in my opinion.

Plus you never have to worry with this garbage with FLASH on the 86. TI did a wonderful job with the 86 ROM versions; you never noticed many changes between them. FLASH is a wonderful idea in theory, but the way TI has implemented it is incredibly flawed from a gamer's perspective.
Despite all this, you HAVE to keep in mind that the 89 is a _calculator_. Despite what popular opinion seems to say, the 89 was made to CALCULATE, not to play games. When TI released the 85, they did it with educators in mind, not Magnus Hagander and Jimmy Mardell. At the time, TI had never seen anything like this coming. Neither did anyone else.

When I post news items regarding AMS v2.03 and all that fun stuff, I do it because so many people own the 89. Look at the top downloads list. The 89 DOMINATES it. Consistently.
Since it's become clear that the 89 is the most popular calculator, coupled with the fact that that the 89 is the calculator which has undergone the most changes in the past months (for obvious reasons), it logically gets the most news items and - with it - the most fanfare.
I hope this clears some things up for you.

--BlueCalx

After hearing so many people complaining about the 8k limit and the $300 SDK I would like to point out that the limitations are not that severe. The freeware SDK comes with the same documentation and it also includes all important header files. This information can be used with a68k to produce wharever program you want. Since it's assembly language there are many ways to get around the 8k limit (like using a loader program). You can even create semi-flash applications (archive applications as I call them) which are physically located in archive an executet while staying there (a loader is required).
The main point is: TI's restrictions are not that terrible. All we need is decent documentation.

-I- would like to point out that, as I have previously pointed on threads and mailing lists, TI stated (in private correspondence with me) that the 8K limit does NOT apply to 68000 platforms. The limit is imposed by the paging system on the 83+, if I remember correctly, and the costly version adds the ability to get around that. The 89 and 92 are contiguous, flat-address-space machines, and do not suffer from this limit. Yes, there are weird OS things that prevent you from exec-ing large programs (if I heard right from previous threads) but the SDK itself is not limited to 8K apps.

like a 8k big program?