Yey a RPG!!!!!!! but I like adventures more :(

What is Dragon Warriors? Isn't it a gameboy game? I've heard of it.

(Hey MathJMendl, 3rd post! LOL)

It was a NES game from 1989 that was rereleased for the Game Boy Color along with Dragon Warrior II in 2000.

Cool, I have a NES! I have millions of games for it (slight exaggeration). Anyone have Super Mario Bros? The original one?

I have SMB the original, 1 2 & 3

Me too! And I beat them all!

Does anyone have Mario Edit? its where you can make your own mario levels. If so please email me (kevin@msi.ms) click the my webpage link to email me

My nes right now is not functioninbut I a=have mario all-stars on snes which contains smb 1-3 and this thing called "smb: the lost world." it's pretty stupid. The cool thing is that they kept the original graphics for the games, so it feels like you are on an nes, but with a neat little controller.

I think I've played that before...

Aren't you the one working on The Shadow of Narkemen?

Jah, that would be me.

I clicked on the link and I'm glad to hear that your website is back up! (A few days ago, I couldn't find your website and I thought I was typing it wrong...) It's a great game so far!

Thanks

yes he is

Now That is awesome! It promises to be as good as the original! WHOO!

Hey, the game isn't green, like all the "featured games". It's still red, which represents a non-animated screenshot. Shouldn't they change it?

none of the colors are ever right, race2 has screen shots, it's still white, and SAS has *animated* screen shots, but it's still red.

<annoyment type=nth_post_comment>
OOH! OOH! 5th comment! OOOH YEAAAAH BUDDY!!! OOOOOH BOY!! YEAAAAAH BUDDY BUDDY BOY!!! YEAAAAAAAH BUDDY!
</annoyment>

nope, you had 6th comment (i posted the one above when it said 4 comments, and i beat you)

I had first comment so I'm tha master! But didn't mention it so I'm the coolest Master ever hahaha

Now that you have mentioned it, you're no longer the master.

No, I'm still tha master but not the cooles master anymore.. ah well I'll keep my mouth shut next time to defend my rank on ticalc.org

I'm a master...

who cares :P

moi

Dragon Warrior for NES was my all time favorite rpg. First one i ever beat, and i think i beat it five+ times. How hard would it be to port it to 89...?

Yeah, would it be that hard?

It would require a complete rewrite. Now, what would be cool would be an 86 emulator for the 89.

I didn't know the ASM was that different between the 86 and 89, unless he used C.

They have C for the 86? Or do you mean if he wrote it in C for the 89?

Sorry :)

What I meant was: I didn't think the ASM from the 86 to the 89 was that different. It would be much different if they programmed it in C.

Actually, C is supposed to be non-specific to any hardware platform. The C for the 86 and the 89 would look almost the same. ASM is extremely platform-dependant, and thus would look completely different from the 86 and the 89. 'Sides, the 86 has a z80 and the 89 has a 68k. Completely different assembly languages..

if that is so would an 86 game work on a 83+? they both use a z80 processor?

They use the same general language. The assembly for flash apps on the 83+ is different than just regular asm. Also, the 86 version might use a shell and may use asm features the 83+ doesn't have. AND it might be compiled differently for the 86 or something. I don't know... I'm just desperate for reasons.

plus, the programs probably start in different RAM locations.

the asm is completely different. The calcs have a much different memory layout as well.

So, they don't have stuff like

Loop1:
call GET_KEY
cp G_ENTER
jp z,PressedEnter
jr Loop1:

It would be sorta like that, because on the 83+, it would be (in plain ASM, not ion/mirageOS):
Loop1:
B_CALL(_getkey)
cp kEnter
jp z,PressedEnter
jr Loop1

Nope, sorry. The 89/92/92+ use 68000 ASM, whick looks totally different than _most_ Z80 ASM (82-86). I'm not positive they even have a CALL or a JR/JP. It would most likely be a total pain in the butt. But someone might port it. It would be easier to rewrite in C. But that would cause the size to be big.

Instead of CALL, the 68k has BSRcc and JSRss (Branch to SubRoutine and Jump to SubRoutine), where cc is the condition (similar to NZ, C, ... on the Z80). The 68k has BRcc/JRcc instead of JR/JP and correspond very closely to JR/JP.

That's cool to know. I'm suppose to be getting an 89 sometime this week, hmm... maybe I should start learning 68k ASM. But I'll never forget my good ol' 86.

-- Josh
"If I were a mouse, I would just have to eat a catfish."

I learned a lot about Z80 and 68k assembly (in fact, also 8051, 8088, and 6800 assembly) in a book that my electronics teacher in high school gave to me. It was a book the school was trying out but didn't need. Its title is "Microprocessor design and application". It shows the instruction sets, but some instructions didn't appear to have a use until I've used the languages. That's the difference between knowing it and knowing how to program in it.

Actually, that same teacher also gave me at least four other books on both AC/DC and digital electronics. I think I was the "teacher's pet" that year. He also let me do some extra credit, stuff like constructing truth tables for the given logic circuit. We didn't cover that kind of stuff that year, but it was easy for me anyway.

I like Z80 and 68k assembly for two different reasons, as you might find for yourself. I like Z80 because it's simple and somewhat more of a challenge to use it in a high-level manner. I like 68k because it's very orthogonal (almost every instruction has the same syntax), and accessing memory, like variables, is much easier and allows for high-level applications with fewer instructions. 68k also corresponds more closely to HLL's, such as C.

There's my $0.02's worth.

I was talking about z80 ti-83+ asm :)
w00t!

Yes, I know, but I think that no_one_2000 was talking about the differences between Z80 and 68k

-- Josh Gentry

a@b%cSEE

The 89 uses a M68K processor while the 86 uses a Z80. Thus, the assembly language would be different on the 86 from the 89.

No, actually, the assembly is different between the two calcuators, and C is not really avaliable for the 86. The 86 uses the Zilog Z80 processor operating at 6 mhz, while the of the 89 uses a Motorola M68K processor. These two processors are very different. The Z80 is similar the Intel 8086, which has the same underlying arctecture as the Pentium class processors. The M68k is different, and is used mainly in small computers, such as the Amiga (??) and the SNES (I think).

Overall, because the Z80 is rather 'unorthodox' and minimally used (except in the gameboy), in many respects, it has recieved little attention from developers, and no C compiler has been created, and no LibC, like the one written by Zjieko Juric (I'm sorry if I spelled your name wrong) for the 89 and 92plus, which gives the calculators a much easier language to work with, similar to ANSI C.

There is also a project by Patrick Davidson (I think it got discontinued) called SouceGuru, and it is designed to be a static recompilation emulator to run 86 software on the 89. It has not worked for me, but I have heard claims that it works with some 86 titles like Galaxian.

Several c compilers exist for the z80 processor. The problem is that they are all closed source, and designed for specific systems.

Open source Z80 C compilers:

http://www.htsoft.com/software/cpm/ readme.html
http://z88dk.sourceforge.net/
http://www.cs.uwa.edu.au/~mafm/robot/ small-c-readme.html

[get rid of the spaces in the address]

Of course being only calculators the C language availible for them would probably not be as complete as on the computer.

A version of Small C has been ported for the 83, 85, and 86 (ti8xcc.zip or ti8xccd.zip in DOS/asm). Small C is a subset of C, which means it can't handle structs, unions, and other things like that, but it's powerful enough that it can compile itself (the compiler, that is). It's open source, but it produces terrible assembly code for the calculators. That's probably because it promotes everything to int (16 bits), even when it doesn't really need to.

I've used a combination of C and asm in some programs to get the best of both worlds. I used C for the overall structure of the program and asm for the fast low-level functions. I think it's a good compromise, and I think that Small C is good for programmers who aren't very fluent in asm but would like to make fast programs and possibly move more towards assembly.

The first Macintosh used an MC68k class chip. Before you start bashing the Mac Classic, keep in mind that the 86 is about as powerful as the IBM compatables of the day. Just another interesting historical tidbit.

It's interesting you mentioned this, because the Z80 (in the TI-86) was improved on the 8080 (like the 8085), which is the predecessor of the 8088, 8086, 80286, and so on up to today's processors.

The original IBM PC was based on the 8088 (the 8088 and 8086 were identical except the '88 had an external 8-bit data bus and could use older 8-bit support chips, whereas the '86 needed newer 16-bit support chips).

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

It wouldn't be a complete rewrite! Phoenix compiles for 83-89 (or 86 or something), doesn't it?

Oh, never mind.

Yeah, but they're all different ASM-wise.

Yeah, I know. I just wasn't thinking. In the beginning it starts as one file, then separates into a coupla different files for separate calculators

Phoenix for the 89/92 is a completely different game than the one for the z80 calcs. The z80 version was a complete rewrite.

Yeah, I realize that. I was a little slow that day.

It seems they didn't get it this time. :)

Forgot to change it, that's all... just a simple mistake, it's my first news item after all :)

This might not be the place to say this, but My Leisure Suit Larry demo has an animated screenshot but no red/blue thingy in front of it :(

It does now :)

yeah, my race2 has SS's and is white, and SAS has ANIMATED SS's and is red.

Both now have red icons... there's probably something wrong with the animation detection, I'll check it out.

k thanks, the problem may be that if there are any non-animated SS's, it makes it red. (there are 2 animated, 2 non-animated SS's in SAS)

Thanks! You are the best! :)