Re: A85: Rigel, where'd it go??
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A85: Rigel, where'd it go??
Ben Sferrazza wrote:
>
> Michael Pearce wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 19:18:50 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> > >Jimmy Mårdell wrote:
> > >> As Sam & Andi has mentioned, it's one byte most of the time. The format
> > >> is very simple: if the next byte in the relocation table is >0, it's
> > >> the relative address from the previous relocation address. If it's 0,
> > >> the next word in the table is the relative address from the previous
> > >> relocation address.
> > >>
> > >> Personally, I've never liked fixed address relocation because it
> > >> seems very unstable, especially if you're going to support libraries,
> > >> TSR, deleting/resizing vars etc. Deleting a variable between
> > >> the fixed program and libraries in use (+ TSR programs running) must
> > >> require quite a lot of code since you have to rerelocate the library
> > >> and the TSR program.
> > >
> > >Maybe that's been the case in your attempts with Usgard. However, Rigel
> > >1.0, which supports Fixed Address Relocation, is very stable. One can
> > >have TSRs, libraries, and use the Var functions (I've tested). And as
> > >for it taking a lot of code. Well, somehow I managed to get Rigel in a
> > >size 800 bytes less than Usgard. So, do you have a different opinion on
> > >fixed address relocation?
> > >
> >
> > I think that you are over estimating the size of Usgard. With a shell
> > similar to the one for rigel, it is about 1800 bytes. Rigel, without
> > all of the features you talked about (i.e. v0.9) is 1200 bytes.
> >
> > -mike pearce
>
> Maybe your mistaken. I believe the full version of Usgard is 1900 bytes
> w/o a shell. With a comparable shell Usgard is greater than 2200 bytes
> at least. Rigel which has all the features (plus lots more) of Usgard,
> is going to be less than 1500 bytes. That's at least a good 700 bytes
> less than Rigel (not to mention that you get fixed address relocation
> and library support; two things not in Usgard). I can't argue that one
> should use Rigel right now. But once I (and hopefully and lot more
> people) develop games and the such for Rigel, I could make that
> argument. Hey, power to Usgard, I hope it has a transitory success.
Yes, Usgard is a little too big. Your description of Rigel 1.0 looks
pretty good actually, perhaps even better than Usgard 1.1, although we
can't really make any comparisons until U2 and Rigel 1.0 come out, then
we can actually debate the differences. I think you have done an
excellent job, Ben, but there are a few things
that MUST be addressed if you have any goals for your shell at all:
1) Better interface
Usgard's Coolshell really is the best interface out there. You need to
make a comparably good interface for Rigel
2) TSR's outside the shell
3) TI-OS variable support
4) Internal routines & more ROM CALLS
We DEFINATELY need some of the cool calls that Usgard has
5) PROGRAMMER SUPPORT!
there is no feasible way to compete with the awesome Usgard games (like
sqrxz) unless you actually get some programmers to start making Rigel
games. And they can't be mediocre games, they really have to be great
games, ones that might make someone change their shell. Think about
your competition:
(to name a few)
sqrxz, orzunoid, galaxian, plainjump, baloon (i haven't tried it yet
though), ztetris, and of course, tunnels 4.1 :)
There may be more things... but my point is that remember that just
because the shell is 500 bytes or 100 bytes smaller doesn't nessecarily
mean that it is any better than the other shell! Well, good luck with
Rigel 1.0.
--
Terry Peng <tpeng@geocities.com>
Follow-Ups:
References: