Re: A85: new 85 hardware...
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A85: new 85 hardware...
>Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 10:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Humberto Yeverino <humberto@engr.csufresno.edu>
>To: assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org
>Subject: Re: A85: new 85 hardware...
>Reply-To: assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org
>
>
>On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Jason Blakeley wrote:
>> My question is how much potential do you think the z80 has? In the
age
>> of 64-bit and 128-bit Pentium processors that clock at 400mHz, how
many
>> z80 programmers would ever be satisfied with with the quality of
>> programs they could write for an 8-bit, 6mHz calc? I always thought
that
>> the reason people programmed calcs in the first place was because it
was
>> open territory. It wasn't dominated by DOS, Windows, or Unix. It
seemed
>> kind of like when the first 8088 or 8086's PC's were made. There was
no
>> one making software for it at first. But even PC companies and users
>> moved on to faster processors because they realized that there was
only
>> so much they could do with a 8086. Their larger, more complicated,
and
>> more entertaining programs required more processing power and more
>> memory to run them. I just think its gotten to the point where we've
>> maxxed out the calc and we're searching for something to do with it
>> because nothing more powerful has come out.
>
>But when I look at the software situation I see everyone using a shell
>with an inferior relocator that wastes space. Instead of writting or
just
>using the better relocator that's already been written the solution is
>make an expander for more memory.
>The way I see it most programmers don't even use what's already there,
or
>just don't use it effectively. Maybe it's because everyone thinks it's
>easier to add more memory than to write programs that use less.
>
>The only game that, in my opinion, maxed ot the z80 was Daedulus, and
the
>games I've seen lately don't even come close to it's complexity.
>
>-Humberto Yeverino Jr.
>
>"I kick ass for the Lord."
>
>***********************************************************
>Home Page:
> http://www.engr.csufresno.edu/~humberto/Home.html
>
>Ti Page:
> http://www.engr.csufresno.edu/~humberto/tex.html
>
>z80 Source Page:
> http://www.engr.csufresno.edu/~humberto/z80source.html
>
>Official Tyrant Home Page:
> http://www.engr.csufresno.edu/~humberto/tyrant.html
>
>E-mail:
> humberto@engr.csufresno.edu
>***********************************************************
>
>
But is everyone satisfied with those games? Wouldn't people rather be
able to take games with them like Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem, Diablo, Tomb
Raider, or Descent, rather than board games, arcade classics, simple RPG
games, or very constrained versions of newer games. Why doesn't somebody
write a fast 3D graphics engine for the z80? Not that doing so would
matter because it would like crap on the 85's low res b&w display
anyway. If someone would just show me a version of Doom or something,
with good 3d graphics, sound, and a bunch of levels, I would never say
another thing about it again. But you and I both know that's not going
to happen. Its never going to be the little computer that everyone
wants. The Ti calc was never meant to do the stuff that we want it to,
and nothing using a 20 year old processor could. I'm not saying you
can't get sound, because you can. I'm not saying you couldn't get 3d
graphics, because you could (even though they'd be slow and crappy
looking), but you won't get them to work together. I understand that
people aren't taking full advantage of the capability fast, small shells
would provide, but there is only so much that a shell can do.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com