Re: A86: very very odd

To: <assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org>
Subject: Re: A86: very very odd
From: "Trey Jazz" <joemama@minot.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 18:37:11 -0600
Reply-To: assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org

if that were true they wouldnt release a lot of the calls that they have
released. also there has already been a compatible version of the 86, the 85
is exactly what you described in how they would upgrade the 86 (in basic and
os)...except for the new programs. and im sure they wont make another 85/6
clone with expanded features, if they do make another one it will probably
be a diff os more like the 92


-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy Dixon <tdixon@fwi.com>
To: assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org <assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org>
Date: Sunday, February 15, 1998 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: A86: very very odd


>
>Robby Gutmann wrote:
>>
>> At 02:06 PM 2/15/98 -0600, you wrote:
>> >
>> >i dont think that it would be a way to find out 'illegal' disassembly of
>> >rom. lets face it, if TI didnt want us to disassemble the rom and find
out
>> >the calls for the calc they woulda made a documentation of the entire
set of
>---8<---digital scissors applied---8<---
> the way TI kind of trickles out information of varying usefulness.  I
>know
>> a little bit of business theory, and I can't think of a single reason why
>> TI doesn't release all they know about programming ASM on the 86,
>> ESPECIALLY since the built in asm support was a major advertising point.
>
>Well, Apple found with the Apple ][ that lots of great ideas they had
>for later versions of the machine had to be axed because people had
>hacked through the ROM and were making calls to routines Apple wanted to
>move.  If they came out with a fancy new Apple ][, like the the //gs,
>they would have a devil of a time supporting backward compatibility for
>existing programs.  Perhaps TI is figuring that "possibly somewhere down
>the line" they'll come out with an 87, 89, or whatever, and will want to
>make it "mostway" compatible with the 86, even at an assembly level.  By
>finding routines they aren't likely to need to move, they give us some
>access to ROM, without terribly preventing that plan.
>
>Face it, assuming lots of solid assembly applications are written, and
>three years from now they want to release an 87, with all the features
>of an 86, but with a faster CPU, more memory, business apps, or
>whatever.  It might be handy to say, "And all those fancy assembly
>programs for the TI-86 will work just dandy!"
>
>All of this is, of course, pure speculation from one whose link cable is
>still in "shipping limbo." :-)
>