A86: Re: Re: Library Shell

To: <assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org>
Subject: A86: Re: Re: Library Shell
From: "Kirk Meyer" <kirkmeyer@bigfoot.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 20:23:57 -0600
References: <86.2343bc9.26266c82@aol.com> <000801bfa4e6$aeed8be0$aeb41881@electrum>
Reply-To: assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org


Zip86 tried to do this, but it crashed a lot. And actually, it turns out the
memory savings from this isn't as much as you might think... (maybe 20%).
But then many compression programs would require you to have, say, 8kb free
in order to work, so you kind of lose the effects...

----- Original Message -----
From: David Phillips <david@acz.org>
To: <assembly-86@lists.ticalc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 7:22 PM
Subject: A86: Re: Library Shell


>
> Yeah, not having libraries is why the 86 doesn't suck and all the other
> calcs do (from a game/programming standpoint, of course...the 89's
symbolic
> nature is quite handy).  What would be interesting to see in a shell is
one
> like the Doors Explorer feature to unzip and run programs, then zip them
up
> again.  If you had a shell that could compress everything on the calc, and
> uncompress and run it, you could have complete compression for programs
> without any problems.
>
> > I posted this awhile ago, and now yet another library support has been
> > released ("Library Shell" by Patrick Wong and Scott Shannon).  I am
> repasting
> > the original email to yet again emphasize the disadvantages of
libraries.
> My
> > original post follows.
>
>
>

References:

A86: Library Shell

From: ComAsYuAre@aol.com

A86: Re: Library Shell

From: "David Phillips" <david@acz.org>