Re: A89: Re: AMS Version?

To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: A89: Re: AMS Version?
From: Patrick Davidson <pad@OCF.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 10:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <001201bff600$1cbdd8e0$4ceabed8@gn0sr>
Reply-To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org

On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Kevin Goodsell wrote:

> My understanding was that, like with most previous releases, 2.04 had
> near zero compatibility when it was released not very long ago. TI
> *does* distribute old AMS versions if you ask them (email
> ti-cares@ti.com) but I'm sure you can download them somewhere. Someone
> sent all the previous versions to me via email once, so I've got them
> on hand if all else fails.

I actually installed 2.04 on my calculator when it was released (before
anything was changed to improve compatibility with it) and found that it
had a much better compatibility than what you mention on a HW1
calculator.  When I used TEOS, I found that about 3 or 4 out of the 12
assembly games I tried had problems.  But Universal OS is much better 
for this ROM version.  With it, 11 programs ran with no problems, and 
one (Fernando 3C) worked partially.  However, I have heard that the
situation is worse for HW2.

I tested the recently-released AMS 2.05 (under VTI only) and it appeared
to have the same level of compatibility, though I didn't test as many
programs.

References:

Re: A89: Re: AMS Version?

From: "Kevin Goodsell" <goodsell@bridgernet.com>