Re: Re: LF: TI-92 Emulator
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Re: LF: TI-92 Emulator
>Subject: Re: Re: LF: TI-92 Emulator
>Sent: 6/30/1997 6:17 PM
>Received: 7/1/1997 9:38 AM
>From: A.J. Moen, A.J._Moen@Thalia.com
>Reply-To: list-fargo@lists.ticalc.org
>To: list-fargo@lists.ticalc.org
>CC: list-fargo@lists.ticalc.org
>
>What Asm. core/compiler were you using?
None. I took the code from the fargo program 'dia' into recourser, cut
the data fork into a code recource and changed the type to 'APPL'.
Beacuse the PPC already has a full 68K emulator in the OS, It
successfully ran the program, but crashed with a missing code segment err.
>
>
>list-fargo@lists.ticalc.org,Internet writes:
>>Subject: Re: LF: TI-92 Emulator
>>Sent: 6/28/1997 12:08 PM
>>Received: 6/30/1997 11:14 AM
>>From: Mark Henry, drgnlrd@intrepid.net
>>Reply-To: list-fargo@lists.ticalc.org
>>To: list-fargo@lists.ticalc.org
>>
>
>I have successfully got a fargo program to run on my mac, unfourtially it
>crashed when it trying to access the libraries
>
>>I believe the TI-92 does not use an actual 68000, but uses some variation
>>of the 68000, which means you couldn't upgrade using a 68010 anyway.
>>
>>-Mark-
>>
>>
>>At 08:59 AM 6/28/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>>> I think that a TI-92 Emulator For mac is possible because of
>>>> the same
>>>> processor (68k). Also Upgrading the '92 with a better processor.
>>>
>>>Both of these ideas have been discussed before. I don't know what's
>>>going on with the Mac, whether an emulator is being worked on or not,
>>>because I don't have a Mac. As for upgrading the processor on the '92,
>>>if I remember correctly from the previous discussions, only the 68010
>>>processor has the same pin layout as the 68000. All of the other 68xxx
>>>processors are not the same size (physically) as the 68k. As for the
>>>machine language of the 68010, I don't think anyone was sure if it was
>>>the same.
>>>
>>>-Joel Murphy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>===================================
> Thalia Services, (703) 533-03938
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>