Re: A92: Re: Shells and assembler

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: A92: Re: Shells and assembler


In a message dated 99-10-09 21:45:27 EDT, you write:

> >  under the "system" label in the mem area?  isn't that the kernel?  I 
>  > that is easily (ormore at "possibly") modified. one of the things I've 

>  Uh... no.  :)  Last I checked it's locked from modification.  I'll let you 
ruin
>  your 92 by trying to change it and not being able to get it back.  
(Warranty
>  being long since voided!)

And what is Fargo? a program?  I thought it was a kernel patch.

>  > been a fan of is symbolic grafics.  I don't like graphicks, accept on 
sgi's, 
>  > where they belong.  Imagine how powerful a 400Mhz pentium II would be 
running 
>  > a DOS-like OS, where the "graphics" were all in the bios.  I'm thinking, 
that 
>  > if the ti keeps stuborndly refering to it's "graphics driver" (speaking 
of 
>  > which, I know they make backlights for the 85, can they do that for 92?  
or 
>  > rather, does someone have a barely working 92 they could experiment with 
to 
>  > devel a procedure?), then why don't we just use it for text, and just 
have a  
>  > powerful however user-unfriendly mathematic calculator as well as 
computer. 
>  > I'm saying Graphics nothing, that's not what computers were made for.  
>  > Graphics are for graphing and not wasting processor cycles to make the 
text 
>  > look better.  And sure, A new OS wouldn't be for everybody, but it would 
>  > still fill a nich.

>  I'm not one to make personal judgements, but it sounds like you have some
>  personal vendetta against computer graphics!

I'm on no vendetta.  In fact I design the graphics for web sites.  But that 
aside, I would like to make the destinction between graphics, and misplaced 
graphics.  I'm not against graphics, but I'm against where they are and how 
they're used.  I think graphics shold be an application of computer power 
rather than a necessity.  That's why people still like DOS and Linux 
(although Linux is quickly going to hell because people now just use X and 
think that's the entire OS.)  Think of how fast/powerful whatever an OS would 
be if it used all those precious processor cycles in a more concentrated 
manner, rather than de-focusing so much of them on display ingeneral.  
Graphics (the visualization of data or information) aren't nessessary on the 
start menu for example.  It'd be 400,000 times faster if the OS'd just let 
the bios take care of that stuff.
  

Anyway, even on a calculator, my new OS is far from feasable.  I think the 
next big jump needs to be in a c/c++ compiler for M68k, if it doesn't already 
exist.  i think there's a compiler for the Z80.

Mitch
Follow-Ups: