Re: A92: The results. (was TIOS: Can't live with is. Can't live withou

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

Re: A92: The results. (was TIOS: Can't live with is. Can't live without it?)


When CAS 2.00 and the SDK come out, could'nt we change the OS, like get rid of certain math functions we will never use, etc?  It'd be great if we could just get rid of TI's OS, but transfer their math functions over to whatever new OS there is (and we would have more room anyway if we get rid of that geometry app and the equation solver, etc...)
Oh well... Someday, either TI will change the OS (unlikely) or someone will get REALLY bored and change it themselves.

Noah Medling
http://xp.calc.org/


---- "Aaron Hill" <serac@lightmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The results are inconsequential.  (Two votes for NO, and one for YES.)
> 
> After considering all of the comments (I received more comments than
> answers to the survey.), I have come up with the following suggestion:
> 
>     * Cease immediate efforts to develop an operating system.
>     * Instead, design new interfaces (e.g. command prompt).
>     * Select two or three individuals to perform research/experiments
>       for possible, future development of an OS.
> 
> Firstly, there is no immediate need of an independent OS.  When an
> application is run, you are technically free from TIOS anyway.  Too
> many issues were brought to my attention regarding the effects of a
> new OS and the existing TIOS ROM.  This makes development of a new
> OS a long, difficult task.
> 
> To spend our time more wisely and more effectively, we should build
> new interfaces for the calculator.  Mitch is very interested in a
> command-line interface, as am I.  If someone would provide services
> like stdin and stdout, console programs would be easier to write as
> no one is required to do manual I/O.  To appeal to visual people, a
> graphical interface could be written.  These interfaces will take
> the place of the existing shell.  Perhaps versions for the TI-89
> and TI-92+ could be developed so everyone can benefit.
> 
> Lastly, a research team (kept very small on purpose) can spend time
> playing around with freeing up the TIOS's runtime data while still
> allowing the calculator to return to factory defaults.  This is an
> essential part of developing a new OS.  The almost 64 KB of memory
> that the "system" uses needs to be freed.  This team can also play
> around with various memory/file-management routines.  Most likely
> the ROM functions depend on the runtime data which will need to be
> cleared for a new OS.  Some ROM functions may still work, however
> I'm sure the existing memory/file-management routines will not be
> available for use.
> 
> - - - -
> 
> I still have an interest in creating a new OS, mainly because I'd
> like to learn more on how the TI-92 works.  But I do not have the
> time to do the research.  If someone would like to lead the team,
> please post on the list so others can join.  Again, I feel that
> only a few people will be needed.  Most of this research will be
> doing dangerous things like deleting the system's runtime data
> and seeing if the calculator fixes itself during a reset.  (I'd
> suggest using an emulator first...)
> 
> For those who would like to work on the command-line interface, I
> believe Mitch would glade welcome any help.  As with any shell, I
> suggest you keep things simple.  Make sure that your interface has
> a specific goal and obtains it with a minimal footprint.  I would
> also warn against using any existing interfaces.  Be creative, and
> make it useful.  Ideally make your interface provide services to
> programmers and not make it simply a facade for launching programs
> (e.g. a command-line interface that provides stdin and stdout, or
> a graphical interface that provides widgets).
> 
> - - - -
> 
> Well, this whole thing has been a real eye-opener for me.  After I
> released version 2 of MultiASM, I kinda stopped playing around with
> the TI-92.  This mainly because I felt that the 92 would not be any
> good with the 89 and 92+ around.  I do not ever expect to upgrade
> to the 92+.  However recently I see that the 92 is still used.  So
> I'm kinda getting back into programming 68K again.
> 
> Since I am programming again, MultiASM users will be glad to hear
> that a new version will be available.  Several design flaws require
> some significant changes.  Better macro support will most likely be
> integrated.  I hope to have the new version ready before December.
> 
> Also, I would really like to start the [i3] project again.  If you
> are not familiar with [i3], I should have info on it about the same
> time MultiASM 3.0 is released.  (You'll just have to wait!)
> 
> P.S. My last suggestion is that you do not continue this thread on
> the Assembly-92 list.  Discussion of new interfaces or the research
> team is appropriate.  However, any comments to this post should be
> directed to me.  Thank you.
> 
> 
> ====
> Aaron Hill (Redmond, Wash.)
> Electronic Mail: serac@lightmail.com
> IRC Nickname: serac (on EF-Net)
> ActiveWorlds Citizenship: serac
> 
> 
> 

___________________________________________________________________
To get your own FREE ZDNet onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax,
all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.com
Follow-Ups: