Re: 83 vs. 85/86

Re: 83 vs. 85/86

• To: CALC-TI@LISTS.PPP.TI.COM
• Subject: Re: 83 vs. 85/86
• From: CaptainSp <soleil@UNFORGETTABLE.COM>
• Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 16:23:58 -0800
• Comments: To: Joseph Gaffney <gaffney@thethinker.com>
• Comments: cc: captain@heartthrob.com
• References: <v02110100b0dd9025388e@[206.149.127.65]> <3.0.1.32.19980110190256.007a7580@www.thethinker.com>
• Reply-To: captain@heartthrob.com

Gee thanks... it's nice to know SOMEONE out there pays attention to the
fact that TI didn't intend to to give the TI-85 support for ASM.

CaptainSp

Joseph Gaffney wrote:
>
> At 04:00 PM 1/10/98 -0800, CaptainSp wrote:
> >There are less in the 85 to begin with... that's why TI isn't in a hurry
> >to document them.
> >
> >CaptainSp
> >
>
> Umm.... the 85 won't be documented for assembly... the 85 isn't supposed to
> have it... so TI is not going to be supporting it...
>
>  ----------------------------------------------
> |               Joseph M. Gaffney              |
> |    Efnet: rm-rf - gaffney@thethinker.com     |
> |  http://www.thethinker.com/members/gaffney/  |
>  ----------------------------------------------

• Re: 83 vs. 85/86
• From: Joseph Gaffney <gaffney@THETHINKER.COM>

• Re: 83 vs. 85/86
• From: Grant Stockly <gussie@ALASKA.NET>
• Re: 83 vs. 85/86
• From: Joseph Gaffney <gaffney@THETHINKER.COM>

• Prev: Re: Rude or not
• Next: Re: 83 vs. 85/86
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread