Survey posted 2003-08-30 05:43 by Henrik.

Contribute ideas to surveys by sending a mail to survey@ticalc.org.

yay, my first vote from linux. I have a z80, a 68k, an ARM, an old x86, and a celeron thing, which is currently running redhat 7.2, and updating kernel so I can try zero-install. Also, anyone know of an easy way to update my glibc, or does it really matter if you have 2.2 NOT 2.3, or am I probably also running into dependancy problems with other missing libc things? I want bzflag )-:

Debian + DRI Radeon 7500 + P4 2.4 Ghz = win 4 life

you are lucky. You are probably also "blessed" with a debian-recognized sound card, if I had one I would be on debian, no more stupid rpm, as apt rocks. But don't ATI cards have problems with opengl, or is that just my very old stupid one?

Debian seems to work just fine with my sound card ( a sound blaster live! value) i just had to add a line to /etc/modules and it worked without any further configuration (the line was just the name of the module that has the drivers, in this case 'emu10k1')

On the other hand I also have an AIW Radeon in this computer and have had horrible problems trying to get any form of hardware accelerated 3d to work, (software works, but it sllllooowww...) It also took a while to get the capture feature working, and i still can't fully use the capture feature, but at least I can now use my playstation in conjunction with it (and that part is much more stable than it ever was on win2k...)I think for my next computer, I'm going to have the same sound card, but i'll get a hauppage(sp?) capture card and an Nvidia graphics card, mainly because there are official drivers for them...

>>But don't ATI cards have problems with opengl, or is that just my very old stupid one?

Apparantly (I don't use Linux) the main problem is that Linux won't work with the TV-out on ATi Cards.

...but I use Windows and my ATi 9000.

well, all the driver problems would be reversed if companies made drivers only for linux, hehehehe (evil laugh), but nVidia seems very pro-linux, and my TNT2 (gForce 0.5 is it?) works pretty good, and they are quite progressive about driver improvements.

You can get an apt still manager for RH based distros. You may want to do a search for it.

If you can grab a copy of Knoppix off the net then try that in your machine. If that finds all your hardware then make a copy of what it thinks everything is and give Debian a go. (Knoppix is Debian).
Chances are you just haven't found the right driver / setup yet.

Debian is quite an 'involved' system and takes a little TLC to get it to work with you.

Suse is also something worth looking at apparantly.

***Have just thought - the sound card is nothing to do with Debian, duh me being daft. All hardware that is supported in linux is supported in all linux (within reason). Compile a new kernel.
also check out...
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Sound-HOWTO/

lol, compile new kernel. Just the simplest of kernel params, nothing advanced, 1 (one) PII chip, and I get SMP enumeration errors or something like that (I wish I was a guru). Last time, tulip wouldn't compile, had to use generic dec, would have been fine if the kernel had all USB HID (I hate the term human interface device btw) set up right for my usb trackball, redhat gave me "hardware removed" errors. Sorry about the rant, but good thing is I got a new SB card, new as in ISA, that has no static, or very little. should make setting up linux easier with a 100% SB or whatever.

If you have the bandwidth 2.4.21 is pretty good (www.kernel.org for latest). I always used to have to compile SMP into my kernel for the damn thing to compile / work. The later releases seem to have solved this though.
Good luck with all.

all i need is my trusty 89, and whatever computer i can get to run TIGCC, and i'm set. i kinda live on it, many hours of the day at least.

I agree

Same with my V200-unfortunately it's broken at this point & being "repaired" in Texas :(. All you need is the right software (more than a file explorer-like programs) and an old EPSON printer that doesn't need a driver, and you're basically set for the essentials.

As of when I voted, I'm only 1 of 2 PPC users. Oh well, guess it's just not going to be easy to program in TIGCC for my TI-89 (until I figure out how to get TIGCC for Linux working on Mac OS X).

I run Linux on my PowerPC. Stop assuming Linux means x86.

lol, darwin is not in the lead

I am going to either get an Opteron (not Athlon64...I want more HT controllers so I can be cool) or a PPC970 dual processing rig when I get enough money. Actually, I /had/ enough money, but then my truck died so I had to spend all of my computer and audio equipment money on a new car :( Goodbye to $4000...and then the car I got leaked all of its oil in three days and it died. So now I have a Camaro that needs $1000 of work to be in good running condition (read: all the money I have left). But, I digress...

Now I will have to wait until December or January before I get a machine to replace my poor little k6-2/500 box. I think I'll either get an IBM PPC970 workstation (or board if they release it in the ATX formfactor...that would be very nice) or Apple G5 if IBM hasn't released the PPC970 workstations by then. I run GNU/Linux, so for me this is a simple reinstall of Debian and a recompile of a few programs (Ardour, MPlayer, Legacy Doom, and Quake2 basically). I should write some software for my ti89 to control Ardour with (just for the hell of it).

So, my primary platform is x86 for now but will be PPC in the nearish future. As long as the Camaro doesn't die.

interesting results... i'm guessing of the 99% of people who's primary platform is x86, the ones who didn't vote for it don't know what the heck they're talking about or they use their calculator more than their computer...

I don't know many people who use something mainly other than x86 or 68K. I think people who voted z80 really use their calculator more than their computer or they just don't know what they are talking about.

well, does anybody here really know what they're talking about ANY of the time?

No. Of course not. Not even now.

huh...? what?

lol- this is sad

If it is sad, why do laugh? Should that not be 'col'?

MWM

nah... it's more like "that's so pathetically sad it's funny" than "boo hoo this is so sad"... ya know what i mean?

Yeah... those are usually the funniest convos ;-)

HAHA- COL...

I know what I'm talking about.

... i think i was being a little sarcastic, but thanks. glad to hear it

Actually, I do.

I'd hope that noone is still using a 68k (computer) except because of ancient hardware that can't be replaced because of sheer awsomeness (and no new version) or because of nostalga.

Aren't there still quite a few (it's a minority, I know...) people still using Amigas? I was at a computer show in the Netherlands last November and saw one in a stand (That place was pretty interesting, even though I can't read more than a few words in Dutch.. and then mainly the cognates...)

Oops I meant just that one hardware platform that macs use. I didn't mean 68K.

AMS=computer to me. Good enough for word processing (8 color) and good enough for pictures and math, and very expandable (USB). Far less expensive than PC and produces the same results-at least the ones I need. Most computer users I know (PC) use Internet Explorer, Paint, Word, Outlook Express, Acrobat Reader, and Solitaire. Easy enough for a V200 to do @ about $200.

Although not as primary platform, I use a 68k from time to time (they are great machines).

I think you're right. Most people probably have no idea what the survey is asking.

Or what it's supposed to be asking, I guess you could say...

ya i have no idea what my platform is all i know is that its an 89

it's only your 89 if you use your 89 more than you use your pc or mac or whatever... which is just weird

so i guess i'm weird, 'cause i do

Would I be considered stupid if I didn't know what my primary platform was? I know my OS... but I guess that doesn't really help, does it...

nah. even most computer savvy people don't know what exactly their platform actually is... i'm going to poll my CS classes to see if any of them have any idea.

at least ticalc.org has a 58% success rate, give or take a few of the guessers.

who here isn't actually on an x86?

i guess all the mac users... so it wouldn't be 99%

That would be any one using an 8088, 8080, Macintosh (Motorola 68000 series of proc.) or a x86 ripoff. A good survey would be 'What OS are you running?' 1)DOS, 2)Windows 3.1, 3)Windows 95/98, 4)Win NT/XP 5)Another crappy version of Windows, 6)Linux, 7)OS/2 Warp, 8)CP/M-80, 9)Mac OS, 10)I made my own OS and it Roxx!!

I'm not that familiar with DOS, but would one with only DOS be able to connect to the internet and vote? That'd be a site to see

There are actually several browsers for DOS (lynx comes to mind, there is a graphical one, but I can't remember it's name...) and btw: there were progs that allowed for internet way before win3.1 was around GeNie(cap?) for one...

eh... i suppose i just had a negative preconception of DOS, like "yuck"... thanks to my pascal class and all that.

Just remembered the browser's name.. Arachne... http://www.arachne.cz/

There definately are, but as to whether they'd be able to run the scripts &c for these pages or not... Hmm.
But hey, you can 'net off a C64 (The Contiki OS), so maybe some people will be using those.

Lynx supports all modern scripts - but most of these are server side anyway, so forms are all that matters, which lynxs handles better then most browsers.

Atari (68k) can also connect to the net quite happily.

6x86 Celeron Pentium II MMX, afaik, and I am not half the nerd I want to be

No, heck I only know because I'm reading a great boook on Assembly. (Assembly Language Step-By-Step by Jeff Duntemann for all those interested. See if your library has it.)

Hmm... well, I never thought of learning assembly for my computer. MY concern is... if I can so easily crash my TI-82 with buggy z80 ASM... how easily could I crash my computer? *scared*

Well not too easily, but I'd reccommend getting a crap computer to learn on.

Oops. "recommend" (Darn hunt & peck typing.) Oh and a 486 is really all you need for assembly (in DOS).

Me: 586. (Well, Pentium 4)

I know. Darn the craptacular-ness of my P-III 500 Mhz proc. At least it runs... for an hour before needing a reboot. Curse Win 98!!! Okay, enough ranting.

When I git tired of rebooting my PIII-500 with win98, I just pick the 'Linux' option on the bootloader. Ahh, relief...

MWM

My dad was supposed to install a second harddrive with Linux... in 1999! Gah.

Well...
In most cases ASM is no more capable of crashing a system than languages like C (which, as you should know, compiles to machine language just as ASM does), except for the ability to run certain instructions that might crash a computer. Other than a few low-level things like accessing illegal memory or hardware, all the other ways of crashing a system are purely high-level.

Take Windows 9x/ME and possibly NT/2000/XP, for example. They are not good at memory management/protection, so it is possible to crash these OS's just by accessing memory that doesn't belong to the process. You can also crash Win <=98 just by going to a file like c:\nul\nul in Explorer; that is a high-level deficiency in systems like Windows. ;-)

On any other modern OS, such as MacOS X, Linux, or the BSD's (which are all Unices ;), you are almost guaranteed not to be able to crash the computer just by illegal memory accesses or instruction because they have good memory and hardware protection (TI calcs don't have the hardware to do this).

The only thing you can screw up in a Unix system is files to which you have permissions (just your home directory, usually, unless you're root (not a good idea)).

So, if you have and run *nix, you should use that to play with writing ASM programs, and use a program like nasm (gas/as are better as compiler back-ends) to assemble them.

BTW, if you have access to other architectures besides x86 (e.g., IA-64, Sparc, 68k, etc.), I suggest playing with those ASM languages. They all (at least the ones I've played with) have cleaner instruction sets and ways of doing things (like conditional jumps) than x86 ASM.
</ramble>

Okay, how different from x86 assembly is z80 assembly?

The ASM language of x86 and Z80 that are in common use today are quite different, although the processors themselves have a common ancestry.

Z80 and 8085 came from 8080, and the design of 8088/8086 were based on 8080 and 8085; 8086 is source compatible with the 8080 (8086 ASM is a superset of 8080 ASM).

Like the 8085, the Z80 instruction set (and therefore its ASM) is also a superset of 8080, but its ASM has different notations and mnemonics by separating the instruction's operands/operand types from the operator (i.e., use the mnemonic for instructions with similar functions -- "LXI", "STAX", and "STA" would all be "LD" in Z80). For this reason alone I like Z80 ASM better than 8080/x86 ASM.

For more in-depth stuff, google "8080 instruction set", "z80 instruction set", or similar queries.

Wow...

I guess you're right, but I feel a lot safer using C than ASM, mostly because I know what I'm doing with C, and I don't use functions that _could_ screw up the memory, unless I'm really certain that it's safe. In ASM, it's easier to make a careless mistake. And yeah, you're also right about TI-calcs being much easier to crash with one wrong statement than a computer.

But... what if you forgot a RET statement? Or if you accidentally did an endless loop? Can you get out of these things with ASM? (Ctrl+Alt+Del?)

I normally use C also, mostly for compatibility with nearly every platform in existence (I've written code on/for HP Unix, and it compiled and ran the same under Sun and Linux).

It's easy enough even in C to mess up memory. For example, try this: *(int *)42 = 42; You can also have subtler problems with accidently accessing data you've already freed or freeing a block of memory twice. The OS should catch all of those (though I've found that Windows doesn't catch the former; you can write to memory you've just freed).

If you forget a RET instruction, the program will run whatever happens to be in memory immediately after where it's loaded. It might execute some invalid instruction or unallocated memory, but the kernel would catch it and kill your process with a Bus Error or Segmentation Fault or something like that.

With an infinite loop, you could just kill the process.

The point I'm trying to make is that the OS doesn't care whether you write in ASM, C, or even COBOL (yikes!). They all end up in machine language anyway, and the OS has safety mechanisms at the lowest level of the system.

Boy, I'm quite talkative (or is it writative?), ain't I?