Survey posted 1999-12-12 06:58 by Andy.

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

This ticks me off. I want to be able to use the flash apps, but I want to run asm programs! TI needs to fix their problems...and just re-relase v2.03...or maybe have v2.03r2 Something like that, whatever. Just have them fix it!

This is _not_ TI's problem... Rusty uses a different method for running ASM programs (with libraries, etc.) than using (waiting for) TI's method. TI does not have _any_ obligation to support the ASM programs. Not to mention that, I'd like to see you show how TI should have an obligation to support games on a _calculator_... There is a reason that I tend to stay away from programming games, and it is that game users are very demanding of things that are not rational... Users of math programs usually provide good, positive input.

ASM doesn't neccessarily imply games. They *could* be talking about assembly math programs (although I rather doubt it).

There isn't much of a point to have assembly if you can't have a lot of good games. I don't think TI would have even put assembly on their calculators if it weren't for games. There are probably a couple math and science programs that are better than their corresponding BASIC programs but lets get real, assembly is for games and that's why it's on our calculators.

But after release of C compiler it is very possible
to write fast numerical analyse programs as SPICE
for nonlinear electrical circuits, STRESS for static
constructions, TCP/IP communication software etc.

I think some people here are missing the point. In fact, the release of Assembly was entirely an accident. It was a loophole that someone found with the TI-85. It was never actually intended to be. Once ASM hit TI, they (wisely) didn't make it a point to integrate it. Instead, they compromised and made it easy for programmers to utilize the loophole. Personally, I don't think TI will ever release official documentation on the 68000 processoor/assembly language.

No offense, but I think you're the one who missed the point. TI didn't compromise the ASM issue by making the loophole easier to access, they added direct support for it in their later calculators; namely, the 83+ (and 83?), 86, 89, and 92+ (whereas the 92 used Fargo via a similar loophole).

Besides, TI wouldn't need to release any documentation on the 68000; such information is readily available already.

Calcs with loop hole:
82,85,92
calcs with built in support:
83,83+,86,89,92+

Sure, features and bugfixes make calculators better.

But adding restrictions doesn't: I doubt that any user would benefit from 8kB limit.
Neither should TI try to extort money from users with nasty licensing schemes.

Anyway, most assembler programs won't run with AMS2.0x because they accessed heap or VAT directly. Most programs can be fixed by using appropriate ROM calls instead.
The problem with ROM calls is that they are mostly undocumented (only heap and windowing functions are documented). Perhaps the SDK will help with this.

$300 software better have a REALLY GOOD help file. :)

--BlueCalx

I think that ticalc.org should send the results of this survey to TI.

~Jonathan Taylor

The results are to close (about 40/60) to send to TI (at the time of this writing), but it would still be good to send the results if all of the comments were included.

I think that they should update bugs and add features, even if all ASM programs don't work with the update (as long as it is a big update - like AMS 2.03), but introducing limitations is stupid. What TI should do is release AMS 2.04, with no 8k limitation for ASM programs. The only place an 8k limitation would be OK is if the release a free SDK that only allows flash apps of under 8k to be designed - even then, there should be no limitation, but at least the limitation would only apply to new programs.

Sending the comments to TI would be especially good with that Big "I agree", ect.. chain at the top of the page.
And sending it to TI would make sure that TI has read the comments and thought about the error of their ways. (hopefully)

They would never actually read them, they would hire a croney to read and interpret them then the croney would look and see us split about 50/50 and say the public cannot decide on what they want.

This implies that people from TI never look at our web site. :p

--BlueCalx

Don't worry ti does look at your site, they even have it posted up on their site.

I think part of the reason that people voted 'yes' to the survey is because they feel no matter what TI does someone will find a way around it. If it asked "Should TI sacrifice assembly program *capability in *future ROM versions to add new features and fix bugs?" I'd have definately voted no. But look - 4 day's after the release of 2.3 there are already four or five working games.

well, when 2.01 was released, not by ti, we had 4 or 5 games then, now some of them don't work, othello, frogger, i think ti will never get rid of asm programmers, couse asm programmers will hack

The question here is not whether "TI should sacrifice assembly program compatibility between ROM versions to add new features and fix bugs?" The question here is whether TI calculators are Game Boys or the marvelous helper that allows us to understand math. I'm sure when TI came out with the first calculator they weren't thinking about games, and I'm sure that more then half of their users aren't worried about games. P.S. Yes, that is right, TI calculators not only can run games but they can do math too! Incredible hu?

Definetely.

*But* ASM could be a powerful scientific tool, as well, if TI provided decent APIs on an official basis. The "let-em-hack" attitude is not really productive, imo.

It would be great to be able to use ASM for advanced mathematics applications, beyond the scope of TI-Basic. Algebra for example (I'm into Galois Theory, and TI-Basic won't do it).

Besides, I do not dislike playing games on my calculator, however scarcely I actually do it. It is not a Gameboy, but a small computer (with the same microprocessor as my very first Macintosh, in the good ol' days). And every respectable computer platforms enable their users to play games as well...

could that 8k limit thing be a problem that occurs when you gain the ability to use flash apps? I know the 83+ has this and it can run flash apps, so I'm just guessing here. No flames please :P