Survey posted 2005-05-25 05:13 by Jon.

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

Yeah, I'm going to finish up my Side Scroller engine in BASIC. Hopefully I'll even have it done before summer, since all I still have to do is finish the demo levels. After that, I'll finish my 84 shell, True Blue. Named in honor of the screen I got after trying to use Codex's "inverse rectangle" function!

Question: I can't find any entries anywhere for what the OpenLib( and ExecLib commands on my 84+ SE do. Anyone know?

See link^^ (Or: http://www.michaelv.org/ programs/calcs/ openlib.txt <-- Remove spaces).

Oh...so that's how you use them! Of course, it's probably easier to just use programs like CODEX, but at least TI made an attempt to incorporate ASM routines into BASIC.

There are no Apps like for this yet...I know Ive spent a long time researching this topic

I have an idea for a currency conversion program that I would update using a list of current exchange rates every week or so.

Hey!!! That's MY idea :p

Then work together and update the currencies twice a week.

I could continue to update the FaceMake program I made...possibly. I still have to upload the rest of my programs onto ticalc.org.

Im porting BasicBuilder to Mac....rock on!!!

actually Im almost done with that. Hopefully within a week. Im not sure what Im doing next. sorry about the double post

YEAH! YOU RULE!!!

Since you're so starved for projects. [erhaps after that, you could port the Omnicalc Font Editor too? :D

I dont know. Id have to talk to the author. Id be willing to try...if you have XCode or project builder you could do it. just send an email, and if hes nice he'll send you the source, and hopefully its in a language supported by mac without any windows specific function calls...

You shouldn't need to port an Omnicalc Font Editor, since there is one you can use on the calculator: http://www.ticalc.org/ archives/files/fileinfo/ 290/29070.html (Remove the spaces).

Read my review. It doesn't work on the 84+s.

I've used it on my 84+silver edition, and it worked fine.

Us mac users totally need more programs written for us. Especially a good compiler for the 84+ calc.

I know that you'll just yell at me, but you could just use a windows/unix emulator to run stuff. Actually, you should be able to install unix on a mac anyway. The PowerMac G5s are more than capable of emulating a PC at decent speeds.

know any free emulators? or where we can get some ROMs for them? not that youd be allowed to tell us but.... OS X has Unix built in. I could find no 83+ compilers for either Unix or Mac

wait I forgot....theres Zasm v0.0....but it doesn't work and the readme is aweful

just another troll comment, but...

There's no fundamental reason Mac OS X can't be ported to the x86 and x86-64 platforms. Mac OS X is based on Unix and Unix has been written for almost every platform (besides the Ti-80). This is just another attempt by Apple to make us buy PowerPCs and start a monopoly!!! Anyways, if Apple were to port Mac OS X to x86, they probably would convert a LOT of PC users who are too lazy to go buy another computer.

> Anyways, if Apple were to port Mac OS X to x86, they probably would convert a LOT of PC users who are too lazy to go buy another computer.

Are you one of them?

good idea.....on the other hand after using a G5, I cant imagine anyone else not wanting one if they ever used one.

My problem is I have a G3 with lowly 9.2 OS. I can't do anything.

At least my Pismo (PowerBook G3 model) has been upg'd a bit to 10.3.8 and 384 MB RAM. Still can't run Lord of the Rings though...waah.

I have 1 GB of Ram on my G3 though.

You should be able to run Tiger just fine, then. What's your processor speed?

G3 iMac with Panther. runs faster than any of the schools Pentium 4s or Athlons

It's all in your head, my friend :)
The Apple benchmark tests comparing dual 2.5 GHz G5s to a single 3.6 GHz P4 showed the dual processors to be 99% faster. Therefore, a single 2.5 GHz is actually only 99.5% the speed of the P4, and that's comparing a 64-bit CPU to a 32-bit one.

Not really. On my 800 MHz (G4) flatscreen iMac, both Microsoft Word and Adobe Photoshop Elements run faster than on my dad's 2.x GHz Dell computer.
2.x means that I have no idea how fast it is, only >2.0.

Not true. Ever heard of the "megahertz myth?"
Almost all evidence points to it being true. The megahertz myth is that Apple processors are better manufactured than any others on the market, so they can do MORE with one processor cycle. The numbers mean little.

Rumor has it that Apple has maintained a x86 port of the OS for quite some time. There is even chatter about Apple switching to Intel chips soon (see link).

Maybe they're talking about Intel-manufactured G5s or a future line of Intel PPC G6 processors (yay!).
Maybe they're talking about something mundane like a RAM controller, BIOS (actually Open Firmware) chip, or even simply RAM sticks (or maybe Apple and Intel are working together to make a radically new cooling system for the next-generation superhot chips, maybe one that will involve levers, dials, crumb trays, rye, and English muffins).
Maybe Apple's best LCD projector burnt out several weeks before Jobs's WWDC keynote, and they need to get one custom-made, rush.
Maybe (but highly unlikely) they're talking about a whole new chipset, and Apple's about to make another giant transfer, like the M68000 to PowerPC jump.
But I guarantee it's not x86 processors: that jump is too big.
(Apple: don't sue me!)

It's probably bad karma to speculate two days before The Keynote.

Yeah, it is really unlinkely they'll switch, but yes there is "an early version of Mac OS X running on Intel x86 chips." (see link)

More than two days. Sorry, I'm forever temporally troubled.

There've been rumors to this end for a VERY, VERY LOOOOOOONG time. It's a total crock of crap. Apple is a hardware company (HARDWARE!!!). They make PPC hardware, then sell MacOS to run on said hardware. (Why have they only recently started charging for iMovie and iPhoto? Why is iTunes still a free download? Why do Pages and Keynote together cost less than either MS Word or MS PowerPoint alone? IT'S TO SELL APPLE HARDWARE!!!) Something like 70-80% of Apple's computer revenue is hardware, 20-30% is software. If they didn't have the hardware, even the iPod isn't enough of a safety ring for Apple to stop from going down Route 11 straight to the poorhouse (and the nice people in white coats for Jobs). They're not that dumb.

So the next time someone tells you that Apple is going to use x86 hardware, and their name isn't Steve Jobs, and the're not on stage at the Macworld or WWDC keynotes, tell them to "bugger off" in your best British accent and steer clear of them from then on.

The only decent x86 emulator for Mac is Microsoft's Virtual PC. It costs US$200, plus Windows (or x86 Linux).

Hehe... when I get an Apple laptop to take to college, I plan to install PPC MandrakeLinux on a partition, Jaguar, Panther, and Tiger each on their own, boot in Linux, use their "emulation" layer to run MacOS, run VPC in there, and run Windows programs in WINE on the same version of Linux (x86 flavor) in VPC. Ought to be fun. And then it crashes :(.

way to much time on your hands :p. Plus wine is still buggy. To bad it cant run on Macs

I have a lot of time to think. The setup (if ever) would probably be done this time next year, or later.

If by "compiler" you mean an assembler, you can try starting with tpasm (see link). I wrote some helper scripts and programs to create a .86p file from the assembler output. The .86p-creator program can be modified to write a .83p or .8xp or whatever file.

tpasm is, in my opinion, better than TASM. Its directives are a little different, but it's more robust and has more helpful error messages. I've been able to assemble a lot of the programs here with tpasm without many, if any, changes to the source files. Your mileage may vary with TI-84+ programs.

Besides, I submitted a bug fix to the tpasm project, so my name is in its README (yay!). That should be enough reason to use it! :)

What link? and is it for 83+ series?

Oops, I forgot the link. Sorry.

It's not written specifically for any calculator, just as TASM isn't either. It assembles Z80 programs into machine code. You have to use another program to wrap the machine code file into a .8xp or whatever file (this is sometimes called a linker because it runs where a linker normally would).

You might be able to find a suitable "linker" in the Unix directory here at ticalc.org. I found a couple called "PerlSquish" and "bin8x" that might work, but I don't know if they work with the 84+.

In case you or others don't know this, here are the steps you generally need to take to assemble a program for most of the calcs. They may vary depending on which programs you use, and some steps might even be omitted (or they might be all combined):

1) assemble the asm file to a hex or binary file
2) convert hex file to binary*
3) link binary file to a program variable file (such as .8xp)

*Some assemblers output a binary file, so you can skip step 2 with them. tpasm writes to a hex file, so you'll have to get a hexfile->binary converter for that. I've written a hexfile converter, so you can ask me nicely if you want it, or you can just download tpasmtools.tgz in Unix Utilities.

I can't get TASM to compile my ASM programs. HOW DO YOU DO IT??????

Use DOS.

Place all of the assembly tools (asm.bat, TASM, DevPack83, DevPac8x, obj83, etc.) and the text file that contains your code into one folder. Next, change the current directory to that folder. Finally, type in "asm (name)," where (name) is the name of the text file, and if all goes well the program should assemble into 83p and 8xp files. Please correct me if this is wrong--it's been years since I've done this ;)

As soon as I learn Cocoa and get time, I'll churn them out.