Re: 83 vs. 85/86
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: 83 vs. 85/86
Grant Stockly wrote:
>
> > When the TI-85 came out, a bug was notice that allowed control of the
>
> A 'bug' would be an edited backup with a pointer to the shell.
Editted by who?
>
> >calculator on a lower level than Basic Programming. It was named
> >Assembly. Obviously since it was a bug, the TI-85 wasn't built for
>
> I hope you meant that the language assembly (aka machine programming
> [through complier]). ASM has been arround for a long time.
Tt has but it was discovered with the 85
>
> >handling assembly and it is not as safe on the TI-85 (nor as powerful)
> >as it is on the TI-83. The TI-83 and 86 were both made WITH knowledge of
> >assembly programming and so they are assembly friendly than the 85's and
> >82's, being capable of handling more ASM programs.
>
> The calculator (TI-83) is just as powerful as an 85. The TI-83 was
> documented by TI so there are millions of rom calls that access most of the
I think you misunderstood. I said and meant ASM on the 85 isnt *as* safe
or powerful as on the 83.
> basic commands. The TI-85 could do that, but it would take inside knowlege
> from TI, or someone with lots of free time.
>
> Assembly is too safe on the 85 if you keep versions and shells separate.
>
> >* The 86 has a much more complicated ASM language than the 83 and so it
> >does more... only its newer and not many ppl know how to do it so you'll
> >often times to make your own programs on the 86 if you want them in
> >ASM. Otherwise you have to settle with only a few ASM programs on the
> >86.
> >
> >* The TI-92 also had a bug that allowed ASM.
>
> They aren't bugs. They are an edited backup that has a pointer to a shell.
Again, editted by who? (and the pointer was not intentional with the 85
or 82, and I think the 92 when they came out.)
CaptainSp
References: