Re: 83 vs. 85/86
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: 83 vs. 85/86
I haven't completely checked into it, but I think there are less raw
commands for asm in the 85 than in the 83 (or 86). As I said, TI built
the 83 and 86 with knowledge of the popular ASM.
CaptainSp
Grant Stockly wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> Depending on the shell. Mel said he worked on the technical work with usgard
>
> >>
> >> >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.
> Ok. The 85 ASM is plenty safe if you don't run (or try) to run programs
> made for another shell or version. The only reason the 83 is 'more
> powerful' (which it isn't) is because TI has toons of rom calls available.
> No one has spent the time to figure out the 85s.
>
> Mel helped work on it. Look at the credits screen for usgard or zshell.
References: