ticalc.org
Basics Archives Community Services Programming
Hardware Help About Search Your Account
   Home :: Community :: Surveys :: What is your primary hardware platform?
Error!
Failed to query database!

Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
molybdenum  Account Info

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 )-:

Reply to this comment    30 August 2003, 06:45 GMT


Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
Nitrocloud  Account Info
(Web Page)

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

Reply to this comment    31 August 2003, 06:26 GMT


Re: Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
molybdenum  Account Info

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?

Reply to this comment    1 September 2003, 04:18 GMT

Debian + sound + ATI
Drantin  Account Info

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...

Reply to this comment    1 September 2003, 23:26 GMT


Re: Debian + sound + ATI
benryves  Account Info
(Web Page)

>>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.

Reply to this comment    3 September 2003, 15:13 GMT


Re: Re: Debian + sound + ATI
molybdenum  Account Info

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.

Reply to this comment    6 September 2003, 03:20 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
Soth  Account Info
(Web Page)

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/

Reply to this comment    19 September 2003, 15:52 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
molybdenum  Account Info

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.

Reply to this comment    21 September 2003, 06:02 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
Soth  Account Info
(Web Page)

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.

Reply to this comment    21 September 2003, 15:47 GMT

Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
Cuddles  Account Info

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.

Reply to this comment    30 August 2003, 07:25 GMT

~
angelboy Account Info
(Web Page)

I agree

Reply to this comment    30 August 2003, 16:45 GMT


Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
ti_is_good_++
(Web Page)

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.

Reply to this comment    4 September 2003, 22:06 GMT

Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
Eric Ahnell  Account Info

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).

Reply to this comment    30 August 2003, 15:36 GMT

Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
henrik Account Info
(Web Page)

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

Reply to this comment    30 August 2003, 17:01 GMT


Re: Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
molybdenum  Account Info

lol, darwin is not in the lead

Reply to this comment    31 August 2003, 03:50 GMT


Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
unknown_lamer Account Info
(Web Page)

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.

Reply to this comment    31 August 2003, 05:18 GMT

Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
Barrett Anderson  Account Info
(Web Page)

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...

Reply to this comment    30 August 2003, 18:58 GMT

Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
Jiaqi Wu  Account Info

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.

Reply to this comment    30 August 2003, 19:33 GMT

Re: Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
Cuddles  Account Info

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

Reply to this comment    30 August 2003, 23:32 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
molybdenum  Account Info

No. Of course not. Not even now.

Reply to this comment    31 August 2003, 03:51 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
Cuddles  Account Info

huh...? what?

Reply to this comment    31 August 2003, 16:56 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
no_one_2000_  Account Info
(Web Page)

lol- this is sad

Reply to this comment    31 August 2003, 17:35 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
Matthew Marshall  Account Info

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

MWM

Reply to this comment    12 September 2003, 13:49 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
Cuddles  Account Info

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?

Reply to this comment    13 September 2003, 02:05 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
no_one_2000_  Account Info
(Web Page)

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

HAHA- COL...

Reply to this comment    19 September 2003, 16:34 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
Jiaqi Wu  Account Info

I know what I'm talking about.

Reply to this comment    31 August 2003, 18:23 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
Cuddles  Account Info

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

Reply to this comment    1 September 2003, 22:52 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
Frank A. Nothaft  Account Info
(Web Page)

Actually, I do.

Reply to this comment    1 September 2003, 05:11 GMT


Re: Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
Frank A. Nothaft  Account Info
(Web Page)

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.

Reply to this comment    1 September 2003, 16:34 GMT

68K computers...
Drantin  Account Info

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...)

Reply to this comment    1 September 2003, 23:29 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
Jiaqi Wu  Account Info

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

Reply to this comment    3 September 2003, 03:47 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
ti_is_good_++
(Web Page)

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.

Reply to this comment    4 September 2003, 22:14 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
Soth  Account Info
(Web Page)

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

Reply to this comment    21 September 2003, 15:53 GMT

Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
BullFrog  Account Info
(Web Page)

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

Reply to this comment    31 August 2003, 00:14 GMT


Re: Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
BullFrog  Account Info
(Web Page)

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

Reply to this comment    31 August 2003, 03:41 GMT


Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
Ryan Kearney  Account Info
(Web Page)

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

Reply to this comment    31 August 2003, 04:22 GMT


Re: Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
Cuddles  Account Info

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

Reply to this comment    31 August 2003, 16:57 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: What is your primary hardware platform?
Cuddles  Account Info

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

Reply to this comment    31 August 2003, 17:25 GMT


The question is hypothetical... be nice ;-)
no_one_2000_  Account Info
(Web Page)

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...

Reply to this comment    31 August 2003, 17:41 GMT

Re: The question is hypothetical... be nice ;-)
Cuddles  Account Info

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.

Reply to this comment    31 August 2003, 18:14 GMT

Re: Re: The question is hypothetical... be nice ;-)
Barrett Anderson  Account Info
(Web Page)

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?

Reply to this comment    31 August 2003, 20:19 GMT

Re: Re: Re: The question is hypothetical... be nice ;-)
Barrett Anderson  Account Info
(Web Page)

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

Reply to this comment    31 August 2003, 20:26 GMT


Re: Re: Re: The question is hypothetical... be nice ;-)
Geek_Productions Account Info

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!!

Reply to this comment    1 September 2003, 01:02 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: The question is hypothetical... be nice ;-)
Cuddles  Account Info

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

Reply to this comment    1 September 2003, 22:45 GMT

DOS + internet
Drantin  Account Info

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...

Reply to this comment    1 September 2003, 23:31 GMT


Re: DOS + internet
Cuddles  Account Info

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

Reply to this comment    2 September 2003, 01:35 GMT


Re: Re: DOS + internet
Drantin  Account Info
(Web Page)

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

Reply to this comment    19 September 2003, 00:07 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The question is hypothetical... be nice ;-)
benryves  Account Info
(Web Page)

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.

Reply to this comment    4 September 2003, 16:16 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The question is hypothetical... be nice ;-)
Soth  Account Info
(Web Page)

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.

Reply to this comment    21 September 2003, 15:50 GMT


Re: Re: The question is hypothetical... be nice ;-)
molybdenum  Account Info

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

Reply to this comment    21 September 2003, 09:16 GMT


Re: The question is hypothetical... be nice ;-)
Geek_Productions Account Info

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.)

Reply to this comment    1 September 2003, 01:13 GMT


Re: Re: The question is hypothetical... be nice ;-)
no_one_2000_  Account Info
(Web Page)

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*

Reply to this comment    1 September 2003, 16:44 GMT

Re: Re: Re: The question is hypothetical... be nice ;-)
Geek_Productions Account Info

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

Reply to this comment    2 September 2003, 14:50 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: The question is hypothetical... be nice ;-)
Geek_Productions Account Info

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

Reply to this comment    2 September 2003, 16:23 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The question is hypothetical... be nice ;-)
benryves  Account Info
(Web Page)

Me: 586. (Well, Pentium 4)

Reply to this comment    4 September 2003, 16:17 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The question is hypothetical... be nice ;-)
Geek_Productions Account Info

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.

Reply to this comment    4 September 2003, 20:24 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The question is hypothetical... be nice ;-)
Matthew Marshall  Account Info

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

MWM

Reply to this comment    12 September 2003, 13:56 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The question is hypothetical... be nice ;-)
Geek_Productions Account Info

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

Reply to this comment    15 September 2003, 01:59 GMT


Re: Re: Re: The question is hypothetical... be nice ;-)
Chivo  Account Info

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>

Reply to this comment    10 September 2003, 20:17 GMT

Re: Re: Re: Re: The question is hypothetical... be nice ;-)
Geek_Productions Account Info

Okay, how different from x86 assembly is z80 assembly?

Reply to this comment    10 September 2003, 21:21 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The question is hypothetical... be nice ;-)
Chivo  Account Info

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.

Reply to this comment    10 September 2003, 22:43 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: The question is hypothetical... be nice ;-)
no_one_2000_  Account Info
(Web Page)

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?)

Reply to this comment    19 September 2003, 16:38 GMT


Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The question is hypothetical... be nice ;-)
Chivo  Account Info

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?

Reply to this comment    19 September 2003, 20:32 GMT

1  2  3  4  

You can change the number of comments per page in Account Preferences.

  Copyright © 1996-2012, the ticalc.org project. All rights reserved. | Contact Us | Disclaimer