Nick, the second to last link does not work. Please fix it. Thanks.

-James

You rock my suburbian world.

--BlueCalx

Does that mean Eric messed up the news item?

I messed up the part that I updated.

--BlueCalx

I personally still use Doors .96, mainly because it's entirely in asm and has less problems. Oh wait, actually I switched to TeOS. But anyway, I hope this newer version is at lest as good as .96

.96? The new versions are way better! They support archived libraries, and have less problems, not more. Just because it isn't written in ASM doesn't mean it's bad. C can be great in the hands of a master programmer.

See that little note sandwiched in the middle of his post that says, "Oh wait, actually I switched to TeOS"?

The new versions of doors may be "way better," but if we follow your standards, Teos has "support[ed] archived libraries" and had "less [sic - should be fewer] problems" for months, and it has the added benefit of being smaller - not to mention that it's had a good long time for any significant bugs to be weeded out

so riddle me this - why would I rather use new versions of doors than teos?

>why would I rather use new versions of doors than >teos?

You don't have to use it, just try it..

Ok, that's all good, but how about this?

This is a re-occuring bug in both OS's (I think it has to do with the calc itself) and WILL CRASH YOUR CALCULATOR IF YOU TRY TO REPRODUCE IT!!!

1.) Install either Door's OS (any version) or TeOS.
2.) Go to the graph and then to the window variables screen.
3.) Set any minimum value higher than the max or vice-versa.
4.) Presto! Crashed calc! Time to take out those batteries.....

In other words, both programs have their shortcomings!

Tim Dorr
tim@timdorr.com
http://www.timdorr.com

thats not doors or teOS that is a bug in the ROM.
Are you using AMS 2.04?

LOL, 2.04.... That's pretty good I said it was something with the rom if you read carefully. I'm not an idiot! But, fyi, I've had this happen on every rom I've used (1.00 - 2.03, but I'm running good 'ol 1.00 now ;-) ).

It does recur in 2.04, and that is what my post just below used.

Well, no. I don't have any kernels installed, and when I set the xmin to 40, it just moves the graph over so that the xmin really is 40. No crashes there...

It is a bug in the rom, not the programs. However, without a shell installed, it just gives

ERROR
Window variables domain

It does not crash the calc. I have not tried it with a shell installed.

Update: tried it with DoorsOS II 0.98 installed
same message
still no crashes
maybe its b/c my calc is hw2 ams 2.04

Thus far, it is the only one that allows me to use grayscale. In fact it has been that way since I installed my software certificate on my calc that allows me to use geometry software. If the new ones work on this type of calc, please respond.

EVERYONE IN THE WORLD HAS GONE PHYSCO!!
well, not everyone, first ill tell u what i have to let u know what is utterly amazing:
Folders:
-ALLGAMES (46 files in there)
-EMERG (1 file, only need 1 with new .98)
-LIBS (14 files)
-MAIN (15)

All 46 games work GREAT with Doors .98, with the exception of about 5 of them because they are nostub programs
Every file i have is archived as well, DOORS IS THE MASTER!!

Have DoorsOS/Explorer gotten a news item but not a featured program icon because the news item is from a different dimension than the icons, resulting in a black hole sucking the green out of the icons, or just because you haven't gotten around to it yet? :-P

I should really get more sleep. :-)

But its only 11:15 your time... (assuming you're on daylight savings time)

I still have a hard time seeing why anyone would use doors, which is written in C and which has a history of instability, over a kernel like TEOS, which had no confirmed bugs last I checked.

Furthermore, I fail to see why this gets a news article at all other than because it's Doors. Is this release really relevant? Nope. New features? Not that we haven't seen in other shells.

And if you're gonna tell me that bugfixes in a substandard program that is no longer in wide circulation are significant, then I see a lot more updates due. Beginning with "Guess the NuMBeR v 4.07" - wasn't that popular at one point (come on, who hasn't played that before? even in real life?)? Hasn't it been replaced by newer, better games? So now that it gives the correct answers when you enter numbers larger than 65,535, shouldn't it get a news item, too?

Sounds to me like an inferior program is being featured solely because our nice friendly ticalc webmasters don't actually know what they're posting, just that it _sounds_ significant. . .

>which is written in C

What does it change ? Is it bad to be written in C ??
If so just explain me WHY, please.

>(...) which had no confirmed bugs last I checked.

DoorsOS II 0.97 has been released one month ago, and I have not received significant bug reports. This doesn't mean that there aren't, it means : if there are, I don't know them.

On the other hand, I agree with you on one point : I don't think this release deserved a news item since there is practically nothing new.

I have a HW2 AMS2.04 calc. Try running SMQ, turn on greyscale, then exit. THE WHOLE SCREEN GETS SCREWED UP.

This has to be confirmed, but I don't think SMQ is compatible with AMS 2.04, and 2.0x in general

It works great with Univeral OS

Oh, ok. I'll test it then.

Thanx !

one question : have you received my postcard ?

And TE-OS as well.

(almost)everything works well with universal os, it's the best choice(now) if you use ams2.04. ButI have to try this new doorsOs and check if all the progs I have in my calc works. Anyway I'm lazy ... I lost my all my energies because here in the south it's winter: that means I have classes and exams...

I have SMQ on my AMS 2.03 calc, and it runs perfectly!
I don't know about HW2, though.

It worked fine on hw2 ams2.03 with doors II .97
Then I upgraded to ams 2.04 and someone deleted doors from my calc...

works fine under ams 2.04 on same calc with DoorsOS II 0.98 installed

I have no problem with programs in C; in fact I wrote a few programs in C myself. C programs are usually more compatible with different rom versions, but somehow this isn't the case with doorsos. Any ideas?

The reason that ASM is more desirable than C is because when you use a compiled language (eg. C, COBOL, C++, Oberon, et cetera) one instruction is actually many ASM instructions the compilier is responsible for converting. Even though the compilier, or optimizer will make the code smaller, by optimizing it, it still can not change the way it was written. If you have any comments you can reach me at the above e-mail address or at ICQ #69656101 Nickname: Macbeth

Actually, the really great compilers can make complicated programs better than nearly everybody writing ASM. For one thing, programmers generally (*generally*) try to do things using the same register for a variable throughout the program, even though this is often less efficient than changing registers. Compilers, however, do not suffer this problem. Unfortunately, from what I have heard TI-C compilers generally don't fit this definition of great.

Why can't we all just get along...BASIC has it's uses, C has it's uses, and ASM has it's uses. As long as the program is good, does it matter that the ASM version is <sarcasm>22</sarcasm> bytes less than it's C counterpart. Before anyone flames me, I know a good ASM programmer can make smaller and faster programs. Notice the "good". C is a much easier to learn language, allowing people who go insane trying to learn ASM to program in something other than BASIC. It's also faster to code (for most people, I know some who can write kick-ass ASM in their sleep). And if something is running too slow, and you just can't stand it, there's always the inline assembler...

Well, there's my rant. GET ALONG WITH EACH OTHER!

>I know some who can write kick-ass ASM in their sleep

Are they IB students? We can do anything in our sleep that other people normally do while awake...

I know how hard asm can be to learn. I made a futile attempt to learn z80 asm last year. Therefore, I should learn C, as I'm a fairly decent BASIC programmer.