Re: A85: new 85 hardware...
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A85: new 85 hardware...
Exactly!
and, becase i somehow missed the one you replied to, ill reply to that to
You thoght i meant to interface all the extra stuff to the 85
thats not what i meant
i meant the z80, as a processor.
not the ti-85
and by games, i was jsut generalizing. what other software has maxxed out
the ti-85? (the 85, not the z80)
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Owen Lewis <richardlewis@cedarcity.net>
To: 'assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org' <assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org>
Date: Friday, September 04, 1998 11:16 PM
Subject: RE: A85: new 85 hardware...
>
>I have heard an 8 bit sound card and loved it before. It was the only
>thing I had then...(For sound)
>
>I think people want to make all the complex hardware, because its a
>challenge to get it working on a claculator. Some people like extremely
>difficult tasks, so quit raining on their parade.
>
>----------
>From: Jason Blakeley[SMTP:phantomlogic@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, September 04, 1998 8:00 AM
>To: assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org
>Subject: Re: A85: new 85 hardware...
>
>
>
>
>>From: "Kaus" <kaus@cybrzn.com>
>>To: <assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org>
>>Subject: Re: A85: new 85 hardware...
>>Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 21:48:11 -0500
>>Reply-To: assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org
>>
>>
>>The Z80 will never be maxed out. only your limited thinking. Do you
>>program? I agree with Humberto (although not on all things he has said
>>lately:Rigel is not the God-Shell. Currently one doesnt exist.) in
>that
>>Daedalus is a prime example. But even that did not max out the z80.
>it was
>>made on a computer (yes. A computer) that was limited to only 27K of
>RAM
>>available, is clocked to a 2Mhz rate (the proc is rated for 6Mhz, but
>TI
>>decided, for unknown reasons, perhaps reliablitty, to slow it down.)
>and
>>has a 128x64 b/w screen. This is the not the limit of the hardware
>extent
>>of the z80 processor!!! Daedalus may have maxed out the TI-85, but
>>definelty not the Z80. Know this:The only limits imposed on the Z80
>and any
>>computer built using it is a 20Mhz clock, and an 8bit instruction set.
>>Memory can be, and is in many cases, paged. As can be ROM. Input can
>be
>>interfaced to ports. Including a full 102keyboard, mouse, or joystick.
>>Output can be done on a SVGA screen, if we just interfaced the card to
>the
>>bus properly. the IO ports can be paged. Or, RAM space can be used for
>>extra IO space. You get the idea. The TI-85 has been (almsot) maxed
>out by
>>one game. One game. No other ones are even close. None. Period.
>>
>>--Jonathan Kaus
>>IRC: Jedsmeny
>>ICQ: 15873088
>>AIM: Jedsmeny
>>email: kaus@cybrzn.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Humberto Yeverino <humberto@engr.csufresno.edu>
>>To: assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org <assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org>
>>Date: Thursday, September 03, 1998 12:30 PM
>>Subject: Re: A85: new 85 hardware...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Jason Blakeley wrote:
>>>> My question is how much potential do you think the z80 has? In the
>age
>>>> of 64-bit and 128-bit Pentium processors that clock at 400mHz, how
>many
>>>> z80 programmers would ever be satisfied with with the quality of
>>>> programs they could write for an 8-bit, 6mHz calc? I always thought
>that
>>>> the reason people programmed calcs in the first place was because it
>was
>>>> open territory. It wasn't dominated by DOS, Windows, or Unix. It
>seemed
>>>> kind of like when the first 8088 or 8086's PC's were made. There was
>no
>>>> one making software for it at first. But even PC companies and users
>>>> moved on to faster processors because they realized that there was
>only
>>>> so much they could do with a 8086. Their larger, more complicated,
>and
>>>> more entertaining programs required more processing power and more
>>>> memory to run them. I just think its gotten to the point where we've
>>>> maxxed out the calc and we're searching for something to do with it
>>>> because nothing more powerful has come out.
>>>
>>>But when I look at the software situation I see everyone using a shell
>>>with an inferior relocator that wastes space. Instead of writting or
>just
>>>using the better relocator that's already been written the solution is
>>>make an expander for more memory.
>>>The way I see it most programmers don't even use what's already there,
>or
>>>just don't use it effectively. Maybe it's because everyone thinks
>it's
>>>easier to add more memory than to write programs that use less.
>>>
>>>The only game that, in my opinion, maxed ot the z80 was Daedulus, and
>the
>>>games I've seen lately don't even come close to it's complexity.
>>>
>>>-Humberto Yeverino Jr.
>>>
>>>"I kick ass for the Lord."
>>>
>>>***********************************************************
>>>Home Page:
>>> http://www.engr.csufresno.edu/~humberto/Home.html
>>>
>>>Ti Page:
>>> http://www.engr.csufresno.edu/~humberto/tex.html
>>>
>>>z80 Source Page:
>>> http://www.engr.csufresno.edu/~humberto/z80source.html
>>>
>>>Official Tyrant Home Page:
>>> http://www.engr.csufresno.edu/~humberto/tyrant.html
>>>
>>>E-mail:
>>> humberto@engr.csufresno.edu
>>>***********************************************************
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>First, yes I program, otherwise I wouldn't be on this list. Second, I
>wasn't just talking about games maxing out the calc, I meant software in
>general. Third, the 85 doesn't have the bandwidth to accomodate all the
>data you're talking about sending through it. I know it can output to a
>monitor or projector, and it could interface with a keyboard, mouse, or
>joystick, but who would want to do that in the first place? Would you
>carry a keyboard, mouse, joystick, and speakers around with you to hook
>up to a calculator!? I wouldn't. And lastly, you're taking my comments
>out of context. I like 85s. I think their neat little suckers to mess
>around with and to build fundamental programming skills, but people are
>starting to try and put serious, complicated apps and hardware on it
>that its too slow and too puny to handle. Sure, it would be neat to get
>sound working (in whatever limited fashion) on the 85, and I'd like to
>see it work just to see it work, but you couldn't do anything serious or
>really fun with it. And since it has no expansion slots, the only way to
>interface hardware to it is through the port (with the possible
>exception of a monitor connection). The port's transfer rate isn't that
>spiffy to begin with. It might be able to handle sound, but I seriously
>doubt you could do much with the calc while playing sounds because all
>the memory would be used up storing the sound file and most, if not all,
>of the bandwidth on the calc would be used just sending the data through
>the port, unless it was short sounds like beeps and simple melodies. Who
>on this list has ever heard an 8-bit sound card and loved what they
>heard?
>
>I'm not saying ditch the 85. I'm saying that for sound, peripheral
>interfacing, and sophisticated software, it would be better to have a
>faster, easily expanded calc/comp with more storage space, and more
>bandwidth. How much is all this work worth in the end? Sure it's fun to
>try, but wouldn't it be more fun to try on a platform that welcomed such
>efforts?
>
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
>