Re: A89: Re: Cracking AMS 2.01
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A89: Re: Cracking AMS 2.01
Thank you!
At last a sane letter in this thread. I was thinking about writeing something
like this, but I havn't had the time.
I hope this insane thread will end now.
//Olle
"M. Adam Davis" wrote:
>
> Well, I'm *assuming* that they are selling a few thousand ti-89s a week,
> or at least every month. Otherwise it wouldn't be worth their time to
> design and manufacture it. Since we are adding MAYBE 10 people every
> month to the assembly-89 list, I simply cannot believe that we comprise
> more than 1% of their market, which is barely significant enough to spit
> on.
>
> However, these assumptions and opinions are merely that; I don't have
> real figures to work with.
>
> You can do a lot with 8k; but you have to know the machine to squeeze
> the power out of it. Besides, that's not really an issue, it doesn't
> matter how nice the TI-OS is: nearly everyone will want to run a shell
> or kernel over it, which will take care of those pesky little issues.
>
> What really gets to me is that everyone here probably knows all this,
> and yet many are still complaining. If this complaining were happening
> on a non-technical list, I wouldn't be fazed, but I'm assuming that if
> one is on this list then one has a certian technical proficieny with the
> calculator, and they are intelligent enough to know that it matters
> little what TI does. They change the hardware so we can't change the
> flash? Fine. There will be some little bug (like the ti-92 backup file
> bug) which will allow us to do so. Hopefully they will choose a path
> that is nice for us, but in the end all the calc is is a 68k with
> memory, an LCD, keypad, and some math software. We have a computer
> which is as powerful as, and faster than, the original macintosh
> computer. We have the ability to do whatever we want with it, it may
> just take a small bit of work to do certian things.
>
> I honestly think that some users are making a mountian out of a mole
> hill. You'll notice that most of the *good* game programmers aren't
> even commenting on the issue, prefering to wait until TI actually
> releases AMS 2.
>
> Of course, if the version that's being passed around is from TI, and
> they decide to make changes now that people here are throwing a
> hissy-fit, then we'll have to wait another 3-6 months for it to come
> out, and the same people throwing the hissy-fit now will simply start
> complaining about it not being out when they told us it would be.
>
> So, to all those who still feel a need to complain my message is simply
> this: Sit down, stick a pacifier in your mouth, and wait until we
> actually have ams 2 in our hands.
References: