Re: A92: Re: Shells and assembler

To: <assembly-92@lists.ticalc.org>
Subject: Re: A92: Re: Shells and assembler
From: "Aaron Hill" <serac@lightmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 18:43:10 -0700
References: <0.67f969a3.2531457a@aol.com>
Reply-To: assembly-92@lists.ticalc.org


>  under the "system" label in the mem area?  isn't that the kernel?  I beleive 
> that is easily (ormore at "possibly") modified. one of the things I've always 

Uh... no.  :)  Last I checked it's locked from modification.  I'll let you ruin
your 92 by trying to change it and not being able to get it back.  (Warranty
being long since voided!)

> been a fan of is symbolic grafics.  I don't like graphicks, accept on sgi's, 
> where they belong.  Imagine how powerful a 400Mhz pentium II would be running 
> a DOS-like OS, where the "graphics" were all in the bios.  I'm thinking, that 
> if the ti keeps stuborndly refering to it's "graphics driver" (speaking of 
> which, I know they make backlights for the 85, can they do that for 92?  or 
> rather, does someone have a barely working 92 they could experiment with to 
> devel a procedure?), then why don't we just use it for text, and just have a  
> powerful however user-unfriendly mathematic calculator as well as computer.  
> I'm saying Graphics nothing, that's not what computers were made for.  
> Graphics are for graphing and not wasting processor cycles to make the text 
> look better.  And sure, A new OS wouldn't be for everybody, but it would 
> still fill a nich.

I'm not one to make personal judgements, but it sounds like you have some
personal vendetta against computer graphics!


====
Aaron Hill (Redmond, Wash.)
Electronic Mail: serac@lightmail.com
IRC Nickname: serac (on EF-Net)
ActiveWorlds Citizenship: serac

References:

Re: A92: Re: Shells and assembler

From: Betelg@aol.com