84 Plus Os On An 83
This is an archived, read-only copy of the United-TI subforum , including posts and topic from May 2003 to April 2012. If you would like to discuss any of the topics in this forum, you can visit Cemetech's Calculator Hardware, Electronics, Robotics subforum. Some of these topics may also be directly-linked to active Cemetech topics. If you are a Cemetech member with a linked United-TI account, you can link United-TI topics here with your current Cemetech topics.

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics. Calculator Modifications => Calculator Hardware, Electronics, Robotics
84 Plus Os On An 83
United-TI Archives -> Calculator Modifications
 
    » Goto page 1, 2  Next
» View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
optimize


Advanced Newbie


Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 99
Posted: 21 Oct 2004 07:56:40 pm    Post subject:
Yes I'm one of those dumb-enough kids to go ahead and install the 84 operating system on the 83 plus. I'm waiting for it to sync now... I'll post what happening in a bit (And yes, it is working as in 56% done)...
Back to top
DarkerLine
ceci n'est pas une |


Super Elite (Last Title)


Joined: 04 Nov 2003
Posts: 8328
Posted: 22 Oct 2004 06:24:16 pm    Post subject:
I'm guessing one of three things will happen:

1. It will die.

2. It will die whenever you try to use one of the clock functions.

3. The clock functions will keep returning 0.
Back to top
optimize


Advanced Newbie


Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 99
Posted: 09 Nov 2004 08:39:29 pm    Post subject:
The space reserved for the ROM seemed to be greater on the 84 Plus as its operating system was much bigger... The 83 Plus was reading ~126% done and I could only trim it down to ~107%
Back to top
DarkerLine
ceci n'est pas une |


Super Elite (Last Title)


Joined: 04 Nov 2003
Posts: 8328
Posted: 09 Nov 2004 08:47:41 pm    Post subject:
How did you go about "trimming it down"?
Back to top
optimize


Advanced Newbie


Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 99
Posted: 10 Nov 2004 02:49:18 pm    Post subject:
I'm sure you know a little assembly because everyone may not understand this. There were a few extra pages at the end that were being unused so I just deleted them with notepad. (The operating system data is in uncompressed, readable, hex form)
Back to top
DarkerLine
ceci n'est pas une |


Super Elite (Last Title)


Joined: 04 Nov 2003
Posts: 8328
Posted: 10 Nov 2004 04:32:36 pm    Post subject:
so did it crash after saying 107% or not?
Back to top
optimize


Advanced Newbie


Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 99
Posted: 11 Nov 2004 06:12:03 pm    Post subject:
It went to 107% and was not able to validate sucessfully and it said "Error: Press any key to turn device off and back on again" Or something similar.
Back to top
Brazucs
I have no idea what my avatar is.


Super Elite (Last Title)


Joined: 31 Mar 2004
Posts: 3349
Posted: 11 Nov 2004 06:27:39 pm    Post subject:
Try removing the cable before it tries to validate. That's what you do with CSX, maybe it'll work for you.
Back to top
DarkerLine
ceci n'est pas une |


Super Elite (Last Title)


Joined: 04 Nov 2003
Posts: 8328
Posted: 11 Nov 2004 09:17:12 pm    Post subject:
Would there be any point in an 83+ OS on an 84+?
Back to top
Brazucs
I have no idea what my avatar is.


Super Elite (Last Title)


Joined: 31 Mar 2004
Posts: 3349
Posted: 12 Nov 2004 03:08:57 am    Post subject:
No, it's (slightly)^90 inferior.
Back to top
optimize


Advanced Newbie


Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 99
Posted: 12 Nov 2004 02:50:42 pm    Post subject:
Quote:
Try removing the cable before it tries to validate. That's what you do with CSX, maybe it'll work for you.


You can't really tell when it's going to validate. Also I don't think it works because I attempted to do it when it said it was validating...
Back to top
DarkerLine
ceci n'est pas une |


Super Elite (Last Title)


Joined: 04 Nov 2003
Posts: 8328
Posted: 12 Nov 2004 05:57:33 pm    Post subject:
brazucs16 wrote:
No, it's (slightly)^90 inferior.

really? there's no major changes except for clock functions. And if it takes up less space there'd be more available, maybe? or not...

ooh! maybe I could type stuff into the .8xu file to have my own routines in the extra space... just pull the batteries before validating is all.
Back to top
optimize


Advanced Newbie


Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 99
Posted: 12 Nov 2004 06:40:35 pm    Post subject:
I was thinking about doing that myself. However it's harder to disassemble the *.8xu files because when you assemble them you have add some extra functions so they look like the TI-OS and I couldn't disassemble it at all Mad
Back to top
DarkerLine
ceci n'est pas une |


Super Elite (Last Title)


Joined: 04 Nov 2003
Posts: 8328
Posted: 12 Nov 2004 07:19:42 pm    Post subject:
You don't have to disassemble the .8xu files. Yunno the "few extra pages at the end that were being unused"? Add some data there. I'm sure you can find a way to retrieve it afterwards...
Back to top
optimize


Advanced Newbie


Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 99
Posted: 12 Nov 2004 07:50:32 pm    Post subject:
I see. I wanted to rewrite the routines to make them faster, because I'm sure they don't write it for speed, they write it for langauage locatization or something idiotic. Anyways adding some routines wouldn't be too hard, the mildly hard part would be figuring addresses...
Back to top
DarkerLine
ceci n'est pas une |


Super Elite (Last Title)


Joined: 04 Nov 2003
Posts: 8328
Posted: 12 Nov 2004 08:41:36 pm    Post subject:
optimize wrote:
I see. I wanted to rewrite the routines to make them faster, because I'm sure they don't write it for speed, they write it for langauage locatization or something idiotic.

I doubt that they program in assembly at all. No human could have come up with the disgusting stuff that runs a b_call, it MUST have been a compiler.
Back to top
DigiTan
Unregistered HyperCam 2


Super Elite (Last Title)


Joined: 10 Nov 2003
Posts: 4468
Posted: 12 Nov 2004 10:03:05 pm    Post subject:
What exactly did you mean by rewriting the old routines? Wouldn't changing those routines require adjusting all of the ROM address tables? I could see how this might be fesible with small routines that don't invovle pointers; but messing with the (more useful) VAT and OP-register routines would be like pulling teeth. Did you have something less intrusive in mind like filling in used data feilds like Sir Robin suggests?
Back to top
optimize


Advanced Newbie


Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 99
Posted: 12 Nov 2004 10:46:04 pm    Post subject:
Literally, yes, I mean rewriting the old routines. Although keeping track of the address would be a burden I'd probably make a simple x86 qbasic program to add comments to the file for me with addresses... ex

ld e,l ; 0000h
ld l,e ; 0001h...

Anyways I decided long ago it was much too annoying. I didn't intend on messing with the VAT and such, just rewriting the ROM Calls to make them faster (Although there is a way to index them that makes them faster too on ticalc.org...)
Back to top
DigiTan
Unregistered HyperCam 2


Super Elite (Last Title)


Joined: 10 Nov 2003
Posts: 4468
Posted: 12 Nov 2004 10:51:37 pm    Post subject:
That makes sense I guess. I tried doing some VAT work about a year back and it was a really tall order. 'Too many addresses to track and stuff you know? Changing the ROM_CALL indexing is probably a winning strategy--however that's done.

Was this 83+ -> 84+ project for something like a shell or an OS?
Back to top
DarkerLine
ceci n'est pas une |


Super Elite (Last Title)


Joined: 04 Nov 2003
Posts: 8328
Posted: 13 Nov 2004 11:15:22 am    Post subject:
Quote:
rewriting the ROM Calls to make them faster
ROM Calls are by nature slow, it takes a lot to call them.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
84 Plus Os On An 83
    » Goto page 1, 2  Next
» View previous topic :: View next topic  
Page 1 of 2 » All times are UTC - 5 Hours

 

Advertisement