13 Apr
2006
13 Apr
'06
9:28 p.m.
OK, in some threads I've seen the curmudgeons shake their head back
and forth and bemoan how people don't write finely tuned hand assembly
code anymore.
Well, not so! Apparently all of you except Trixter :) are unfamiliar
with the restricted size demo.
Browse around these places and then you can't tell me there's noone left
who understands how to squeeze cycles out with careful thought!
<http://www.256b.com>
interesting programs in 256 BYTES or less!
<http://wildmag.de/compo/>
interesting programs hosted in a web page of 256 BYTES or less!
<http://www.pouet.net/prodlist.php?page=1&type=64k&platform=Windows&order=views>
interesting programs in 64K bytes! While the first two don't have
sound, the 64K size routinely has original music, 3D graphics
that'll blow your nuts off :-) and lots of cool eye candy.
All of these are free for distribution and download!
There are some interesting things happening in the past few years in
the "4K" category as well. Some people have managed to squeeze in an
original music score, decent 3D scenes and a running time of several
minutes without getting boring.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline"-- code samples, sample chapter, FAQ:
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/>
Pilgrimage: Utah's annual demoparty
<http://pilgrimage.scene.org>
13 Apr
13 Apr
10:40 p.m.
Richard wrote:
Well, not so! Apparently all of you except Trixter :)
are unfamiliar
(ears ringing)
<http://www.256b.com>
interesting programs in 256 BYTES or less!
<http://wildmag.de/compo/>
interesting programs hosted in a web page of 256 BYTES or less!
Some of these are truly impressive, not only for their knowledge of x86
assembler, but also their knowledge of the environment they're running
in. To squeeze space, many of these take advantage of things like OS
kernel structures for "free" data, or known states of registers on
program load/start, etc.
One of the most impressive 256b programs I've seen is a full-screen
textured tunnel the viewer is flying in. A quick look at the source
code shows that it is over 70% floating-point instructions. Some
consider that "cheating", others consider it genius. Up to you.
There is a tradeoff, as always: Size vs. speed. Some of these 256b
programs are very slow, even on modern hardware, simply because
sometimes the smallest way to do something is the most inefficient way.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
14 Apr
14 Apr
12:09 a.m.
On 4/13/2006 at 7:28 PM Richard wrote:
Browse around these places and then you can't tell
me there's noone left
who understands how to squeeze cycles out with careful thought!
Ah, but small size does not equate to fast code--or even the fastest code
for a simple task.
Take the lowly job of moving some bytes on a Pentium-class processor.
Anyone can write "rep movsb', but while very small, it's not usually the
fastest. What's the fastest byte string move on a Z80? (Assume a
non-overlapping move).
Clearly, in many applications "rep movsb" will be perfectly adequate and
won't affect the performance of a program one bit. So not every lily
should be gilded.
I'm more impressed with a cleverly fast FFT that betrays the coder's level
of understanding of the problem than an implementation that slavishly
implements the basic algorithm in the smallest number of bytes.
Cheers,
Chuck
3:57 p.m.
Richard wrote:
OK, in some threads I've seen the curmudgeons shake
their head back
and forth and bemoan how people don't write finely tuned hand assembly
code anymore.
Well, not so! Apparently all of you except Trixter :) are unfamiliar
with the restricted size demo.
Browse around these places and then you can't tell me there's noone left
who understands how to squeeze cycles out with careful thought!
<http://www.256b.com>
interesting programs in 256 BYTES or less!
<http://wildmag.de/compo/>
interesting programs hosted in a web page of 256 BYTES or less!
<http://www.pouet.net/prodlist.php?page=1&type=64k&platform=Windows&order=views>
interesting programs in 64K bytes! While the first two don't have
sound, the 64K size routinely has original music, 3D graphics
that'll blow your nuts off :-) and lots of cool eye candy.
All of these are free for distribution and download!
There are some interesting things happening in the past few years in
the "4K" category as well. Some people have managed to squeeze in an
original music score, decent 3D scenes and a running time of several
minutes without getting boring.
Ok, how about a 45 Byte Linux Elf executable
http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.html
I don't know if it will run on current versions of Linux, but it did once...
3:54 p.m.
In article <443FFE9D.6090403 at srv.net>,
Kevin Handy <kth at srv.net> writes:
Ok, how about a 45 Byte Linux Elf executable
http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.html
I don't know if it will run on current versions of Linux, but it did once...
OK, but apparently all it does is return 42? I mean, the 256 byte
demos do something visually interesting :).
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline"-- code samples, sample chapter, FAQ:
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/>
Pilgrimage: Utah's annual demoparty
<http://pilgrimage.scene.org>
3:59 p.m.
In article <443FFE9D.6090403 at srv.net>,
Kevin Handy <kth at srv.net> writes:
But, but 42 is like the answer, man!!!
Cheers,
Bryan
Ok, how about a 45 Byte Linux Elf executable
http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.html
I don't know if it will run on current versions of Linux, but it did once...
OK, but apparently all it does is return 42? I mean, the 256 byte
demos do something visually interesting :). 
4:16 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Richard once stated:
In article <443FFE9D.6090403 at srv.net>,
Kevin Handy <kth at srv.net> writes:
I remember hand constructing the smallest executable I could under IRIX
4.0.1---I seem to recall it being about 160 bytes in length, for a "hello
world" program (and by hand-constructing it, I literally mean constructing
it byte-by-byte). I later learned the proper compiler incantations to
generate a 300+ byte "hello world" program from C.
-spc (Fun times ... )
Ok, how about a 45 Byte Linux Elf executable
http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.html
I don't know if it will run on current versions of Linux, but it did once...
OK, but apparently all it does is return 42? I mean, the 256 byte
demos do something visually interesting :). 
9:28 p.m.
On Friday 14 April 2006 04:16 pm, Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
I remember hand constructing the smallest executable
I could under IRIX
4.0.1---I seem to recall it being about 160 bytes in length, for a "hello
world" program (and by hand-constructing it, I literally mean constructing
it byte-by-byte).
Smallest executable I ever generated was a whopping 7 bytes long -- after I'd
seen the "CLS" command under DOS and wanted the same thing for my CP/M box...
Used standard tools, too, and didn't have to do anything particularly
tricky.
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
10:48 p.m.
Smallest executable I ever generated was a whopping 7
bytes long -- after I'd
seen the "CLS" command under DOS and wanted the same thing for my CP/M box...
Used standard tools, too, and didn't have to do anything particularly
tricky.
the smallest executable is 0 bytes.
With several OS's, it will perfom a jump to 100h, and rerun whatever
executable is still in RAM.
11:34 p.m.
On Friday 14 April 2006 10:48 pm, Fred Cisin wrote:
Now that you mention it I remember doing that one under CP/M too, called it
"go". :-)
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
Smallest
executable I ever generated was a whopping 7 bytes long -- after
I'd seen the "CLS" command under DOS and wanted the same thing for my
CP/M box... Used standard tools, too, and didn't have to do anything
particularly tricky.
the smallest executable is 0 bytes.
With several OS's, it will perfom a jump to 100h, and rerun whatever
executable is still in RAM. 
15 Apr
15 Apr
1:09 a.m.
Roy J. Tellason wrote:
On Friday 14 April 2006 10:48 pm, Fred Cisin wrote:
Now that you mention it I remember doing that one under CP/M too, called it
"go". :-)
Well your 0's must be different from my 0's . They must have hidden /'s
to make them larger or you take advantage with a bug/feature? with cp/m.
Smallest
executable I ever generated was a whopping 7 bytes long -- after
I'd seen the "CLS" command under DOS and wanted the same thing for my
CP/M box... Used standard tools, too, and didn't have to do anything
particularly tricky.
the smallest executable is 0 bytes.
With several OS's, it will perfom a jump to 100h, and rerun whatever
executable is still in RAM. 
5:21 a.m.
woodelf wrote:
Roy J. Tellason wrote:
Nope. Think about it - CP/M will load in a .COM file starting at 0100h
(overwriting what was previously there) and then jump to it. If the
file is zero bytes long, it will load zero bytes (overwriting *nothing*)
and then jump to 0100h. So whatever was the last program loaded and run
will be restarted, possibly maintaining all state. WordStar IIRC didn't
even clobber its copy/paste buffer.
Gordon.
On Friday 14 April 2006 10:48 pm, Fred Cisin
wrote:
Now that you mention it I remember doing that one under CP/M too,
called it "go". :-)
Well your 0's must be different from my 0's . They must have hidden /'s
to make them larger or you take advantage with a bug/feature? with cp/m. Smallest
executable I ever generated was a whopping 7 bytes long --
after
I'd seen the "CLS" command under DOS and wanted the same thing for my
CP/M box... Used standard tools, too, and didn't have to do anything
particularly tricky.
the smallest executable is 0 bytes.
With several OS's, it will perfom a jump to 100h, and rerun whatever
executable is still in RAM.
6:06 p.m.
>>the smallest executable is 0 bytes.
>>With several OS's, it will perfom a jump to 100h, and rerun whatever
>>executable is still in RAM.
> Now that you mention it I remember doing that one under CP/M too, called it
> "go". :-)
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, woodelf wrote:
Well your 0's must be different from my 0's .
They must have hidden /'s
to make them larger or you take advantage with a bug/feature? with cp/m.
just taking advantage of the program launching code in CP/M based OS's:
don't load anything, then jump to what you didn't load.
With some programs, it will permit resuming after an unwanted reboot or
lockup.
But in a multitasking system, you can't always be sure of getting the same
segment.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
4:02 p.m.
Smallest executable I ever generated was a
whopping 7 bytes long -- after I'd
seen the "CLS" command under DOS and wanted the same thing for my CP/M box...
Used standard tools, too, and didn't have to do anything particularly
tricky.
the smallest executable is 0 bytes.
With several OS's, it will perfom a jump to 100h, and rerun whatever
executable is still in RAM.
6:28 p.m.
On 4/15/2006 at 9:02 PM ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk wrote:
For example, it works under CP/M
That trick is in the Epson PX8 user manual. It suggests creating a 0 byte
COM file called GO.COM which can then be used to re-enter the last
executed program.
Well, yes and no. If the user program was large enough to clobber the CCP,
the trick won't work, as the CCP is reloaded to get to a command prompt,
thereby overlaying the original program. In addition, the program being
restarted had better be re-entrant after termination; something not
extremely common in the CP/M world.
Does anyone know of a checkpoint/restart facility for CP/M programs? That
is, hit a key or trigger an interrupt, and the CP/M program and any
dependent context is swapped out to disk and the system returned to a
command prompt?
Cheers,
Chuck
16 Apr
16 Apr
1:59 p.m.
That trick is
in the Epson PX8 user manual. It suggests creating a 0 byte
COM file called GO.COM which can then be used to re-enter the last
executed program.
Well, yes and no. If the user program was large enough to clobber the CCP,
the trick won't work, as the CCP is reloaded to get to a command prompt,
thereby overlaying the original program. In addition, the program being
restarted had better be re-entrant after termination; something not
extremely common in the CP/M world.
14 Apr
14 Apr
4:19 p.m.
Richard wrote:
In article <443FFE9D.6090403 at srv.net>,
Kevin Handy <kth at srv.net> writes:
Well, you're not going to like it, but it took a very large computer to come
up with that number (read the book). I'd go into more details, but I've
got to
check out the diodes going down the left side of my robot...
Ok, how about a 45 Byte Linux Elf executable
http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.html
I don't know if it will run on current versions of Linux, but it did once...
OK, but apparently all it does is return 42? I mean, the 256 byte
demos do something visually interesting :).
4:15 p.m.
Kevin Handy wrote:
Well, you're not going to like it, but it took a
very large computer to
come
up with that number (read the book). I'd go into more details, but I've
got to
check out the diodes going down the left side of my robot...
Or watch the movie "The hitch hikers guide to the galaxy".
4:57 p.m.
> Well, you're not going to like it, but it
took a very large computer to
> come
> up with that number (read the book). I'd go into more details, but I've
> got to
> check out the diodes going down the left side of my robot...
On Fri, 14 Apr
2006, woodelf wrote:
Or watch the movie "The hitch hikers guide to the
galaxy".
The book is better.
The BBC TV series was WAY better than the [Disney] movie.
Casting could have been a LOT better.
5:04 p.m.
Or watch the
movie "The hitch hikers guide to the galaxy".
The book is better.
The BBC TV series was WAY better than the [Disney] movie.
Casting could have been a LOT better.
7:11 p.m.
Zane H. Healy wrote:
Try the original BBC Radio version, personally I view
that as the best
version with the books being second, and the BBC TV version being third.
I've not bothered to waste my time on the movie.
The movie adds some additional scenes authored by Adams himself, so you
should watch it if you want to experience the entire Adams gamut.
The movie is a bit dry, but it's not as terrible as it could have been.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
15 Apr
15 Apr
12:02 p.m.
Fred Cisin wrote:
That seems to be a *very* common thing. It's always sad to see the current
generation basing their experiences on remakes of things rather than seeing
the original(s) first.
I meant to bring the HGTG books with me to the US and went and left them in
England, grrr!
It's been interesting watching American friends trying to make sense of Doctor
Who - hopefully the original BBC TV series will be shown at some point as it's
so vastly superior to the remake :-(
cheers
Jules
> Well,
you're not going to like it, but it took a very large computer to
> come
> up with that number (read the book). I'd go into more details, but I've
> got to
> check out the diodes going down the left side of my robot...
On Fri, 14 Apr
2006, woodelf wrote:
Or watch the movie "The hitch hikers guide
to the galaxy".
The book is better.
The BBC TV series was WAY better than the [Disney] movie. 
12:55 p.m.
Jules Richardson wrote:
Fred Cisin wrote:
>>> Well, you're not going to like it, but it took a very large computer to
>>> come
>>> up with that number (read the book). I'd go into more details, but
I've
>>> got to
>>> check out the diodes going down the left side of my robot...
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, woodelf wrote:
>> Or watch the movie "The hitch hikers guide to the galaxy".
>
> The book is better.
> The BBC TV series was WAY better than the [Disney] movie.
I've a "making of" that was quite amusing -- especially to see
how "low tech" the special effects were! :>
That seems to be a *very* common thing. It's
always sad to see the
current generation basing their experiences on remakes of things rather
than seeing the original(s) first.
For a good exercise, compare books from which movies have been
made to books made from movies. The former are usually much richer.
The latter are almost cartoonish in quality.
Good examples:
_The Sentinel_ vs. _2001_ vs. the movie thereof
(Clarke also has a good book describing alternate endings for
2001 that Kubrick sidetracked/delayed/etc.)
_Farewell to the Master_ vs. _The Day the Earth Stood Still_
(though both are excellent) -- I'm sure if some arrogant
fool filmmaker decides to try a remake, it will be a colossal
disappointment!
I meant to bring the HGTG books with me to the US and
went and left them
in England, grrr!
Buy another copy. :>
It's been interesting watching American friends
trying to make sense of
Doctor Who - hopefully the original BBC TV series will be shown at some
point as it's so vastly superior to the remake :-(
*Which* remake? Haven't there been 4 or 5 "Doctors"?
(Sorry, I'm not a big enough fan to track their names)
The young blond guy, the curly haired guy, the black (?)
haired "serious" guy and the "old man" (B&W episodes).
Unfortunately, PBS here (se AZ, USA) doesn't carry *any*
BBC sci-fi (Red Dwarf, Dr. Who, etc.) prefering, instead,
to show re-re-re-re-runs of their own (ahem) "production"...
"The Desert Speaks" :-/
2:48 p.m.
Don Y wrote:
*Which* remake? Haven't there been 4 or 5 "Doctors"?
(Sorry, I'm not a big enough fan to track their names)
The young blond guy, the curly haired guy, the black (?)
haired "serious" guy and the "old man" (B&W episodes).
I never did see that remake, but the 5+ doctors I think
have taken the series as far as it could go.
Unfortunately, PBS here (se AZ, USA) doesn't carry
*any*
BBC sci-fi (Red Dwarf, Dr. Who, etc.) prefering, instead,
to show re-re-re-re-runs of their own (ahem) "production"...
"The Desert Speaks" :-/
Another wimpy PBS I see. When I did see Dr Who
on PBS it
was in movie format saturday nights. A full segement
of the show rather than the daily 1/2 hour episodes.
The UK had it far worse I heard -- no re-runs and you wait
a full week for the new series. They have Dr Who DVD's
but they are still hard to find.
PS. Totaly off topic because a real TARDIS don't need no
stinking computers.
2:54 p.m.
All,
[...]
On 4/15/06, woodelf <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca> wrote:
PS. Totaly off topic because a real TARDIS don't
need no
stinking computers.
Almost. I could use a TARDIS to store my still quite modest collection.
Simon
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, an engineer is not concerned with the truth; that is left to
philosophers and theologians: the prime concern of an engineer is
the utility of the final product."
Lectures on the Electrical Properties of Materials, L.Solymar, D.Walsh
9:39 p.m.
Simon Fryer wrote:
All,
[...]
On 4/15/06, woodelf <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca> wrote:
I doubt mine would fit even in a TARDIS.
Peace... Sridhar
PS. Totaly off topic because a real TARDIS
don't need no
stinking computers.
Almost. I could use a TARDIS to store my still quite modest collection.
6:37 p.m.
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Jules Richardson wrote:
That seems to be a *very* common thing. It's
always sad to see the current
generation basing their experiences on remakes of things rather than seeing
the original(s) first.
... and when a remake is made, the original usually disappears forever.
For example, I really liked the original version of "The Italian Job"
I meant to bring the HGTG books with me to the US and
went and left them in
England, grrr!
Most of Douglas Adams' writings are pretty readily available here:
the five volumes of the trilogy, and the two Dirk Gently books.
Some of his writings, such as "Meaning of Liff" and "Last Chance to
See"
are a little harder to find. If you need help finding them, just ask.
Did the BBC special about hypertext that he and Ted Nelson worked on
ever make it to air?
Does anybody have a copy of it???
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
18 Apr
18 Apr
9:12 a.m.
Fred Cisin wrote:
Thanks for the offer - I'll wait I think; no sense owning two copies (and the
ones in the UK have that nice well-used feel about them :)
cheers
Jules
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Jules Richardson wrote:
Yep, me too. I've not seen the remake, and have no intention of doing so.
I think a lot of these things - HHGTG, Dr. Who, Italian Job etc. work
*because* the effects are a bit tacky or the acting is caught in a time
bubble, or the actors are unknown at the time of production.
Soon as they're updated with modern computer effects, endless script rewrites
and famous actors something gets lost in the process and the end result is
indistinguishable from the sort of junk that Hollywood turns out - all glamour
and famous names, but no real substance beneath the covers.
Oh - other thing that *really* bugs me about remakes is when the current
generation don't *realise* it's a remake and talk about how marvellous the
underlying concept is - not realising that aspect was down to someone else's
hard work years beforehand. Somehow, the way modern film companies hardly give
any credit for the original idea really irritates me... :-(
That seems to be a *very* common thing. It's
always sad to see the current
generation basing their experiences on remakes of things rather than seeing
the original(s) first.
... and when a remake is made, the original usually disappears forever.
For example, I really liked the original version of "The Italian Job" I meant to
bring the HGTG books with me to the US and went and left them in
England, grrr!
Most of Douglas Adams' writings are pretty readily available here:
the five volumes of the trilogy, and the two Dirk Gently books.
Some of his writings, such as "Meaning of Liff" and "Last Chance to
See"
are a little harder to find. If you need help finding them, just ask. 
17 Apr
17 Apr
8:39 p.m.
Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
Ha! Purists insist on the original, the BBC radio series!
Tim.
> Well,
you're not going to like it, but it took a very large computer to
> come
> up with that number (read the book). I'd go into more details, but I've
> got to
> check out the diodes going down the left side of my robot...
On Fri, 14 Apr
2006, woodelf wrote:
Or watch the movie "The hitch hikers guide
to the galaxy".
The book is better.
The BBC TV series was WAY better than the [Disney] movie. 
14 Apr
14 Apr
7:56 p.m.
Rumor has it that Richard may have mentioned these words:
OK, in some threads I've seen the curmudgeons shake
their head back
and forth and bemoan how people don't write finely tuned hand assembly
code anymore.
Drivewire for the Tandy CoCo1/2/3 (http://www.cloud9tech.com.) use
hand-tuned assembly for the serial routines on the bit-banger (one bit of a
PIA, toggled by software) port - they acheive 38400bps on a .89Mhz 6809
(CoCo1/2), and 57600 on a 1.78Mhz 6809 (CoCo3). I've booted NitrOS9 on my
machine, and it's pretty durned quick. Not *quite* as fast as the floppy
drive (and certainly not as fast as the CF memory card I have on the IDE
bus ;-) but awfully handy! (Oh, and check out the SuperBoard project...)
Think that's impressive? Think again! Head on over to
http://www.coco3.org/ and check out Portal-9. The author (Roger Taylor) is
reworking the IDE and calling it Rainbow - Roger has just gotten 57600 on
the .89Mhz CoCo1/2, and 115200 on the CoCo3! The code is around 600 bytes,
from what I understand.
I'm working on a freeware/beerware (haven't decided yet - either way, the
source will be released) library of routines for the CoCo3 which will help
assembly coders do "kewl stuff" on a CoCo3 without needing the built-in
ROM, setting up the video, reading the non-encoded keyboard, accessing the
floppy drives, etc. I wouldn't consider my assembly coding "impressive,"
"phenomenal," or such, but it can't be that bad - it works! ;-)
[[ That said, I certainly wouldn't do this for anything other than a
hobby... At work, I primarily code in basic Bash scripting & Python when I
actually wanna get work done... ;-) ]]
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger | "Bugs of a feather flock together."
sysadmin, Iceberg Computers | Russell Nelson
zmerch at 30below.com |
15 Apr
15 Apr
5:25 a.m.
Roger Merchberger wrote:
http://www.coco3.org/ and check out Portal-9. The
author (Roger Taylor)
Seems to have been domain-squatted.
Gordon.
9:14 a.m.
Rumor has it that Gordon JC Pearce may have mentioned these words:
Roger Merchberger wrote:
No, brainfart on my part. It's www.coco3.com - lately I've dealt with so
many .orgs that it rolled off my fingers without even thinking. :-/
Sorry about that!
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger | "Profile, don't speculate."
SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers | Daniel J. Bernstein
zmerch at 30below.com |
http://www.coco3.org/ and check out Portal-9. The
author (Roger Taylor)
Seems to have been domain-squatted.
10:46 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great Roger Merchberger once stated:
Rumor has it that Richard may have mentioned these words:
Really? I did the math once and found that 19200 was about the
theoretical maximum one could get on a Coco 1/2---but I suppose if you
unrolled the loop to read a byte you could, maybe, get a bit faster at the
expense of space ... hmm ... as I'm doing it, yes, I think it is possible by
unrolling the loops, but the timing is *very* tight.
-spc (And certainly not usable for generalized 38400 speed communications
it seems like ... )
OK, in some threads I've seen the curmudgeons
shake their head back
and forth and bemoan how people don't write finely tuned hand assembly
code anymore.
Drivewire for the Tandy CoCo1/2/3 (http://www.cloud9tech.com.) use
hand-tuned assembly for the serial routines on the bit-banger (one bit of a
PIA, toggled by software) port - they acheive 38400bps on a .89Mhz 6809
(CoCo1/2), and 57600 on a 1.78Mhz 6809 (CoCo3). I've booted NitrOS9 on my
machine, and it's pretty durned quick. Not *quite* as fast as the floppy
drive (and certainly not as fast as the CF memory card I have on the IDE
bus ;-) but awfully handy! (Oh, and check out the SuperBoard project...)
11:25 p.m.
Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
It was thus said that the Great Roger Merchberger once
stated:
The speech in vintage (1980-ish) Williams arcade pieces takes
the same approach -- using the 6809's accumulator to shift
the bits out to the CVSD. As a result, nothing gets done
while the sound card is speaking -- and the quality of the
speech suffers (all to save a 12c shift register :< )
<shrug>
--don
Rumor has it that Richard may have mentioned
these words:
Really? I did the math once and found that 19200 was about the
theoretical maximum one could get on a Coco 1/2---but I suppose if you
unrolled the loop to read a byte you could, maybe, get a bit faster at the
expense of space ... hmm ... as I'm doing it, yes, I think it is possible by
unrolling the loops, but the timing is *very* tight. OK, in some threads I've seen the curmudgeons
shake their head back
and forth and bemoan how people don't write finely tuned hand assembly
code anymore.
Drivewire for the Tandy CoCo1/2/3 (http://www.cloud9tech.com.) use
hand-tuned assembly for the serial routines on the bit-banger (one bit of a
PIA, toggled by software) port - they acheive 38400bps on a .89Mhz 6809
(CoCo1/2), and 57600 on a 1.78Mhz 6809 (CoCo3). I've booted NitrOS9 on my
machine, and it's pretty durned quick. Not *quite* as fast as the floppy
drive (and certainly not as fast as the CF memory card I have on the IDE
bus ;-) but awfully handy! (Oh, and check out the SuperBoard project...)
11:57 a.m.
Richard wrote:
<http://www.256b.com>
interesting programs in 256 BYTES or less!
Hmmm, apparently they can't write a website that works though (or at least the
oneliner / news bits are totally borked in Opera 8.52)
There are some interesting things happening in the
past few years in
the "4K" category as well. Some people have managed to squeeze in an
original music score, decent 3D scenes and a running time of several
minutes without getting boring.
Hmm, vague memories of the old DOS-based mode-X demos - some of those were
pretty darn impressive as I recall (I don't think that executable size was a
considered parameter though; it was more about squeezing as much as possible
out of VGA hardware)
cheers
Jules
6671
days inactive
6675
days old
35 comments
18 participants
participants (18)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
bpope＠wordstock.com -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dgy＠DakotaCom.Net -
fryers＠gmail.com -
gordonjcp＠gjcp.net -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
kth＠srv.net -
legalize＠xmission.com -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
rtellason＠blazenet.net -
shoppa_classiccmp＠trailing-edge.com -
spc＠conman.org -
trixter＠oldskool.org -
zmerch-cctalk＠30below.com