0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
*cough* SD cards reader *cough*
In the future, we might be able to install our own OSes...Imagine NightOS...
Quote from: critor on January 03, 2011, 07:37:48 amWonderfull!!!It would be great if we could overclock previous OSes to 300MHz base (instead of 180MHz) without having that screen problem.Upgrading from 2.0 to 2.1 makes you lose 1.4Mb of free space.It's useless to fasten the cpu, if we don't have enough free space anymore to store BMP/WAD files...Check the free space available after a full reset with each OS in english language (can change but very slightly with another language):("light" is what you're getting when patching your TNO/TNC file with TNOC)Pretty huge difference indeed. I am still a bit scared of how large OSes will be in two years or so. X.x
Wonderfull!!!It would be great if we could overclock previous OSes to 300MHz base (instead of 180MHz) without having that screen problem.Upgrading from 2.0 to 2.1 makes you lose 1.4Mb of free space.It's useless to fasten the cpu, if we don't have enough free space anymore to store BMP/WAD files...Check the free space available after a full reset with each OS in english language (can change but very slightly with another language):("light" is what you're getting when patching your TNO/TNC file with TNOC)
Made some tests about setting base/cpu=0 or base/cpu=2.With OS 1.7, 0 and 2 seem to give very similar performances.With OSes 2.0.1 & 2.1, 0 gives you a freeze after returning to the OS.(so the problem comes from the OS and not the hardware)I'm wondering if I should forbid setting base/cpu=0 or not...What do you think ?
900B0000 (R/W): Clock speed load value * Bits 1-7: Multiply by 2 to get base/CPU ratio (OS < 2.1: 1 -> CPU at 90 Mhz, OS >= 2.1: 2 -> CPU at 120 Mhz)