This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - critor
Pages: 1 ... 89 90 [91] 92 93 ... 137
1351
« on: April 04, 2011, 09:24:35 am »
Any news of a working online TI-83+/84+ emulator?
The above WebbitEmu links don't seem to work any more.
1352
« on: April 03, 2011, 05:21:16 pm »
Yep, and it had remnants of external printer support
Those remnants are also included in OSes 2.21 & 2.22. They've been removed starting from OS 2.30. So? Has anyone tried to dump the CAS+ the hardware way? I'm ok to send a free replacement TI-Nspire CAS+ if you brick it. I would be glad to do it myself but with such a chip, I've got the kind of iron solder which will probably solder three pins instead of one...
1353
« on: April 03, 2011, 03:31:57 pm »
- Self-test group deletion fix :
To my opinion, this one should be replaced by mapar's PTT patch (currently available for 2.43 and 2.53).
It's a lot more complete in a way that it prevents any type of data to be altered in RAM/FLASH, not only groups.
In addition, PTT mode settings modifications are 100% ignored.
In fact, it only displays the fake "reset complete" screen and ignores everything PTT normally does. Sorry, I might be a little tired, but I think I haven't understood everything. The fix from ThePenguin77 is preventing groups from being removed by the Self Test (as the Self Test should not alter the Flash ROM). How can Mapar's PTT fix replace that? Isn't it only for PTT? It does not remove "[8]+[5|2]+[ON]" but his patch was originally written to cohabit with brandon's one, which does this (mentioned in mapar's readme). No problem with that, as I've figured out the 2 parts of Brandon's PTT patch: - the one which does block those key combos - the one which does fake the PTT reset I personnaly tested it and i can say the combination of brandon+mapar PTT patchs works like a charm. I had checked both fixes, and I think I remember the changes in Mapar's fix were very similar to the ones in Brandon's fix. I'm going to check again... By the way, I've got the patched 8Xu 2.30-2.43 files with Brandon's fix removed.
1354
« on: April 03, 2011, 12:43:27 pm »
Let's talk about the CAS+ DHCP server again.
When I connect the old blue-orange CAS+, I get:
pn-srv6-701: request type 1
pn-srv6-821: ready to reply(hh=4, sz=281), typ=2, to port 68
pn-srv6-838: sent reply 2, len=281, to port 68
pn-srv6-701: request type 1
pn-srv6-1073: bound dhcp-ans [172.16.177.46:68] to 8
pn-srv6-821: ready to reply(hh=8, sz=281), typ=2, to port 68
pn-srv6-838: sent reply 2, len=281, to port 68
pn-srv6-701: request type 1
pn-srv6-821: ready to reply(hh=8, sz=281), typ=2, to port 68
pn-srv6-838: sent reply 2, len=281, to port 68
pn-srv6-701: request type 1
pn-srv6-821: ready to reply(hh=8, sz=281), typ=2, to port 68
pn-srv6-838: sent reply 2, len=281, to port 68
pn-srv6-701: request type 1
pn-srv6-821: ready to reply(hh=8, sz=281), typ=2, to port 68
pn-srv6-838: sent reply 2, len=281, to port 68
pn-srv6-701: request type 1
pn-srv6-1073: bound dhcp-ans [172.16.50.34:68] to 9
pn-srv6-821: ready to reply(hh=9, sz=281), typ=2, to port 68
pn-srv6-838: sent reply 2, len=281, to port 68The CAS+ RNIS interface doesn't get a valid IP and I cannot send/receive files.
When I connect a more recent CAS+, I get:
pn-srv6-1217: sent reply 2, len=281, to 172.16.80.65:68
pn-srv6-1217: sent reply 5, len=281, to 172.16.80.65:68The CAS+ RNIS interface does get a valid IP immediatly and I can send/receive files.
Has somebody a good knowledge of the DHCP protocol, and of what could be wrong in the 1st log?
In the 1st log, after "sent reply 2", I just get "request type 1" again...
As if the sent IP was not accepted/understood by the computer, which is just asking again...
Do you know of any way of logging what is sent/received by an IP-less interface?
1355
« on: April 03, 2011, 12:22:54 pm »
The bug does come from Brandon's "basic"fix.
It's present after installing his patched 2.41 OS.
Unless someone has an idea on how to fix that, all I can do is remove this fix from OSes 2.30-2.43 patches.
And of course, the TI-Basic "for" glitch will be back...
1356
« on: April 03, 2011, 12:01:00 pm »
Ok.
I do confirm the bug is present on the patched 2.43 OS, but not on the patched 2.53/2.22 OSes.
So it could either come from the "basic" fix itself (which is not included in the 2.53/2.22 patches as the code is much different), either from an unwanted interaction between this fix and another fix.
I could also have made an error when applying Brandon's fix.
I'm going to check all this anyway.
1357
« on: April 03, 2011, 11:38:53 am »
I'm currently checking.
I get the "numbers" when transfering data through a direct USB cable.
This does not happen with the mini-Jack connector.
I need some time to install other OSes and compare.
By the way, just a question... Do you think I should modify the OS version string?
(the version string can include up to 6 characters like with the first TI-73 OSes)
For exemple "2.43+" instead of "2.43".
You could then determine easily if you are running the oiginal buggy OS, or patched less buggy OS (in theory).
But maybe you don't want other people (teachers?...) to know that you're running a modified OS...
1358
« on: April 03, 2011, 10:48:45 am »
By the way, i noticed that brandon's patched 2.53 (xlib) is also 710315 bytes long (impossible to send too).
Any idea why brandon's patched oses are cut like this ?
RabbitSigned OSes are shorter by default (23 bytes of comments are removed at the end of the file). You can add them using a hex editor.
1359
« on: April 02, 2011, 09:16:08 pm »
I didn't have the time to check this at all.
Sorry.
1360
« on: April 02, 2011, 05:59:39 pm »
I just watched the video, so whats up with the non-existant product ID on the calc? Did you just play a video created with nspire_emu? Depending upon the OS, the product ID is just printed on the next line. I've made 2 nspire_emu animated screen captures, and I've concatenated them. Levak did the rest (mapping the animated screen captures on a Nspire screen), and will probably gladly explain all that.
1361
« on: April 02, 2011, 05:49:28 pm »
The current development version is "trying" to run allready decrypted OS images, like shown on the video.
Decrypting the OS on the fly would be much harder.
1362
« on: April 02, 2011, 05:41:16 pm »
OSLauncher is under development.
The video is fake.
1363
« on: April 02, 2011, 04:50:05 pm »
I'm very disappointed at the 2011 April's fool day from ticalc.org. That's pretty lame... Their previous April's fool days were great. Omnimaga has been great too. And seems nobody noticed OSLauncher on TI-Bank: http://ti.bank.free.fr/index.php?mod=news&ac=commentaires&id=1029Did you all "believe" it?...
1364
« on: April 02, 2011, 10:24:06 am »
Oh thank you for checking so fast 
By the way, what do you think about that "page 7fffff" error?
It's a bug in TI's code for reading the "bootdata". If it can't find it, it tries to read from offset FFFFFFFF, because they didn't do the error checking quite right. This was fixed in later versions.
Presumably the effect on real hardware would be that either the read fails, or it reads the last actual page of flash. Either way, the code won't get a valid bootdata structure, so the end result is it just uses the default.
Does this mean the "downgrade protection" (included in bootdata) won't work on this model if I don't update the boot2 ?
1365
« on: April 01, 2011, 07:39:13 pm »
Oh thank you for checking so fast By the way, what do you think about that "page 7fffff" error?
Pages: 1 ... 89 90 [91] 92 93 ... 137
|
Show Posts