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 ... 90 91 [92] 93 94 ... 137
1366
« on: April 01, 2011, 07:27:37 pm »
Then, why is this boot2 so big?
Unoptimized code?
Unused/useless code?
Unused CAS+ code remnants?
By the way, I made a little error.
The boot2 1.1.6818 image size is "only" 1.27Mo, but that's still 206Kb more than the 1.1.7313 boot2.
The uncompressed size is still 1.85Mb, 408 Kb more than the 1.1.7313 boot2.
And by the way, all later boot2 versions are smaller.
What's inside this one?...
1367
« on: April 01, 2011, 07:03:52 pm »
This is looking more CAS+ like:
1199a7f4: /tmp/manifest_img
1199a80c: /tmp/TI-Nspire.tnc
Where is that? Boot2? OS? Does it seems to be used somewhere?
1368
« on: April 01, 2011, 06:11:55 pm »
Boot1 & Boot2 1.1.6818 (built on 4th february 2007) are now dumped. We're getting closer and closer to the CAS+. Goplat, you were right. Boot2 1.1.6818 is bigger, much bigger! 1.29Mb for the image, and then 1.85Mb when decompressed!!! On the emulator, the boot1 does not work at all. It's not a warning, but an error this time. I cannot continue... Error at PC=0000A624: NAND flash: read nonexistent page 7fffff
Backtrace:
Frame PrvFrame Self Return Start
A400A568: A400A588 A400A56C 0000A75C 0000A5E0
A400A588: A400A7D8 A400A58C 0000AF38 0000A71C
A400A7D8: A400AA18 A400A7DC 0000D348 0000AEEC
A400AA18: A400AA90 A400AA1C 00000DD4 0000D304
A400AA90: A400AAA8 A400AA94 00004578 000009C8
A400AAA8: A400AAAC A400AAAC 00000000 00004550
debug> With the boot2, I get this while trying to install a factory OS image: IMAGE: verifying file "/tmp/TI-Nspire.tnc"
Error at PC=1184DB24: NAND flash: read nonexistent page 7fffff
Backtrace:
Frame PrvFrame Self Return Start
11A2F3A0: 11A2F3C0 11A2F3A4 1184DC5C 1184DAE0
11A2F3C0: 11A2F610 11A2F3C4 1184E438 1184DC1C
11A2F610: 11A2F850 11A2F614 1197AE80 1184E3EC
11A2F850: 11A2F8F0 11A2F854 1197F9D8 1197AE3C
11A2F8F0: 11A31BB8 11A2F8F4 1197F520 1197F9C4
11A31BB8: 11A324A0 11A31BBC 118011C4 1197E9D8
11A324A0: 11A324E8 11A324A4 1188BD30 118008A0
11A324E8: 11A32500 11A324EC 1182FCF4 1188BC94
11A32500: 11A32504 11A32504 00000000 1182FCCC
debug>If no factory OS image is present, I get this: Waiting for OS download.
Starting Connectivity services.
Initializing USB subsystem...Warning at PC=11877D28: Bad write_byte: e59ff018 00
debug> c
Warning at PC=11877D28: Bad write_byte: e59ff019 80
debug> c
Warning at PC=11877D28: Bad write_half: e59ff028 0040
debug> c
Warning at PC=11877D28: Bad write_byte: e59ff01a 00
debug> c
Warning at PC=11877D28: Bad write_word: e59ff02c 00000000
debug> c
Warning at PC=11877D28: Bad write_byte: e59ff030 00
debug> c
Warning at PC=1187A39C: Bad read_byte: e59ff018
debug> c
Warning at PC=1187A39C: Bad read_byte: e59ff019
debug> c
Warning at PC=1187A39C: Bad read_word: e59ff030
debug> c
Warning at PC=1187A39C: Bad read_byte: e59ff019
debug> c
Warning at PC=1187A400: Bad read_byte: e59ff018
debug> c
Warning at PC=1187A400: Bad read_word: e59ff088
debug> c
Warning at PC=1187A430: Bad read_word: e59ff090
debug> c
Warning at PC=1187A448: Bad read_byte: e59ff01a
debug> c
Warning at PC=1187A4C0: Bad read_byte: e59ff01a
debug> c
Warning at PC=1187A504: Bad read_half: e59ff028
debug> c
Warning at PC=1187A504: Bad read_byte: e59ff018
debug> c
Warning at PC=1187A504: Bad read_byte: e59ff018
debug> c
Warning at PC=1187A504: Bad read_byte: e59ff01a
debug> c
Warning at PC=1187A504: Bad read_byte: e59ff019
debug> c
Warning at PC=1187A588: Bad read_byte: e59ff019
debug> c
Warning at PC=1187A5B4: Bad read_word: e59ff098
debug>Hope you'll find those errors very interesting  Thank you all for your support.
1369
« on: April 01, 2011, 02:27:59 pm »
I suspect it's more code left over from the CAS+, trying to access now-nonexistent peripherals.
Do you think such code could be usefull in our attempts to dump/flash the CAS+? Anyway, look what I got:  (same screen on true hardware)Seems it's a quite early OS...
1370
« on: April 01, 2011, 01:58:06 pm »
In fact, I've posted too fast (no your emulator is great, this hasn't changed - I'm not forgetting it did emulate perfectly all other 1.1.7320 and above prototype OSes without changing anything!).
I get the home screen (which I didn't get with my previous emulator version), but I've got problems later.
For exemple, I get a warning when typing enter to exit the about window:
usb reset
Warning at PC=100BC918: Bad read_word: fffbc410
debug>(tried 2 times)
What do you think about it Goplat?
Emulation which is not yet exactly 100% accurate?
Or a difference on the hardware?
Unfortunately, I cannot test the file on true hardware.
The "0.0.0" in the header is blocked by the downgrade protection.
1371
« on: April 01, 2011, 01:48:57 pm »
BOOT2: loading complete (428 ticks), launching image.
Error at PC=101675BC: Bad or unimplemented control register value: 5127f
If the OS validates fully and then doesn't work, it's probably my fault.
Does it work any differently in nspire_emu 0.51, which implemented support for the 0x100 and 0x200 bits in the control register?
Seems it's time for mu to update your emulator I'm checking... Edit: it's booting perfectly with the 0.51. It was my fault for using an older version. Your emulator is great 
1372
« on: April 01, 2011, 01:28:43 pm »
The example not only mentions CAS+, but seems to refer to the CAS+ menu.
I've got a dump file of the OS for now.
I've launched the 1.1.8408 OS as a test image, and used it to get the installed /phoenix/install/ti-nspire.tnc file through USB.
But I'm not sure it's good.
The header seems strange, as it is including null version strings:
TI-Nspire.tnc 0.0.0 2619082 0
__RES__ 0.0.0 0 759637
PK
½G6¾µ\·ìò'ìò'
wTI-Nspire.imgSDb¤Zsåcd`ia``PbpbF&‹�UH(ÙŒ¬ .«(�p—{ªÌZ˜PlÙôvH C
XZ‚á?£<†^ˆ8#X«^µ +„PÌPÚUT
É·ÊEÉ·ÊEÉ·ÊE€'òa€JTI-Nspire €0C€0E€â€.0.0.0€.0.0.0
Moreover, it doesn't work with Goplat's emulator:
Loading Operating System...
100%
BOOT2: loading complete (428 ticks), launching image.
Error at PC=101675BC: Bad or unimplemented control register value: 5127f
Backtrace:
Frame PrvFrame Self Return Start
11A04148: 11A04158 11A0414C 118026E8 11801DAC
11A04158: 11A04320 11A0415C 11801180 118026D8
11A04320: 11A04350 11A04324 1184F728 11800D7C
11A04350: 11A04370 11A04354 1181E288 1184F6E0
11A04370: 11A04374 11A04374 00000000 1181E270
debug>
Any idea?
1373
« on: March 31, 2011, 11:34:03 pm »
Well, it could be the same OS and all you need to do is check for the version to figure out which message to display. It is rather easy to do and it could make a different message depending on the model?
*cough*
One last word before falling asleep... That's the case. The same OS does display either "TI-84 Plus" either "TI-84 Plus Silver Edition" depending upon the hardware. This doesn't prove it's fake at all.
1374
« on: March 31, 2011, 11:30:19 pm »
Yes, I am. Sorry, I'm going to bed. Have fun determining wether it's true/fake. But as I said above, it's nice. I've really enjoyed being with you. If i's true,it's geat. And if it's fake, the photos/screenshots are great too. (and funny) I love the photo!   It's great and funny! Is it possible to link the photo? (not for a news - of course with the a link to the post, and credit to the author)
1375
« on: March 31, 2011, 11:25:18 pm »
Hum... I've only got a new MP from DJ apparently...
1376
« on: March 31, 2011, 11:23:21 pm »
Wait, what? I sent my version of the OS to Critor, so let's see what he says.
Where? I have neither new PM, nor emails...
1378
« on: March 31, 2011, 11:04:17 pm »
Critor: That part of the OS file doesn't actually do anything does it? Is it possible that they just left it out?
Which they haven't done for 7 years up to now 
1379
« on: March 31, 2011, 10:40:39 pm »
Nice try! But... DJ, it seems you have been tricked, or that you're trying to trick us. 868 138 bytes is the size of the original 2.55MP OS You told me the 2.71MP OS was 868 115 bytes. The size is just wrong, 23 bytes too small. It's the exact size you get by resigning the 2.55MP OS with RabbitSign. Official OSes end with ":00000001FF -- CONVERT 2.6 -- \n0x1A". RabbitSigned OSes just end with ":00000001FF", which is exactly 23 bytes smaller. There is no way TI would have started to use RabbitSign with the 0x0A key we've hacked. That OS is probably just a 2.55MP OS with its version & welcome strings modified, and then resigned with RabbitSign. Strangely, nobody has sent it me up to now, although I'm usually sent important things. I can release the 3.00MP OS for the TI-84+ immediatly if you want
1380
« on: March 31, 2011, 10:03:32 pm »
Be carefull! Querty.55 -> Can you take some photos/screenshots?
Sorry, but I'm on a school computer, not my own. I'll try to get home ASAP, but it'll take me a while.
If you're on a school computer that doesn't even let you make photos/screenshots, how were you able to flash the new OS on your calculator in the 1st place ? . . .
This might sound odd, but the some of the school computers have TI-connect. I'm seriously not joking. Other students have come up to me and asked how to use it. The computers obviously don't have WabbitEmu, though
Anyway, I'm going home now...
Be carefull And don't forget your calculator!
Pages: 1 ... 90 91 [92] 93 94 ... 137
|
Show Posts
