July 07, 2020, 11:10:08 pm

The shoutbox is currently out of service. Join us on Discord instead.
You can help CodeWalrus stay online by donating here.

WARNING: DO NOT UPGRADE your TI-83 Premium CE or TI-84 Plus CE to OS 5.5.1 and higher. It removes all compatibility with most games and removes ASM/C programming! DOWNGRADING IS IMPOSSIBLE. BE WARNED! Likewise, do NOT update your TI-Nspire CX past OS 4.5.0, else using Ndless and ASM/C programs will be impossible.

OS 5.2 released for the TI-84 Plus CE and the TI-83 Premium CE

Started by DJ Omnimaga, August 31, 2016, 05:41:04 am

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DJ Omnimaga

IIRC I never got Get() to work between calcs. IIRC the results were erratic, while they worked fine with GetCalc(). Back in 2001-03, I recall that a few other people who used it instead of GetCalc() reported problems. It was more suitable for use with the CBL/CBR IIRC. Maybe @CVSoft might know more than me on the issue, though, since he dealt with CBL/CBR before.

Anyway now the question is: Should I start using the new BASIC commands and cut the size/lag of my programs down, or should I keep them cross-compatible with the previous OSes? I'm more inclined to update, since updating the calculator is less of an hassle than it was on previous models and especially other brands, but what do you guys think?

By the way, my remark about Sprite v3.3 in the first post is because with Sprite's text routine, if you want to display text followed by the result of a math formula, for example, then you have to display both the string of text and the variable content separately, using one Asm(prgmPRINT) for each and due to how the VAT works, this drags the speed down. If TI's new commands converts math formula answers to strings incredibly fast, then this is a huge speed gain.


I wonder if TI will ever allow 3rd party 8xk on the CE...
Does this qualify as a signature? 
The answer is "Sure."


Sadly they don't really have a business-motivated need to do that (teachers asking for it, for instance), so it's unlikely. One can hope, but don't "wait" for it to start doing cool stuff with ASM programs, for example.
Co-founder & co-administrator of TI-Planet and Inspired-Lua


Out of curiosity, how long would it take an average computer to factor the key? 10 years?
I've never finished a project, there is always a way to improve!
What's my calc's name? Convert $37 to decimal. Look up that element in the periodic table. Then take the abbreviation of that element and you have it!
Look! A slime!    <(^.^)>


Quote from: E37 on October 11, 2016, 09:57:22 pm
Out of curiosity, how long would it take an average computer to factor the key? 10 years?

About the same time as the heat death of the universe.


Quote from: E37 on October 11, 2016, 09:57:22 pmOut of curiosity, how long would it take an average computer to factor the key? 10 years?

I found this quote amusing:
Quote[...]we estimated the age of the Universe to be 13,751,783,021 years or a little over 13.75 billion years*, therefore if you tried to break a DigiCert 2048-bit SSL certificate using a standard modern desktop computer, and you started at the beginning of time, you would have expended 13 billion years of processing by the time you got back to today, and you would still have to repeat that entire process 468,481 times one after the other into our far far distant future before there was a good probability of breaking the certificate. In fact the Universe itself would grow dark before you even got close.

Source: https://www.digicert.com/TimeTravel/math.htm

So, don't even think about standard factoring for such keys. computational breakthroughs and/or quantum computing can make things more interesting, however.
I'll let you read stuff here and there, there are quite a few websites and articles talking about all that.
Co-founder & co-administrator of TI-Planet and Inspired-Lua

DJ Omnimaga

In other words, if we ever wanted to make apps then we would need to find an alternative because factoring the key is never gonna happen (at least not in the next 20 years)

Has a 1024 bits RSA key been factored yet, though?


Perhaps with a standard desktop computer, but would a supercomputer reduce this amount of time ? :trollface:
Anyways, I don't know how much time was spended factoring the 712-bits RSA keys from previous calculators...

DJ Omnimaga

It depends how powerful a quantum computer could be. If it's just 1000 times more powerful than a regular computer then you would still need thousands of years.


Actually officially the most powerful supercomputer has a computing power of 93.01 petaflops. And an i7-6950X is at 317 gigaflops, so that Chinese supercomputer is 293,407 times more powerful than a beast 10-core 2016 $8,000 gaming PC :p

DJ Omnimaga

I don't even know what a gigaflop is, lol. Anyway, wouldn't it require hundreds of those to factor the key in a decade?

Also is it me or TI didn't fix the string max lenght bug on the CE? https://tiplanet.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19355&p=210675#p210675


Looks like part of it may have been fixed, but variations of the bug can still cause weirdness.
Co-founder & co-administrator of TI-Planet and Inspired-Lua

DJ Omnimaga

In my case, on OS 5.0 (or 5.0.1?) I remember that if a string had two byte tokens and exceeded 64 KB in size, it became an empty string (""). I think I got a RAM clear once but I don't know if that was the cause of the reset.

Powered by EzPortal