Talk:83Plus:Ports:21 - Revision history

KermMartian at 19:21, 18 April 2013

2013-04-18T19:21:22Z

Dr. D'nar: A quick note about how to prove there is 8 MB chip support

2013-02-20T06:41:17Z

A quick note about how to prove there is 8 MB chip support

Dr. D'nar: Note error

2011-10-03T16:06:35Z

Note error

Dr. D'nar at 16:06, 3 October 2011

2011-10-03T16:06:07Z

Thepenguin77 at 18:35, 1 October 2011

2011-10-01T18:35:08Z

Jim e at 05:00, 20 August 2005

2005-08-20T05:00:09Z

New page

I've been looking into this port a bit more, it seems to control ram execution restriction. Only bits 0,1,4, & 5 do anything. I 'm not exactly sure what the lower nibble does but I have looked into the upper one.
{| width="50%" border="1" cellspacing="1" bgcolor="white"
| width="20%" | Upper Nibble
| width="20%" | Page 87
| width="20%" | Page 85
| width="20%" | Page 83
| width="20%" | Page 81
|-
| width="20%" | 3
| width="20%" | Restricted
| width="20%" | Restricted
| width="20%" | Restricted
| width="20%" | Allowed
|-
| width="20%" | 2
| width="20%" | Restricted
| width="20%" | Restricted
| width="20%" | Restricted
| width="20%" | Allowed
|-
| width="20%" | 1
| width="20%" | Restricted
| width="20%" | Allowed
| width="20%" | Restricted
| width="20%" | Allowed
|-
| width="20%" | 0
| width="20%" | Allowed
| width="20%" | Allowed
| width="20%" | Allowed
| width="20%" | Allowed
|}
I post this on the talk page because I don't think there is enough yet and I haven't tested on the 84+SE. Also the 84+ has this port set as 0, yet that seems to crash the 83+se. Hopefully someone has a better clue than me.--[[User:Jim e|Jim e]] 22:00, 19 Aug 2005 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:21, 18 April 2013
Line 32:		Line 32:
	\|}		\|}
	I post this on the talk page because I don't think there is enough yet and I haven't tested on the 84+SE. Also the 84+ has this port set as 0, yet that seems to crash the 83+se. Hopefully someone has a better clue than me.--[[User:Jim e\|Jim e]] 22:00, 19 Aug 2005 (PDT)		I post this on the talk page because I don't think there is enough yet and I haven't tested on the 84+SE. Also the 84+ has this port set as 0, yet that seems to crash the 83+se. Hopefully someone has a better clue than me.--[[User:Jim e\|Jim e]] 22:00, 19 Aug 2005 (PDT)
		+	: I'm almost positive that for the 256KB chip possibility, mode 3 allows only $81, mode 2 allows $81 and $89, mode 1 allows $81, $85, $89, and $8D, and mode 0 allows all odd pages up to $8F. [[User:KermMartian\|KermMartian]] 19:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:41, 20 February 2013
Line 36:		Line 36:
	I said it very sneakily. Unless you specifically know what you are looking for, it won't mean anything to you. If it's too early though, feel free to change it back. --[[User:thepenguin77\|thepenguin77]] 14:00, 1 October 2011		I said it very sneakily. Unless you specifically know what you are looking for, it won't mean anything to you. If it's too early though, feel free to change it back. --[[User:thepenguin77\|thepenguin77]] 14:00, 1 October 2011
	:Er, it's not quite right. 02 does not lock 2C.[[User:Dr. D'nar\|Dr. D'nar]] 16:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)		:Er, it's not quite right. 02 does not lock 2C.[[User:Dr. D'nar\|Dr. D'nar]] 16:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	I have confirmed that there is 8 MB chip support, too, by fiddling with ports 0E, 0F, and 21 on a TI-84+SE. The experiment involved unlocking flash, changing port 21, locking flash, and then seeing whether the certificate was visible with various values of ports 0E and 0F.[[User:Dr. D'nar\|Dr. D'nar]] 06:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:06, 3 October 2011
Line 35:		Line 35:

	I said it very sneakily. Unless you specifically know what you are looking for, it won't mean anything to you. If it's too early though, feel free to change it back. --[[User:thepenguin77\|thepenguin77]] 14:00, 1 October 2011		I said it very sneakily. Unless you specifically know what you are looking for, it won't mean anything to you. If it's too early though, feel free to change it back. --[[User:thepenguin77\|thepenguin77]] 14:00, 1 October 2011
−	:Er, it's not quite right. 02 does not lock 2C.	+	:Er, it's not quite right. 02 does not lock 2C.[[User:Dr. D'nar\|Dr. D'nar]] 16:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:06, 3 October 2011
Line 35:		Line 35:

	I said it very sneakily. Unless you specifically know what you are looking for, it won't mean anything to you. If it's too early though, feel free to change it back. --[[User:thepenguin77\|thepenguin77]] 14:00, 1 October 2011		I said it very sneakily. Unless you specifically know what you are looking for, it won't mean anything to you. If it's too early though, feel free to change it back. --[[User:thepenguin77\|thepenguin77]] 14:00, 1 October 2011
		+	:Er, it's not quite right. 02 does not lock 2C.

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:35, 1 October 2011
Line 32:		Line 32:
	\|}		\|}
	I post this on the talk page because I don't think there is enough yet and I haven't tested on the 84+SE. Also the 84+ has this port set as 0, yet that seems to crash the 83+se. Hopefully someone has a better clue than me.--[[User:Jim e\|Jim e]] 22:00, 19 Aug 2005 (PDT)		I post this on the talk page because I don't think there is enough yet and I haven't tested on the 84+SE. Also the 84+ has this port set as 0, yet that seems to crash the 83+se. Hopefully someone has a better clue than me.--[[User:Jim e\|Jim e]] 22:00, 19 Aug 2005 (PDT)
		+
		+
		+	I said it very sneakily. Unless you specifically know what you are looking for, it won't mean anything to you. If it's too early though, feel free to change it back. --[[User:thepenguin77\|thepenguin77]] 14:00, 1 October 2011