11 replies to this topic

[ECE]

Hi every one,

I’m intending to buy fx-9860G slim, so I need to know; does Casio SDK and REVOLUTION-FX support the new 9860G slim->
If yes, is it 100% supported.

Thank you.

[kucalc]

Well, I don't know. I haven't gotten hold of a fx-9860 Slim, but I'm pretty sure programs using Revolution-FX would run on it.

[djrose]

Just got my fx-9860 Slim yesterday, and tried a few simple programs with the SDK - Looking good. Tried a couple with Revolution-FX - Looking good. Tried a couple of games (e.g., Tron) - Looking good.

I would highly recommend one of these - Just brilliant!

[kucalc]

Great! We have confirmation. I've heard someone say they have problems running MLC fx-9860 on a Slim. But that shouldn't be a problem if you don't plan on using it.

[ECE]

Ok, these are good news. But I need to know, is it full supported->
As Casio says its OS is slightly different, shouldn’t this need an additional library support-> For example, the help facility ,..
Thank you.

[kucalc]

It shouldn't really be problem. I'm highly certain that almost all add-ins designed for the fx-9860G series will work with the Slim. I don't see how the online help facility would affect the functionality of the add-ins.

[SimLo]

Just got my fx-9860 Slim yesterday, and tried a few simple programs with the SDK - Looking good. Tried a couple with Revolution-FX - Looking good. Tried a couple of games (e.g., Tron) - Looking good.

I would highly recommend one of these - Just brilliant!

Your slim runs with OS 1.11. Its VRAM-base-address is different from FX-9860G OS 1.02..1.05.

@kucalc: CopyVRAM used to reference the VRAM-base-address (0x8800498D) directly. Is this still so->

[kucalc]

CopyVRAM still references to that memory location.

However, the purpose of the VRAM is to provide usable memory for doing behind-the-scenes drawing. If the memory is still available on other OS's and accessing that location doesn't cause problems, it shouldn't be a problem then, especially if you're using Revolution-FX since you probably won't be using the SDK's and OS's functions for bitmap drawing.

Also, I don't think many programmers (in fact, I have never seen anyone actually use it) have used CopyVRAM in their programs. Most people using Revolution-FX allocate memory for a buffer and simply use memcpy to copy one buffer to another which is probably the safest way.

[SimLo]

As for the topic "Slim and SDK":

As mentioned before, VRAM-base has been shifted by more than 800 bytes in OS 1.11 (compared to OS 1.02..1.05).
Depending on the move-direction you will either see a rather disturbed display or
you will kill important OS memory locations adjacent to the correct VRAM range,
if you use the wrong VRAM-base.
If you have to use absolute memory addresses, you should have compatibility checked.
Of course you should prefer a syscall if available, as it is with VRAM-base, f. i..

The syscall tables are downwardly compatible from OS 1.11 to OS 1.02..1.05.
SDK-functions are generally syscall-based.

@Yasser: if you should buy a slim with an OS version different from 1.11, send me a ping, please.

[kucalc]

As mentioned before, VRAM-base has been shifted by more than 800 bytes in OS 1.11 (compared to OS 1.02..1.05).
Depending on the move-direction you will either see a rather disturbed display or
you will kill important OS memory locations adjacent to the correct VRAM range,
if you use the wrong VRAM-base.

As stated before, most (if not all) programmers using Revolution-FX allocate memory for a buffer rather than using direct access (as all versions of Revolution-FX before 1.0 had a bug in it preventing CopyVRAM from being unusable anyway).

[SimLo]

In my recent post I tried to switch back to the heading "Slim and SDK". As any SDK programmer could have the idea to use absolute addresses, I wanted to warn in a general way, only. At present I have no other example than VRAM-base. So I used it again. I am definitely not intending to criticise your CopyVRAM (which I actually did not mention again) on and on. I hope I could clear up the misunderstanding.

[SimLo]

Keyboard RAM addresses are different with OS 1.11 on the slim, compared with OS 1.02..1.05 on the standard FX 9860G.

Edited on 9.8.2008:
Due to the slim's different keyboard layout, the keyboard matrix has been turned by 90 degrees.
Functions, which return keyboard-matrix-codes, t. i. some syscalls and the port-B/M/A-based direct keyboard matrix scanning, are not compatible. The matrix codes must be translated using f. i. the maps provided by syscall 0x1032, which has been introduced with OS version 1.04.