Today I’m publishing tihle, a new emulator targeting TI graphing calculators (currently only the 83+, but maybe others later). There’s rather a lot to say about it, but here I will discuss the motivation for a new emulator and the state of the art followed by technical notes on the design and initial development process.
Read on for that discussion, or jump straight to the project homepage on GitLab which has a live demo that runs in your web browser and other resources including source code.
I’ve long been involved in the community of people who program for the TI-83+ series of graphing calculators; it was on that platform that I got started programming in the first place. These days I play more of an advisory than active role in writing programs, by running much of Cemetech behind the scenes and providing the occasional input to others. I think calculators are an excellent way to introduce people to programming, since they are readily available devices and not too complex to get started on, while still having enough capability to support experienced developers in doing interesting things (because they are readily accessible embedded systems). I fully credit getting started with programming calculators for having ended up programming embedded systems profesionally.
Unfortunately, the future of programming for TI calculators seems to be in peril. About a month ago, the news came out that new versions of the OS for the TI-84+ CE (the most recent variant of the 83+ featuring a color screen and improved eZ80 processor) will remove support for running native code.
While this doesn’t necessarily affect older calculators or programs, in the long term it seems to spell doom for calculators as an inroad to developing embedded software in particular. Programs written in the calculators’ dialect of BASIC continue to be accessible and a new Python implementation fills the void somewhat, but they lack in depth- where a user could spend time and effort developing native programs constrained only by the hardware they run on before, in the future users will be limited to only those capabilities provided by TI’s software.
In much the same way that I believe Scratch is a decent introduction to programming but completely hides interesting details and is not seriously used by anybody but those using it a learning tool, I also believe removal of support for running native code will ultimately mean people will no longer have calculators (which are often required school equipment!) as a useful entrypoint to serious programming.
In addition to the loss of a way to introduce people to programming, removing support for native code also effectively throws away a large existing library of programs that stretches back more than 20 years (nicely embodied in ticalc.org, which first came online in 1996). While the 84+ CE is a young platform relative to the TI-83+ series as a whole (and is incompatible with earlier software), it already has a rich library of programs created by users that will effectively be lost when they can no longer be run on the hardware they are designed for.
The precedent of effectively destroying the work of community members is troubling, and I am motivated to look for ways to preserve it. In much the same way that there still exist thriving communities around long-obsolete home computers like the Apple II and Commodore 64 today, I think it’s worthwhile to try to provide a similar opportunity by preserving the platform into a hostile future by working to give the systems and software ongoing life beyond what their creators envisioned (or perhaps more pointedly, beyond what they decided they could make money from).
As a newer platform than those early home computers that still have active communities, information and resources may be rather easier to come by for these calculators because much of the information was born digital and has always been online. However this is also hazardous to preservation, because if items are readily available online there may not be any replacements available if the original goes away. For instance, TI used to freely provide an SDK for the 83+, but have more recently made it much more difficult to access. Perhaps even more concerningly, TI’s web site no longer seems to provide any information about the TI-84+ CSE, seeming to deny that it ever existed (though manuals and software are still available if you know where to look).
Recognizing these concerns about the loss of a valuable resource for beginning programmers and loss of interesting history to the grind of the education-industrial complex,2 what are we to do?
There exist a number of web sites that document the calculators and offer resources related to them- I’m already involved in that, which is valuable and generally well-preserved on the Internet Archive. But if the existing resources are useless on current hardware as they largely become when large classes of programs are not runnable, new tools become required: I believe this situation calls for emulation of the calculators, to make the platform accessible to everybody.
There already exist a number of emulators for TI calculators, including:
- WabbitEmu, which is open-source and generally good quality.
- jsTIfied, an emulator available as a web application.
- Virtual TI, one of the earliest calculator emulators to be created.
- PindurTI, which is now defunct but offered some useful capabilities in its day.
- ..and others
While most of these are accurate enough to run most programs, this is not the whole story: all of them require a ROM image to work. The ROM includes the calculator’s operating system and boot code, which implement huge swaths of functionality from keyboard and display handling through implementing floating-point arithmetic and the TI-BASIC interpreter.
TI jealously protect their OS and boot code because from the point of view of their business, the entire value of the calculator is in its software. If an emulator can run the same software on a more general machine, what reason is there for a user to purchase a $100 device from TI?3 But if we want to preserve community software for emulation, we don’t really care about the same functions that TI are interested in protecting.
Though truly accurate emulation still requires all OS functions be available in the same way, many applications only use a small subset of them. So what options are available for emulating the system software?
- TI’s EOS (TI-OS) is provided with the calculator, and can be downloaded from TI in order to update a calculator. However, they added a clickwrap agreement to the OS in 2013 that attempts to forbid use of the OS for emulation. While that clause is questionably enforceable, nobody (myself included) is very interested in challenging it- mostly because TI has historically tended to turn a blind eye to the distribution of ROMs. Any such distribution in a larger, more public forum increases the risk of calling in the lawyers, so for these and the reasons discussed above, I do not believe it is tenable to use TI’s OS for general-availability emulation.
- Brandon Wilson’s OS2 seems most relevant, in that it wants to reimplement TI-OS “but better.” However, it hasn’t been updated in 11 years at this point and seems dead. It’s also dependent on the assembler and tools provided by Zilog, which only run on Windows and are closed-source.
- GlassOS is implemented in C and actually seems useable, but lacks compatibility with any existing software.
- KnightOS is UNIX-like and seems to have a selection of useful software, but again is not compatible with any existing software beyond a small library of ports targeting it.
- Many other people (myself included) have attempted to write OSes, but they don’t merit mention here because they’re of even less practical use.
While the calculator OS implements most functionality, the boot code is also relevant- TI’s OS uses some support code from the boot code, and of course the boot code is responsible for handling the system power-up sequence and allowing recovery from a no-OS situation.
The boot code on these calculators is meant to be read-only,4 and is programmed into the device at the factory. Thus, there is no official source for boot code short of reading it from the memory of a physical calculator and the community consensus tends to be that sharing copies of the boot code would infringe on TI’s copyright.
Ben “FloppusMaximus” Moody at one time published a reimplementation of the calculator boot code called “BootFree,” which seems to have disappeared from the Internet except for the version integrated with WabbitEmu. While it seems BootFree disappeared for reasons related to the addition of the clickwrap agreement to the EOS downloads provided by TI,5 6 I don’t think the same reasons apply to emulation of non-EOS software- thus, BootFree seems like a fine resource in pursuit of making emulation available to all.
If the goal is to freely emulate calculator programs, we recognize that while the boot code situation seems compatible with accurate emulation, the current available libre OSes are insufficient. While it is technically feasible to emulate TI’s EOS (the only reasonable choice for emulating the current software library), legal forces make it untenable to use as a base for publicly-available emulation with the goal of allowing anybody to run programs for the platform.
It’s also worth noting that there are two major divisions in kinds of programs that run on these calculators: they can be implemented in the provided BASIC dialect (TI-BASIC), or distributed as machine code for the calculator. TI-OS implements the interpreter for TI-BASIC so both of these can be run on the existing emulators, but because using TI-OS is not an option for this project we need to choose how to approach things. The possibility space of emulation projects forks:
- Build a TI-BASIC interpreter, not necessarily one that runs on an emulated calculator.
- Create a whole-machine emulator that works without TI-OS.
While I’ve explored the feasibility of creating a from-scratch TI-BASIC interpreter in the past, it’s never made much progress and I got rather bogged down in accurate emulation of the calculator’s rather unique decimal floating-point format.7 I have instead chosen to work on a whole-machine emulator that doesn’t require TI-OS.
It is interesting to compare emulation of calculator programs to that of game systems (which are also common targets for emulation). In game systems the interest in emulation is almost entirely on the programs (games) that are separate from the system. Similarly, I am currently interested in providing emulation of third-party programs that happen to be run on a calculator.
Game systems tend to have small amounts of platform code that game software might use, which emulators tend to hide the existence of: a tiny minority of emulator users would have the capability to extract the firmware from a game system they own, and though most users probably engage in copyright infringement to obtain copies of game software to run on emulators, the emulators owe their existence to the fact that they don’t contain any copyright-infringing code themselves.
On calculators, emulation of interesting programs with existing emulators requires a copy of the system software which notionally requires access to a physical calculator to obtain. This means the emulators can reliably be considered not to fall afoul of any laws, though the barrier to entry is raised. However, the programs themselves are almost entirely made available freely by their authors- among the hobbyists who write calculator software, the platform is largely open. If an emulator can do without a ROM image of a calculator, it is feasible to freely provide the existing library of software to all comers.
Game system emulators tend to solve their inability to distribute the system firmware through high-level emulation: various operations that may be taken by software can be recognized, and the emulator can implement those operations itself. This approach both avoids any dependency on system firmware for its implementation and can often achieve better performance because the emulator need not faithfully emulate the underlying process- only its side effects are in scope. Though high-level emulation tends to sacrifice accuracy in ways that can cause some emulated software to behave incorrectly, this is often because the emulator must take shortcuts to achieve acceptable performance. When emulating a calculator with a 40-year-old CPU architecture that runs at a few Megahertz, acceptable performance should be much easier to achieve without noticeable shortcuts.8
With the precedent of existing emulators that are very faithful to the known hardware behavior and decision that no existing calculator OS is appropriate for the application, tihle is born. The name indicates how important that feature is to its existence: it is a high-level-emulator for TI calculators.9
With a plan in mind, I had to start building something. I could have started with the core of one of the existing emulators, but had a few reasons to instead start from (mostly) scratch:
- Code quality is highly variable, and I’m not familiar with their code. I have no idea what kinds of bugs and pitfalls may exist in them.
- Support for high-level emulation would require an unknown amount of modification.
- Portability is questionable, since they’re mostly implemented in various flavors of C or C++ and typically have Windows as the primary target system.
I’m a big fan of Rust and know that portability of Rust programs is pretty good because the language implementation’s standard library does a pretty good job of abstracting away platform details. In addition, I know the compiler has good support for WebAssembly as a platform, which should make it reasonably easy to make a port that runs in a web browser. Running in a web browser is desirable because it is the most accessible way to allow people to emulate games- see for instance the Emularity, which powers emulation of thousands of programs on the Internet Archive.
Though I chose to start from scratch with an emulator written in Rust, I still didn’t want to spend the effort to implement CPU emulation from scratch. Since the Z80 is such an old CPU and so widely used, there are a number of existing emulators that I might be able to use the core from. Rust is easy to link against C code, so there are many options to consider. Among the most notable:
- YAZE-AG is very mature and emulates a whole CP/M system.
- Fuse is also very mature and emulates the ZX Spectrum. It also has a reputation for high accuracy thanks in part to its comprehensive test suite.
I eventually settled on a core that’s not part of any major emulator: Manuel Sainz de Baranda y Goñi’s “redcode” core. It’s written in very portable C and designed to be used as a library so it takes very little setup or modification to use in my application. It does depend on a large external header-only library as provided, but I was able to adapt it to be more standalone with some work.
I tend to prefer to use permissive licenses on my software, but the redcode Z80 core is GPL-licensed. Since linking it into my binaries would require my code to also be GPL I would prefer to use a core with a more permissive license, but accepting GPL in exchange for not needing to implement the core myself seems like a fair and expedient trade on balance. In the future I might choose to implement my own core and change the license for tihle, but for the time being it will be copyleft.
Building the CPU core and getting it to run some code wasn’t terribly hard, which left the core issue of how to implement high-level emulation. The emulator needs to be able to recognize when the CPU needs to “trap” into operations provided by the emulator.
I initially defined traps as simply taking some action on instruction fetch.
When the CPU would attempt to read memory at chosen addresses, the emulator
would execute a trap handler based on the memory address being read, then
return data equivalent to instructions appropriate to the trap- usually
just the value
C9 for a
This approach quickly turned out to be problematic as I was testing the emulator. I chose Phoenix as the target program for initial development because it’s a sort of classic calculator game and as a bonus shouldn’t depend too tightly on emulation accuracy- Phoenix has designed to be portable across a number of calculators, so hopefully doesn’t contain many assumptions about the system.
Unfortunately, I quickly ran into problems with the way Phoenix generates random numbers.
FAST_RANDOM routine uses some self-modifying code to read values from semi-random
memory addresses, mixing the read values through a few shifts and
xors. The initial
address it reads is the CPU reset vector;
0x0000, which I had also defined as the trap
that terminates emulation. To work around this I modified reset detection: instead of
simply trapping reads from that address, I made the “terminate” flag instead be controlled
by any write to port 255, which is unused on the calculator. By putting code at the
reset vector to write to port 255, we can avoid spurious termination.
It quickly becomes obvious that treating termination separately from other traps
doesn’t work well. If the program decides to read a value from
instance (where control flow jumps to execute a system routine), it would cause
incorrect actions to be taken which would almost certainly cause the program to
begin behaving incorrectly. What’s required is a way to ensure traps are only
taken when executing the target code, not if the system happens to read a given
memory address as data. It wasn’t an immediate problem, but this will be
The initial implementation of the memory subsystem only emulated RAM, not the Flash memory in the calculator that holds the OS. Regular programs only execute out of RAM, so it was easy enough to trap on any access to Flash. This became problematic once emulation of Phoenix reached a certain point, because it turns out I had chosen to use the MirageOS version of Phoenix, meaning there was another dependency on the contents of Flash that I had not expected.10 MirageOS11 is a shell implemented as a Flash application; it runs directly from Flash, and provides useful support routines to programs designed to take advantage of it.
This version of Phoenix uses the
setupint routine provided by Mirage to implement
its timer interrupt that controls game speed. Since Mirage isn’t open-source, I would
have had to either reverse-engineer the details of how that works or simply map Mirage
into memory. I opted to do the latter, since Mirage is freely redistributable
and it will always be easier to emulate it than faithfully implement its
functionality in terms of emulator traps.
After adding Mirage to the system, things still weren’t working. I spend some time
setupint and by painstakingly comparing that with execution
traces from the emulator, the flow that routine was taking seemed reasonable. It looked
like it was jumping somewhere incorrect on servicing the first interrupt after
setting it up! Checking the value of the
I register that specifies the location of
the interrupt vector table to the core, it didn’t seem correct- meaning there was
a problem with the core. Let’s dive into that adventure (or skip ahead to
the next section if you prefer not to learn
some about my debugging process):
Mirage installs its interrupt vector table to the block of memory at
it with the value
0x8A. Because custom interrupts on the 83+ must always use the
Z80’s interrupt mode 2 but the calculator is not designed to use this mode,
this ensures that all interrupts will vector to
0x8A8A. Breaking execution
0x71D2 where it loads the
A should have been
8B, but instead it
0x84 and after the
ld i, a instruction the value of
Digging deeper, I had to debug the emulator- not just inspect the emulated CPU state. This was actually more difficult than expected, because I had been developing with CLion on Windows, using a Rust toolchain targeting the MSVC tools. CLion only supports debugging with GNU tools however, so I couldn’t use the integrated debugger. I do have a copy of Visual Studio handy however, which works just fine to debug MSVC binaries.
I ended up adding a pause to the emulator on startup so I could launch it through CLion, then switch to Visual Studio to attach the debugger and set breakpoints before unpausing the emulator. This worked quite tolerably, since Visual Studio was still able to make sense of all the debug symbols in the binary so the only tedious part was in getting the debugger attached.
With everything hooked up, I saw the following state in my debugger:
By inspecting the assembly and comparing with the debugger’s view of the locals,
I can tell that
rcx points to the emulator
object, and offset 0x40 from that
refers to the state of the CPU core.
PC of the core has already been incremented
to the next instruction, and the intent seems to be that the value of the emulated
A register will be tansferred through
I. However, the value
it’s reading is 0, not
0x84 as it should be based on the debugger’s view
AF register pair.
The redcode emulator uses some utility types that I reimplemented when I didn’t
want to include the whole “Z” library that it wants to use, which include the
Z16Bit union used to represent the 16-bit register pairs. It looks like this:
The intent of this type appears to be in allowing easy access to each byte of a 16-bit
value; this could be done just with shifting and masking that presumably the compiler
could optimize, but I suppose it was designed to not depend on compilers being
efficient. In this case, it seems the program is actually reading the wrong byte
of the value; when it contains
0x8400 and we want to read the value of
A, it should
take the high byte of the value but is instead taking the low. The macro
A in the source
code for the core expands to an access to
should be the high byte of the
AF register pair.
So it turns out I made a mistake in adapting that definition to my needs, and
meant to be the high-order byte of the aggregate value, not the low! Simply swapping
the locations of
index0 then rebuilding, the state was then correct:
Not only does
A now have the value we expect from reading the Mirage disassembly,
ecx now does contains
0x8B and the value is correctly written to
I. Problem solved!
With improved confidence in the core’s correctness now, emulation can progress to the point where it’s relevant to resume thinking about how to correctly implement traps such that non-instruction reads from memory won’t spuriously trigger them. With the change in reset handling to trap on writes to a particular port, it makes sense to explore the ways in which traps could better be handled.
It’s likely that there will need to be a number of different traps; certainly for a handful of system routines. This means any trap method must be able to provide a way to identify which trap to execute, but it must only be triggered when executed by the CPU. Some ideas come to mind:
- Write a value to a selected port that’s not otherwise used on the calculator.
- Provide a flag from the core to the emulator for handling memory reads to indicate an instruction fetch rather than any other data read.
- Implement a custom instruction that causes a trap.
Modifying the core to handle memory reads differently has unknown complexity so I didn’t want to do that, and writing a value to a port didn’t seem like a very good choice because it can only accomodate 256 values per chosen port. While I don’t know how many traps will eventually be needed, 256 seems like it may not be enough so I opted to look into creating a custom instruction.
Looking at what instructions are defined in both the Z80 and eZ80 documentation (leaving the door open for eZ80 emulation later), there’s a lot of unused space in the ED-prefixed instructions that isn’t used by either CPU and isn’t known to have useful undocumented effects.
According to Jacco Bot,
EDFF all have no discernable effect so are good candidates
for custom instructions. Cross referencing with the eZ80 CPU manual (Zilog
UM0077, table 109), much of the first block is filled in while the second
remains sparsely used.
ED25 seems like a nice
25 is an ASCII ‘%’ which seems like it might “pop” out of a text
representation of memory a little bit.
To indicate which trap should be taken, I chose to have the instruction include a 16-bit value which indicates to the emulator which trap is desired. This provides a very large number of possible traps that ought to be sufficient for any future needs.
Implementing this new instruction turned out to be very easy, and I learned
a little more about how the core is implemented. I simply needed to add a hook
for traps (to call from the C core into my Rust emulator) and add a new
function that calls that hook, then insert a pointer to that function
in the table of
ED-prefixed instruction handlers.
Now that traps are actually a special instruction, it turns out the system needs some kind of OS image! Without one, there’s no way to trigger traps on calls into OS code. As a quick solution, I implemented a tiny OS image that traps on the major OS entrypoints:
The important traps here are for calls to OS routines at
0x0028, and the
default interrupt handler at
0x0038. The handler for
the CPU state to choose what system routine to emulate, so it provides
most of the OS functionality that any program needs.
With this work, the general structure of the emulator seems sound. Although I didn’t want to implement an OS to begin with, one is now present; however though its complexity is strictly controlled according to whether I find it easier to implement routines in Z80 or as traps, so this seems reasonable. It was then a matter of implementing and debugging the core functions that Phoenix needs.
For some parts of debugging it was easier to write small programs that exercised only the function(s) that needed debugging; these might be good to promote to unit tests in the future.
Displaying text is not particularly hard, though getting a copy of the bitmap font that the calculator uses was a bit of work. I ended up getting each character as an image, then writing some Python scripts to combine them into a binary blob that can be embedded in the emulator. It nearly worked with only a little work, but I did have to debug some bad computations stemming from getting an 8-bit character value and integer rollover.
My initial traps for the
_PutS system routine failed to emulate the undocumented
behavior that it updates
HL to point past the string that is displayed. Text output
in the small font also had some problems with updating the screen coordinates to draw
at. The vertical lines in the small-font text were apparently an error in my font bitmap
data that was easily fixed, though the black line at the top of the screen was a
My LCD emulation12 had some issues to fix around not being in the correct
mode initially and failing to update its addresses correctly in some situations. It turns
out Phoenix is somewhat unusual among games for the 83+ in that it directly accesses
the LCD for all its display operations, rather than delegating to a library function
provided by the OS (
_GrBufCopy) or a shell (
fastcopy) which makes it a good test
of basic LCD driver emulation. The display warping was a simple problem of having
the wrong display width parameter in the driver emulation.
With the display looking largely correct, the final major hurdle to something that looks like a game was in generating timer interrupts, which Phoenix uses to control the game speed. This required implementing a few control ports which the CPU uses to enable or disable interrupts and ensuring that interrupts would be triggered at the correct times accurately, but wasn’t too bad although I spent some time vexed by a bug where IRQ flags never got reset so interrupts fired continuously.
In order to make the game playable, the last piece of the puzzle is in allowing it to receive input. On a physical calculator this is through a simple matrix keyboard, interfaced directly to the CPU via I/O port 0. Where some complexity comes in is in how the calculator OS provides its input abstractions, which turns out to be important but not well documented.
TI-OS provides a routine for scanning the keyboard, called
_GetCSC. It returns one
value, a scan code corresponding to the key (if any) that is currently pressed.
The documentation leaves it at that however, when the behavior around
multiple keys being pressed or keys being held is also important.
It turns out that
_GetCSC is implemented largely via interrupts; while servicing
regular timer interrupts, the OS scans the keyboard for keys that are being pressed,
and if any are then stores that value in RAM.
_GetCSC reads that value and clears
it. If everything were that simple it would be very easy, but the interrupt
handler also debounces some keys; the directional arrows and del key
can repeat if held, while others will not. The actual timing is that the first
repeat of a held key comes after about 48 interrupts, and every 10 thereafter
meaning the first repeat comes after about 250 milliseconds and subsequent ones
occur at 20 Hz.
While OS2 contains an implementation of this logic (which seemed overcompilicated
until I actually understood how this key repeat works), I opted to implement
keyboard scanning as a trap instead. While the keyboard hardware is fully
emulated because Phoenix only uses
_GetCSC for a few things and directly
interfaces with the keyboard for the rest, the OS timer interrupt calls
into the emulator to do keyboard scanning because it’s easier to implement
and probably more performant.
With this, I’m rather surprised that Phoenix is playable! There’s certainly more work to be done to improve everything, but “Phoenix is playable” was the goal I set for myself that must be reached before I published the project; so.. here we are.
Currently, I’ve really only tested Phoenix. It’s possible that some other games will work in tihle as it stands, and others might work with only minor changes. There are notable holes that I’d like to fill:
- Programs are loaded directly to the point in memory that they execute from. Programs and data should be loaded into memory as if they were managed normally by TI-OS, which will allow programs that want to be able to load external data (such as level packs) to do so, and also enable saving or loading other data, such as high scores or generated programs.
- Rather than directly launching programs, launch a shell and allow users to interactively select a program to run. (Though a mode to directly launch programs may still be desirable.)
- Improve LCD emulation to support greyscale graphics. Programmers sometimes implement rapid switching between black and white to approximate several shades of grey (4-16 depending on how ambitious they are and how much CPU time is worth dedicating to it for the application), which will require LCD emulation to have some “memory” in order to simulate the slow response time of the calculator LCD.
- Support an on-screen keyboard, useful for touchscreen devices and easier to navigate than pressing keys on a computer keyboard.
- Improved debugging tools, to set breakpoints and more interactively explore the system state. Very useful for debugging new programs that don’t yet run correctly, or for developing new programs.
- Your suggestion here! (Suggestions and feature requests via Gitlab issues or other means are welcome.)
I’m quite happy with the ability to run the emulator in a web browser as it is right now. While I can’t claim much credit for it beyond choosing tools that would support that target,13 it’s still very gratifying to see everything come together to make emulation so accessible. In the longer term, I’d like to try to get emulation via tihle available on the Internet Archive, like many DOS games are today.
The “minimal” OS that’s included with the emulator is currently a pretty significant hack that I’d like to clean up some, and in the long term it would be cool to make it a much more complete TI-OS reimplementation- possibly taking in most of OS2, and building on top of Brandon’s work. In an ideal world the high-level parts of tihle might eventually become obsolete (or optional) if the OS implementation got good enough.
tihle lives on GitLab: https://gitlab.com/taricorp/tihle
There you can read more, download binaries to run tihle yourself (or do so directly in your browser), read the source code as well as contribute: I welcome contributions, suggestions and discussion, especially if they come with code!
You can learn more about the technical details of calculators and programming them at WikiTI, though many of the details can be rather inscrutable without additional explanation or prior knowledge. The official TI-83 Plus SDK documentation can be found on the Internet Archive; much of its contents are omitted from WikiTI, so it’s a valuable source of basic information. Learn TI-83 Plus Assembly in 28 Days is a decent introduction to the platform, intended for readers with no experience programming in assembly but plenty usable by more advanced readers as well, with its combination of simplified official documentation and community-sourced information.
If you’re looking for discussion or programs, Cemetech is one forum where experienced calculator programmers (and me!) hang out, and are happy to discuss things. There’s also an area to find programs there, but ticalc.org is one of the oldest calculator community sites, and has a huge library of software to browse.
I thought I might give this a try after Gravis commented on doing something similar; it can benefit readers who don’t use assistive technology but are better able to consume the content in a different format. ↩︎
Most users of these calculators have them because their schools require them, and schools tend to require them because TI spend significant effort in selling the calculators to schools and positioning them as tools for standardized testing. ↩︎
Most users only need a physical calculator because more capable devices (phones and computers) are not permitted in standardized testing! ↩︎
I understand the write-protection of the boot code on many calculators is not as robust as expected from understanding the hardware’s capabilities such that it can actually be modified from software only, but the fact remains that it’s not intended to ever be updated. ↩︎
WabbitEmu added support for automatically downloading an EOS image from TI and combining it with a copy of BootFree to make a fully-functional ROM without ever touching a real calculator sometime in 2010. This seems to have flown under TI’s radar for a few years, possibly until the release of jsTIfied in 2012 brought emulation more into the mainstream. Where previously emulation had a somewhat higher barrier to entry, the availability of an emulator running entirely in a web browser combined with the possibility of automatically making a complete software image from freely-available resources seems to have motivated TI both to begin more aggressively marketing their own emulator (TI-SmartView) and place barriers in front of community emulation in the form of clickwrap in order to extract licensing fees from educators who might otherwise use free emulators. ↩︎
Anecdotally, Cemetech saw a number of new users following the release of jsTIfied who were clearly in education because for a time it required users to register accounts on the site to use it (a choice related to a technical limitation that some operations required data be sent to the server and bounced right back). I assume there were a number of teachers who might have instructed their students to use jsTIfied in order to avoid any extra costs in accessing the calculators required by their curriculum. ↩︎
I now note that accurate emulation of that particular aspect is likely unnecessary, but haven’t revisited that concept because I chose to think about the whole-machine emulation. ↩︎
Concretely, the TI-83+ CPU runs at 6 MHz and a Z80 cannot execute any instructions in less than 4 clock cycles (and most take more than 4, possibly as many as 23). A CPU in a general-purpose device today might run at 3 GHz and achieve average throughput of two instructions per cycle, meaning an emulating machine today is comfortably 1000 times faster than the Z80 it emulates (and maybe more like 5000 times faster depending on the workload!). ↩︎
Some readers might ask: “why not improve an existing libre OS like OS2?” My answer is that doing so is too hard: while the Z80 is a well-understood CPU to program for, its age means much of the tooling available to us today that makes programmers more productive is simply not available. While a truly free (libre) EOS replacement would be ideal, I do not consider it to be immediately feasible. ↩︎
On the 83+, the Z80’s 64 KiB memory space is split into 4 banks. Typically, page 0 of Flash (which contains OS code) is always mapped into the low 16 KiB, “bank A” from
0x8000can be swapped to contain different parts of Flash, and the top 32 KiB is RAM. Flash applications like Mirage execute of out bank A. ↩︎
On the 83+ the LCD driver is controlled through two ports from the CPU. Other calculators like the TI-85 have memory-mapped displays, but the 83+ series requires the CPU to push data to and from the display and emulators must understand most of the LCD driver’s command set in order to work correctly. ↩︎
I chose to implement the frontend to the emulator with SDL specifically because I knew emscripten has an SDL port that allows software using it to run in a web browser without major modification; other people have already done the heavy lifting to make Rust+SDL applications work in browsers, I just knew I’d be able to make use of it. ↩︎