Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!msi.umn.edu!noc.MR.NET!gacvx2.gac.edu!hhdist From: jsims@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (J. Robert Sims) Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds Subject: RE: More on ROM extraction Message-ID: <9102041412.AA00637@vuse.vanderbilt.edu> Date: 4 Feb 91 14:12:59 GMT Lines: 27 Return-path: To: handhelds@gac.edu FRINGE discusses why there are only two ports on the HP48sx. This post seemed to be in response to earlier posts on reasons for copying (all or part) of a ROM card. These earlier posts were simply stating that the 48 is limited to 2 ports, not necessarily complaining about it. These posts stated that given the two port limit, the need to copy parts of ROM cards increases. These posts were discussing something that we _could_ change. We are trying to "deal with it." The copying of ROM cards is within the capabilities of the 48; we're not trying to get the 48 to do something it can't, we're trying to get the 48 to do something that many people don't know how to do, and increase the usefulness of it thereby. For the record, I would like a machine with more ports. But I paid my cash knowing in advance that the 48 has only 2 ports. We're not trying to modify the hardware or the design of the machine, we're using the hardware up to its potential. If we followed only what was in the manual, we would not have ASC-> and associated utilities; we would have no machine language programs; we would not be able to use our 28s as a remote control. The machine language increases the speed of anything we wish to write, making the 48 faster than it was designed to operate. Obviously the speed is a design limitation which we cannot alter, right? The port issue is the same thing. We're not adding ports, were combining two pieces of software into one. We lose parts in the process, but probably parts we don't need or want. Rob jsims@vuse.vanderbilt.edu