good question. Had not considered that to be honest. If you have a working REX today.. not sure you need REX#?
On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 10:10 AM Tom Wilson <wilso...@gmail.com> wrote: > Will we be able to run Rex# on current hardware, or will that require a > new board? > > On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 5:01 AM Stephen Adolph <twospru...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> thanks Peter, I'll try to replicate your bug. I think you are saying >> that after renaming a file, the function key name tags were not visible? >> >> You are correct that software testing is a challenge. The biggest >> challenges are >> (1) Support for multiple models, especially mult-bank support. This was >> very challenging to implement and required major differences between NEC >> and T200, and M100. It is so complex that it really expanded the needed >> test cases. >> (2) lack of automation. Testing requires me to have all the hardware, >> updated, and manually run through every scenario. As REX got more features >> this became a lot more challenging. >> >> what I am doing about it- >> 1) I'm capping development of REX Classic. It does what it does now, >> and bug fixes hopefully will approach zero. >> 2) I'm introducing a new REX variant called REX# (REX Sharp). This >> variant is simpler, it eliminates features that are problematic to maintain >> and have little value, while keeping the best capabilities. >> >> REX# Summary (soon to be online at the REX wiki) >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> * low manufacturing cost, hence much lower price (especially when bundled >> with REXCPM) >> * increases the # of available blocks from 24 to 28 >> * includes Brian's PCB2MOLEX Carrier for increased reliability and >> convenience >> * based on REXMGR Rel 4.9 (build 258) >> * All the same features as REX Classic EXCEPT >> ---> supports RAM and ROM types only; no "OS" and no "SYS" >> ---> operates in Bank 1 only (NEC and T200) (no "multi-bank" operation - >> much simpler!) >> ---> eliminates "Main ROM Management" feature. In my opinion this is >> problematic and unnecessary. >> ---> eliminates some functions (Date/time, Sort) >> ---> added a build number to the REX information display, so we don't >> have to memorize Checksums. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 3:33 AM Peter Noeth <petern0...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Steve, >>> >>> It will take me some time to try it out. I have never re-flashed the REX >>> before, so I will need to note what files are in each image (the masters >>> are on my PC), then study the re-flash procedure and execute it, then >>> re-load all the files. >>> >>> Hopefully nothing will break and cause my REX to become a doorstop. I >>> expect that you do not have an SQA (Software Quality Assurance) Test Suite, >>> so hopefully the fix doesn't break anything else. >>> >>> While we are on the "bug fix" topic, I also found another one the other >>> day. I was using the REXMGR to rename a file in RAM. Once the rename was >>> successful, the label menu was not re-displayed. I think this also occurs >>> when killing a file, but I am not sure. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Peter >>> >>>> >>>> -- > Tom Wilson > wilso...@gmail.com > (619)940-6311 > K6ABZ >
