On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 at 12:38:59, Mike MacNamara wrote: (ref: <00ab01c2184f$12b9e190$c272893e@macnamarxmjd3y>)
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >www.macnamaras.com >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jochen Merz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 11:39 AM >Subject: Re: [ql-users] This is the LICENCE > > >> >> >> > Whets the point in having an EPROM if you have to LRESPR on >> > patches and extensions, apart from the waste of memory and >> > loading time, altering boots, etc. Who wants old code lying >about >> > when they can have good clean updates instead, not me for >sure. >> >> Loading the OS from (slow access) EPROM to (fast access) RAM >> is of benefit. SMSQ/E is so small, that the speed you gain >> will outweigh the memory loss easily. That was done on other >> systems to gain speed. The "old" code is erased anyway, so does >> not take up any additional RAM. > >Thanks Jochen, if you load 'new' code into ram rather than 'old' >code then lrespr an 'updated' code over it, surely that takes >longer? One of my biggest problems with QLs, as they used >Superhermes, was Lrespr'ing the Superhermes code in before a >keyboard would work. Any problems with disks or programs( >corrupted/deleted boots) caused a lock out. What a hassle to >make a boot disk(if I could find a S/Hermes disk) to try and get >back in, The perfect solution to this is to put the sH code in as a 'romn' file on RomDisq - and it is then loaded before the BOOT program. > that is until SMSQ/E came with the Superhermes code >already installed (thanks Roy), If I 'lost' the OS in the same >way it would be a real drag. Surely better with 'new' code on >eprom, where it is reasonably safe? .... but slower. I would go for speed any time. The time and ram involved is small. -- Tony Firshman
