Nestor wrote:
>but since value 0 is used as the end of segments table mark, a
>theorical 1-segment mapper could not be correclty used then.
*sigh* but a 1-segment mapper is indeed theoretical, while 4MB mappers are
reality. :)
>if DOS 2 is consistent, segment 255 should be always ignored, even for
>using system segments.
I just tested this with BrMSX (which initialises RAM to 0). There was code
in segment 253, and segment 254 en 255 were empty. I guess the system data
segment is 254 and DOS2 doesn't really use it, because I saw just 0's. But
then again I haven't checked the entire 16kB so maybe it does use one or
two bytes ;)
>Oh, come on! Really you miss these 16K when having 4080K available?? 8-)
Maybe not... I just think it's a waste and it's pretty stupid if DOS2
insists you have a 4080K mapper while you KNOW it's 4096K.
BTW, make that 4048K available :)
We'll just have to live with it. But I suggest a DOS3 to support 65536
segments ala Padial's >4MB mappers. :)
Greetz,
Patriek
--
For info, see http://www.stack.nl/~wynke/MSX/listinfo.html
