On 26 Apr 2011, at 10:25, Geoff Winkless wrote: > Would it have been better to have 48kB of more expensive display memory, > giving only the live display and a secondary (for double-buffering) but > losing the ability to use any page in RAM as the screen? <snip> > For me the real mistake, though, was the lack of capability to set the > display address counter for instant free hardware scrolling (and for not much > electronics, unless I'm missing something) - even the BBC Micro had that in > 1982.
Just those two could have made a huge difference to what was possible. *sniffs* I do vaguely remember Simon Goodwin explaining why SAM missed out on hardware scrolling, but I can't remember the details. I think it was something RAM access related, so perhaps the change to use dedicated VRAM would have made it easier? As a hardware n00b I've no real idea! Anyone? > Apologies, I'm hijacking the thread again. Erm, Hula-hoops: beef or > salt-n-vinegar? S'n'V, fo' sho'. Si
