>[me]
>>> What if someone writes a mapper support driver for DOS1? Shouldn't be
too
>>> hard. Programs could even install such a driver themselves so that they
>>> can switch the mapper using a single interface.
>
>[Jon De Schrijder]
>>I rather prefer to install the DOS2 memory mapper support routines in DOS1
>>environment. That would be very easy for programmers.
>
>Jon and I are probably talking about the same thing, but giving it
>different names.
>
>The official term for what I mean is "mapper support extended BIOS". It can
>be used with or without DOS2, although I think it was introduced as part of
>DOS2.
Hehe :) then finally the way I program might come in useful...
I always use the Dos1 FCBs 'for compatibility', but sometimes I also use the
mapper and then I always use the Dos2 mapperroutines. So then there would be
no need for using FCBs anymore, eh? Still, I do, don't know why. But if Dos1
gets mappersupport...
>Using a driver that implements the "mapper support extended BIOS", a
>program could install that driver and do all mapper calls without worrying
>about what DOS version it runs under.
Actually, if you do this, you should also give Dos1 filehandle-support. And
if you do that, you could as well use Dos2. If only this stupid ROM wasn't
nessacary to run Dos... The Dos-kernel will need 64k RAM instead of 32k, ok,
I agree, but if your mapper is large enough... Some people need an extra
slot for this stupid cartridge (I don't, my Dos2-ROM is built-in my
SCSI-interface)(fortunately)(my slotexpander is full)(yup).
By the way, Shevek, did you recieve my DOs2-cartridge???
~Grauw
****
MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put
in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the
quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
****
