> >> This is weird. VDP needs RAM information to put a single sprite on
the
> >> screen?
> >??? WHAT are you talking about???
>
> You said that a routine to display sprites work under BASIC and not on
DOS
> because DOS uses the upper memory for itself. So, I thought this is
strange.
> I DON'T think VDP needs RAM info to display sprites. (-:
Oh, no. I wan't talking about that. I said that if a program works in Basic
environment but not in Dos environment that the memorymapper is the most
common problem Dos2 uses the memorymapper's highest segments for its kernel,
so if the program corrupts this part then in Basic it will still work but in
Dos2-environment not anymore.
I had no idea you were talking about a spriteroutine or so...
But I think something went wrong with the conversion or so. Changed memory
adresses (Dos starts at #100, Basic commonly at #9000), different mapped
pages (ROM/RAM), this kind of stuff.
> Oh, yes... And Windows3.1 is a 32bit OS. Himem DO acess to 16Mb! It's
> eXtended Memory (XMS) driver!
Oh, well. Don't know too much about it... this is what I thought the problem
was.
> No. This is a public list, right? I "called" RicBit (Ricardo
Bittencourt) help
> on a topic that he has a lot more knowledge than myself. On PC I'm a
> C/C++ programmer. I program ASM only on MSX.
Owww, yeah, ofcourse.
How could I know that you meant Ricardo Bittencourt with RicBit (it isn't
exactly the first thing that pops into my mind...).
> Maybe. Uzix already does Multitask. Actually with 32K programs. But on
the
> new system, it will be possible be done with 4Mb programs! (-: (Maybe)...
Hehe... Well project "i" is a multitasking internet environment with Dos
emulation... (it can still run PMEXT etc as long as they use BDOS calls for
screen updates etc).
> >Well okay. But I still think you don't need Dos to return the info about
> >other tasks...
>
> I agree that is not needed, but it would be useful! (-:
But it doesn't make memorymanagement harder to program I think...
> >No they don't do slotswitching.
> >The routine stays in the upper memory (somewhere at #EF00 or so...).
>
> Oh, THESE are the routines that are taking my RAM away?!?!
(((((((((((((((-:
No. In Dos2 environment you have more RAM available in the direct accessible
RAM because the drive-info blocks are all moved to Dos2's datasegment.
Ofcourse you have 2 free mapperpages less though.
> >> On the way the software was done, I fear yes, you are right.
> >Once again :)...
>
> This is not very good. In this case you should be unhappy to be right.
Snif... I'm so unhappy... I think I'm gonna commit suicide or so... my life
has been completely ruined.
> >I thought only Z80 instruction emulation, not Z80 timing emulation. But
that
> >is great indeed. It solves a lot of problems... The (virtual)
> >processorswitching doesn't have to be done by the MSX-Engine, moving all
> >register-values from Z80 to Z380 etc... And no extra processor (the Z80)
is
> >needed.
>
> Yep. I think Zilog made Z380 to simplify the convertion of Z80 systems
to
> Z380.
> But maybe Z280 was better. Z280 had a mode like V86 on 386... This means
> we could open several Z80 sessions on the Z280. But this is a little
confuse to
> use.
Yeah, think so. But isn't the Z380 an enhanced Z280???
~Grauw
--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
email me: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or ICQ: 10196372
visit the Datax homepage at http://datax.cjb.net/
MSX fair Bussum / MSX Marathon homepage: http://msxfair.cjb.net/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
****
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/)
****
