22 Apr
2007
22 Apr
'07
8:04 p.m.
--- Roger Ivie <rivie at ridgenet.net> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007, Chris M wrote:
The IBM Peanut used some *undoubtedly twisted* logic
to in effect map calls intended for CGA memory into uh
IIRC part of the Jr's dynamic ram space (didn't have
dedicated video mem, again IIRC). And again IIRC, that
portion of the dynamic ram's space that was in effect
video ram was relocatable. I think anyhoo. Ask Mikey
Brutman. He knows all about the Peanut. I wouldn't be
surprised at all if it's enshrined somewhere in his
house. Like a pagan idol LOL LOL LOL. omg. O man.
Ain't I just sick.
But truthfully I have alot of respect for the ol'
Peanut. Despite it being something of a dud back in
the day. Like I could talk w/what I bought :(
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Many pseudo-compatibles suffer from video
incompatibilities, as we all know...
IBM PC's. My question is therefore is this
practical
or even feasible? My guess is it's possible,
but
some
code could be so convoluted that it would be
extremely
difficult. In essence the software would need
enough
intelligence to reverse engineer another bunch
of
code.
Could it be done totally by automation...
You could take the approach of the Atari Portfolio.
Provide some RAM
at the expected video memory address for the
application to fiddle
with. Then periodically scan that RAM and copy
whatever is there
to the screen.
No, it didn't work terribly well with the Portfolio,
but it did
help a bit.
--
roger ivie
rivie at ridgenet.net