22 Apr
2007
22 Apr
'07
3:23 p.m.
--- Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
On 21 Apr 2007 at 16:06, Chris M wrote:
Many pseudo-compatibles suffer from video
incompatibilities, as we all know. Now this is due to
more then just differences in where the video memory
resides in the memory map, but a certain Tandy 2000
newsletter suggested back in the dark ages that
perhaps to alleviate this problem (and again the
problem is bigger than that) someone could write a
program to alter the object code of peecee compatible
programs (that wouldn't run on the T2K) so that it
would reference the T2K's video memory instead of the
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...
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Just a dopey question that is kinda sorta
related
to
this topic. I realize that painting a picture on
a
tube consists of more then just turning bits on or
off
in video memory (port calls and stuff), but in
just
attempting to circumvent that portion of video
incompatiblity in software, is it practical, or
totally feasible in all cases, for a software to
remap
every reference to memory locations? Ultimately
what
I'm asking I guess is if there are software
constructs
that make certain attempts ambiguous or even
impossible.
Now I feel like the dopey one... I don't understand
what you're
asking. Care to restate it for us thick-as-a-brick
folks? :-)