[Coco] Re: 64K Mode

[jdaggett at gate.net]

Maybe I should not answer messages when I am tired and ready for 
bed at night.

Brain tug a war between technical answers and shutdown mode.

james
 

On 13 Jan 2004 at 19:44, Alex wrote:

From:           	Theodore (Alex) Evans 
<alxevans at concentric.net>
Subject:        	Re: [Coco] Re: 64K Mode
Date sent:      	Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:44:25 -1000
To:             	CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts 
<coco at maltedmedia.com>
Send reply to:  	CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts 
<coco at maltedmedia.com>
	<mailto:coco-
request at maltedmedia.com?subject=unsubscribe>
	<mailto:coco-
request at maltedmedia.com?subject=subscribe>

> On Jan 13, 2004, at 6:35 PM, jdaggett at gate.net wrote:
> 
> > What ever.
> >
> > Correct I shorted the upper range 16 bytes. $FFF0 is the start of
> > I/O. The Ram is switched in two banks and are located between $0000
> > and $7FFF when memory map type 0 is selected.
> 
> 16/256 what's the difference.  $FDFF/$FEFF, $FF00/$FFF0 who really
> cares.
> 
> The human eye can sometimes perceive a flicker in an image updated at
> greater than  >60Hz, but the only flicker rate that matters is less
> than 15Hz.  The differences don't matter at all.
> 
> > The HD63x09 has vector for illegal opcode trap at $FFF0 and
> > $FFF1. The MC68x09 does not.
> 
> That would probably be the reason I said "the 6309 unimplemented
> instruction at $FFF0"
> 
> None of this has ever been a personal attack, no matter what it felt
> like to you.  Heck, on the address thing I wasn't going to say
> anything figuring you had made a typo, but you kept repeating the same
> inconsistent figures.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco