Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 (USS@Tek, v1.1) based on 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site tekig4.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!tekig5!tekig4!brianr
From: brianr@tekig4.UUCP (Brian Rhodefer)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: KickStart disks vs. ROM kernel
Message-ID: <717@tekig4.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Jun-86 20:17:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekig4.717
Posted: Wed Jun  4 20:17:28 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Jun-86 06:42:49 EDT
References: <18@uw-atm.UUCP>
Reply-To: brianr@tekig4.UUCP (Brian Rhodefer)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.
Lines: 13
Keywords: KickStart ROM

In all this Kickstart in ROM vs in RAM debate, I recall
someone saying that even if Kickstart is put in ROM, it
will occupy space in the "chip" memory.  Is this true?
If so, why couldn't the "Kickstart" code be located outside
of the 512K "chip" space, to allow a full 512K of usable
RAM in the base Amiga (with 256K add-on, of course)?

Are the coprocessors expected to execute directly out of
Kickstart codespace or something?

Yours in memory-lust,

Brian Rhodefer