Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!apple!bionet!agate!ucbvax!hplabs!well!ewhac
From: ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Mac emulator!?
Summary: Will this trick likely work?
Message-ID: <7744@well.UUCP>
Date: 24 Nov 88 06:54:30 GMT
References: <5817@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> <3729@druhi.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab)
Organization: Samuel L. Bronkowitz Productions
Lines: 26
Quote: "We've come at the worst possible time -- of course."  -- Avon

In article <3729@druhi.ATT.COM> dlm@druhi.ATT.COM (Dan Moore) writes:
>	The biggest limitation is memory, the Mac OS doesn't support
>non-contiguous RAM.  So on a 1000 you can have 512K Mac since the
>support code is loaded in the WCS.  On the 500/2000 you are currently
>limited to 256K or so since the emulator code is loaded in the first
>512K along with the "Mac's" memory.  By moving the emulator code out of
>the first 512K you could have a 512K Mac.  With the 1 meg of chip RAM
>(whenver that becomes available) you will be able to have 800K to 1 Meg
>Macs, depending on where the emulator code is loaded.
>
	Hmmmm...  I know ReadySoft isn't on the Net, so consider this a
rhetorical question.

	Suppose some clever person with a 68030 accelerator card were to
program the MMU to map memory to appear as though it were contiguous with
CHIP RAM.  Would this permit larger Mac applications to run, or does
ReadySoft's emulator do something "clever"?

	If this were to work, the implications could be very interesting.
Can you say, "Mac IIx emulator?"

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape	INET: well!ewhac@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
 \_ -_		Recumbent Bikes:	UUCP: pacbell > !{well,unicom}!ewhac
O----^o	      The Only Way To Fly.	      hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack")
"Work FOR?  I don't work FOR anybody!  I'm just having fun."  -- The Doctor