Re: 65816 coprocessor options..

[phoenyx <quazar@dcnet2000.com>]

> Virtual memory comes to mind...  ;-)
>
> At various periods in computer evolution, the amount
> of physical memory considerably exceeded the addressing
> range of processors.  The transition from 16-bit addresses
> to 32-bit addresses comes to mind, as does the current
> transition from 32-bit to 64-bit (>32-bit) addressing.  In
> each case, systems can be configured which have several
> times as much physical memory as any single process
> can directly (virtually) address.  Fast remapping of scarce
> virtual addresses to plentiful physical addresses is used
> to permit larger working sets without I/O or data copying.
>
> Appleworks uses a software "virtual" memory management
> technique, but it has to physically move each block of
> ">64KB" memory that it accesses.  Not having to move
> it would be faster.  (Of course, the actual "moving" is
> done through a specialized address remapping.)
>
> -michael

Thanks Michael. I'm glad to see I'm not alone on these
ideas. For our favourite hobby systems it would offer lots
of advantages. Much more than the bank switching scheme
used in the 128k Apple2 systems.

Phoenyx