| |
JackAsser
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 1995 |
Quick loading without an IRQ-loader!
Hey guys!
I know my ways around the various IRQ-loaders normally used today, but what about the non-IRQ-loaders (no music, $d011=0, sei, no-NMIs)?
- Which one can you recommend?
- Are there any that comes with source so that I can easily relocate them?
- How much faster are (can) a non-IRQ-loader be compared to an IRQ-loader?
- Any that perhaps easily can be connected to pucrunch or exo and thus load and decrunch at the same time?
- Is this stupid? Are the modern IRQ-loaders as fast or faster than the old legacy non-IRQ-loaders anyway?
/JackAsser |
|
... 30 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Burglar
Registered: Dec 2004
Posts: 1051 |
things you should ask yourself:
- am I gonna use only that kernel loader or will I use an irq loader later on that breaks compatibility with those mcc/ide64 lamers anyway?
- is the speed gain really that much?
- some cartridge loaders are plain suckage (ie: unable to load under rom, slow and fiddle with more registers that could possibly break your program)
imho using a kernel loader should be an option, not a fixed feature. |
| |
Graham
Account closed
Registered: Dec 2002
Posts: 990 |
Quote:- some cartridge loaders are plain suckage (ie: unable to load under rom, slow and fiddle with more registers that could possibly break your program)
Never seen a cartridge loader which cannot load under ROM. But most cartridge loaders cannot load below I/O area, just like the kernal loader.
|
| |
Burglar
Registered: Dec 2004
Posts: 1051 |
Quote: Quote:- some cartridge loaders are plain suckage (ie: unable to load under rom, slow and fiddle with more registers that could possibly break your program)
Never seen a cartridge loader which cannot load under ROM. But most cartridge loaders cannot load below I/O area, just like the kernal loader.
yea, you're correct, the d000-dfff bit is the bitch |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 - Next |
