It wasn't unusual for larger-scale microcomputers to have bank switching in the late 1970s to the mid-1980s.
RAM chips usually have a "chip enable" pin, you might have chips that have 4k of addresses that are 8 bits wide [1] and fill out the 64k address space by having 16 RAM chips, feeding the least significant 12 bits to the RAM chips and the most 4 bits to a multiplexer that goes to the 16 RAM chips. All of the RAM chips are on the bus but only the one with CE set responds.
The same kind of thinking could be applied to extend the address space past 16 bits, for instance you poke at some hardware register and that determines which chip enable pin get sets, there is really no limit on how much RAM you could attach to an 8-bit machine.
A really advanced bank switching scheme for an 8-bitter was on the TRS-80 Color Computer 3
https://www.chibiakumas.com/6809/coco3.php
where the 64k address space was divided into 8k blocks and which might be backed by 128kB (minimum), 512kB (max from radio shack) or more RAM and you poked into a table which mapped virtual blocks to physical blocks. That wasn't too different from a modern memory management system greatly scaled down with the exception that systems like that rarely if ever had a true "executive" mode so nothing stopped user mode software from poking to change the memory map. The CoCo for instance had a multitasking OS called OS-9 that did muiltitasking like described in the explained if you had the orginal Color Computer, you could get Level II that supported more memory and if you never poked at those registers, some memory protection.
[1] at least you did in 1979.
> 128MB (minimum), 512MB (max from radio shack)
I think you meant KB here but now im also wondering how many MB you -could- actually scale tp and what the overhead would be due to the numbers of banks to switch between...
I fixed the mistake… thanks!
"Mechanically" is funnier expression. But kinda true because it switched also trunk lines in some small PBX. 8080 was bloody expensive in 1976 and RAMs were too. I only heard about because I was employed to design something similar for Telenokia.
Unless you mean that a physically moving part caused the banks to switch then "mechanically" is the wrong word here.
If that is how the bank switching was done then that's fascinating and very very surprising and I would love to hear more about it.
Forgot this is HN where everything is taken literally. Humour is [Flagged].
I myself made a Coin-Operated Telephone server, but in 1978 the processor was already cheaper and faster 8085.
Low effort humour is discouraged, it's in the site guidelines and since it wasn't amusing, just confusing, perhaps you should skip the humour and consult them.
Uh. I seem to be suffering from the Mandela effect; it is not in the site guidelines. It's definitely the overall policy officially or otherwise though (one which I'm entirely happy with despite having a juvenile sense of humour myself).
I think this essay is where it originated: https://paulgraham.com/hackernews.html
I think the big problem is that "mechanically" gives the wrong idea.