'So Dan.....you think the single executable is "hunky-dory". But I guess we are all entitled to our opinions.'

Yikes, sorry! Not at all the reaction I expected! I thought all us Colorado/Wyoming/etc. (me) and Minnesota/etc. (you) good-ole-boys knew that the definition of "hunky-dory" is "quite satisfactory" or "peachy-keen" :-)

There was certainly no derogatory connotation intended, so yes, I absolutely think the single executable is "hunky-dory"! I don't think our opinions differ.

"It seems to me that there are great advantages to the single image approach. Particularly in environments such as I work in where each program code set requires a complete documentation chain, release version description, and validation test suite. So far my clients have loved the concept of the single program!!"

No arguments here -- undoubtedly that approach suits your and your client's circumstances better -- that's why you chose it. I was merely saying that from what I read on the Keil site, I couldn't see a "technical" requirement that drove the single image approach throughout the product lifecycle (there may be one; I just did not catch it upon a casual read) and that I haven't had the "opportunity" to do it that way yet.

"On another note I changed the loader function...
...So it looks like this solutions is really a nice clean cut wrap-up to the problem."

Great, that was the idea -- low runtime overhead (the same as PSW.5 [F0]) and relatively transparent to all concerned parties (boot, application, Keil lib functions, etc.).