Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tank!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!joej
From: joej@oakhill.UUCP (Joe Jelemensky)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: SIMM pricing
Message-ID: <2153@sol.oakhill.UUCP>
Date: 23 Jun 89 05:44:25 GMT
References: <138@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu> <1072@starfish.Convergent.COM> <14031@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
Reply-To: joej@sol.UUCP (Joe Jelemensky)
Distribution: comp.sys.mac
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin Tx.
Lines: 10

In article <14031@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) writes:
>[stuff about x8 SIMMs being more expensive than x9 IBM SIMMs deleted]
>
>Heck, just go with the IBM SIMMs.  They work.  Besides,
>according to this week's MacLeak (MacWeek), Apple will
>be supporting the x9 SIMMs for parity checking real soon now.
>
Awh - Parity's for farmers!  Not computers.  The ninth RAM only adds
12.5 % more logic to fail.  1 chance in 9 it's the
the parity RAM that's bad.  Throw in the Murphy factor and it goes WAY UP.