Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!lethe!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!sun-barr!newstop!east!tjp!jpainter
From: jpainter@tjp.East.Sun.COM (John Painter - Sun BOS Hardware)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Parity vs. non-Parity RAM in the Mac IIci
Message-ID: <863@east.East.Sun.COM>
Date: 22 Sep 89 17:27:18 GMT
References: <0xe23@deimos.cis.ksu.edu> <34935@apple.Apple.COM>
Sender: news@east.East.Sun.COM
Reply-To: jpainter@tjp.East.Sun.COM (John Painter - Sun BOS Hardware)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Billerica MA
Lines: 15

In article <34935@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:

>There's no reason why a 'normal' user needs parity unless their applications
>require extremely high reliability.

Gee ... I thought apples (Macs) didn't have parity circuitry built in
to them.  Parity mem in a Mac is just wasted!? 

BTW I have some parity simms (happened on a good deal) and some non-parity
(happened on an even better deal) simms in my SE with no bad effects.

(Also one simm has mixed 100ns and 80ns parts.  Hardware doesn't care,
It just wants 'em faster than 150ns (120ns for MacIIs and up??)
/Tjp
-disclaimer I just right software and build computers.  Why would I know?