Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sunybcs!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!grad2.cis.upenn.edu!meuchen
From: meuchen@grad2.cis.upenn.edu (Paul Eric Menchen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: Mac IIfx or IIci (parity)
Summary: I wouldn't waste my $450.
Message-ID: <22291@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 27 Mar 90 03:17:10 GMT
References: <18876@boulder.Colorado.EDU>
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Reply-To: meuchen@grad1.cis.upenn.edu (Paul Eric Menchen)
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
Lines: 34

In article <18876@boulder.Colorado.EDU> watermaa@tramp.Colorado.EDU (WATERMAN ALEXANDER S) writes:
...
>I'm looking at the University price list and see the choices avail. for the fx.
>
>What is the difference between a IIfx, 80 HD, 4meg  and a 
>                                 IIfx, 80 HD, parity/4meg ?
>
>Is it worth the extra $450 for this feature?
>
>Thanks in advance for your help ! 
>
>Kent Leung
>watermaa@boulder.colorado.edu (internet)
>Posted c/o A. Waterman

Of course this is just my $0.02 worth:

First, the extra $450 is for parity checking hardware and parity
SIMMs.

To answer your question:
Do you use parity checking for your modem transmissions or 8-N?
Given the choice you would probably want no parity. Most poeple have
now agreed that parity is a bad way to check for errors. Have you ever
had a memory error, besides the power being turned off? I doubt it.

As I've heard it explained, parity checking was added to meet a
government requirement for DoD type purchases.  Why did the gov.
decide parity was good? IBM demonstrated how great it was to them.
The fed's said, yes, we want parity.  They created their bid specs,
and guess who turned out to have the only parity machines at the time :^)

Paul Eric Menchen
meuchen@grad1.cis.upenn.edu