Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!uunet!convex!swarren
From: swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: More questions from a new A3000 owner
Message-ID: <105814@convex.convex.com>
Date: 5 Sep 90 15:47:13 GMT
References: <1990Sep5.054753.14547@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu>
Sender: usenet@convex.com
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx.
Lines: 23

In article <1990Sep5.054753.14547@laguna.ccsf.caltech.edu> dg@sundog.caltech.edu writes:
>Also, when I bought the machine, I had the dealer (Creative Computers,
>Lawndale, CA) put 2 Meg of 256x4 ZIP ram in for me.  I suspect that
>they put in 100 ns ram (they wouldn't own up to it, but didn't deny
>it, either, when I talked on the phone with them) while the documentation
>from Commodore clearly says one should use 80 ns or faster.  Now my
>machine works fine, but is there any side-effect or slowing that I
>might have, without realizing it, from 100 ns chips?  

The only side-effect might be intermittent errors in stored data (I
said *might be* - that doesn't mean you *will*). The chances are that
100 ns rated chips will work fine at 80 ns margins, but they are not
tested to that speed.  This is taking a chance, sort of like using
normal disks for high-density storage.

If you want to verify the speed, 100 ns chips have a -10 tacked on,
while 80 ns have a -8 tacked on the end of the model number.

--
            _.
--Steve   ._||__      DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own.
  Warren   v\ *|     ----------------------------------------------
             V       {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM