Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uwm.edu!ogicse!pdxgate!eecs!berggren
From: berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Eric Berggren)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: Memory Parity. Is It Really Needed
Message-ID: <2217@pdxgate.UUCP>
Date: 4 Apr 91 08:53:30 GMT
References: <steveh.669386099@tasman> <3370017@hpsgwp.sgp.hp.com> <1991Mar24.094904.9519@eecs.wsu.edu>
Sender: news@pdxgate.UUCP
Lines: 23

wbonner@eecs.wsu.edu (Wim Bonner) writes:
                                                        nice touch ;) -v
>In article <3370017@hpsgwp.sgp.hp.com> plim@hpsgwp.sgp.hp.com (Peter Lim) writes:
>>Anyway, I've got a friend who uses his PC system with no parity for
>>more than a year now and he's fine.

>My Wyse 286 box came with memory that doesn't have parity checking at all in
>the first 640k.  Some of us are forced to deal with the hope that nothing 
>goes wrong with that memory.  anyway, it has worked ok for the past two years 
>running both DOS and OS/2 so I figure it must be OK.

  The part about memory parity I don't understand is that I am told one
wants memory parity checking done to "prevent loss of important data". Well
everytime I got a memory parity error, I lost important data because it
brought the whole system to a halt. What next? Helicopters with emergency
ejector seats? wierd...

-e.b.

==============================================================================
  Eric Berggren             |  "The force of the 'Dark Side' eminates from 
  Computer Science/Eng.     |    the ominous DeathStar looming overhead." 
  berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu  |            - Down with AT&T! -