Xref: utzoo comp.sys.next:18521 comp.arch:23100
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi!caen!uwm.edu!uwvax!pipe.cs.wisc.edu!lee
From: lee@pipe.cs.wisc.edu (Soo Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next,comp.arch
Subject: Re: parity is for farmers?
Message-ID: <1991Jun5.215703.108@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 5 Jun 91 21:57:03 GMT
References: <1991Jun4.143404.17535@sobeco.com> <1991Jun5.005019.23499@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991Jun5.155332.485@interlan.Interlan.COM>
Sender: news@spool.cs.wisc.edu (The News)
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 14

In article <1991Jun5.155332.485@interlan.Interlan.COM> jak@interlan.interlan.com writes:
>
>	I have had parity errors on two of 'my' machines, both 386-AT style
>	boxes -- one at home, one at work.  In both cases, I found the
>	parity errors to be real.  The errors broke down like this:
>	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was a TRUE BLUE believer and am having IBM PC. But I had bad memory problem
which occurs one year later after buying it. The problem was infrequent crash
for different size of programs. I spent a couple of days until I wrote a
very short asm program to check memory in 4 different test modes on user area
and I was shocked about my findings. Of course, I definitely invest my extra
money to go after parity memory! ;-|

Soo	lee@cs.wisc.edu