Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!pyramid!amdahl!sjl From: sjl@amdahl.UUCP (Steve Langdon) Newsgroups: net.micro.mac Subject: Re: Medical Uses of a MAC Message-ID: <3544@amdahl.UUCP> Date: Thu, 14-Aug-86 04:42:26 EDT Article-I.D.: amdahl.3544 Posted: Thu Aug 14 04:42:26 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 14-Aug-86 22:21:55 EDT References: <3034@caip.RUTGERS.EDU> <266@dmsd.UUCP> Reply-To: sjl@amdahl.UUCP (Steve Langdon) Organization: Amdahl Corp, Advanced Systems Planning Lines: 37 Keywords: Parity Mac Medical Risks Summary: Parity does not make a system safe In article <266@dmsd.UUCP> bass@dmsd.UUCP (John Bass) writes: > Mac memory run's without parity and certain ESD events, AC line faults, and > other powersupply problems can leave bits corrupted in memory without detection. > Furthermore the error detection on Mac floppies is very poor. > > Using computers without parity protection in critical medical service is a > timebomb -- the resulting missinformation may kill someone. > > I would say than any use of a mac to maintain charts, medication, or provide > advisory AI services should be avoided ... use an IBM computer or some > UNIX machine with parity memory and much better disk channel error detection. > > Non-parity machines make nice toys, but I hope they stay out of medicine and > other critical applications (fire, police, military, CIA, FBI, etc) where > peoples lives are at stake. [Sorry for the long quote, but it all seemed important] I find myself in the rather unusual position of being forced to disagree with John who's opinions I normally respect. However, in this case I feel that he is making a serious error in suggesting that parity and disk channel error detection are the things that make a system suitable for "critical applications" Good system design and proper checks and balances are much more important than the difference between a small amount of error detection hardware and a medium amount of error detection hardware. I suspect that at least 2 orders of magnitude more errors result from bad software design than the problems he mentioned. I believe that further discussion on this topic should move to mod.risks, but I have not used a "Follow-up to" line to enforce this as others may disagree. -- Stephen J. Langdon ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!sjl [ The article above is not an official statement from any organization in the known universe. ]