Xref: utzoo comp.sys.misc:1899 news.groups:5957
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!cornell!rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!ur-valhalla!micropen!dave
From: dave@micropen (David F. Carlson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.misc,news.groups
Subject: Re: comp.sys.next, etc.
Summary: Big bother with NeXT
Message-ID: <575@micropen>
Date: 1 Nov 88 21:02:11 GMT
References: <5178@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <40975@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> <7259@dasys1.UUCP>
Organization: Micropen Dirent Writing Systems, Pittsford, NY
Lines: 14

Having seen pictures of the NeXT motherboard I am particularly bothered by 
the same "mistake" that Jobs et al. made with the Mac:  no parity checking.
With 16 meg of memory and my research or corporate financials in the machine,
I would rather *know* about memory hard/soft problems than not know.  Why
would anyone trust a computer that uses the ostrich approach to fault tolerance?

Is there any good answer for omitting parity checks on memory?



-- 
David F. Carlson, Micropen, Inc.
micropen!dave@ee.rochester.edu

"The faster I go, the behinder I get." --Lewis Carroll