Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!munnari.oz.au!uhccux!yuan
From: yuan@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Yuan 'Hacker' Chang)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
Subject: Re: 4Mb SIMMs (Was: Is OK to mix 120ns with 70ns on IICX?)
Message-ID: <6530@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Date: 9 Feb 90 18:52:05 GMT
References: <17118@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>
Reply-To: yuan@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Yuan 'Hacker' Chang)
Organization: Univ. of Barbarians.  Honolulu, Hawaii
Lines: 19

In article <17118@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> regan@castor.cs.Buffalo.EDU.UUCP (Kenneth Regan) writes:
-
-I'm putting four 70ns 1Mb x 9 SIMMs in my Mac IIcx, to augment the four
-Apple 120ns 1Mb x 9s already there.  Technology Works assured me that the
-speed difference wouldn't matter, and that having the parity chip wouldn't
-hurt -- the IIcx would just ignore it.  [ . . . ]

	FYI -- The IIci (not the IIcx) will do parity detection when fed 
x9 SIMMs.  That's the good news.  The bad news is that all it does with
that information is to ask you to restart (according to the manual).  I'd
much prefer to be given a chance to recover from the error.  If I'm working
on a 2M document on a 32M machine, I wouldn't want a flipped bit where it
doesn't count to cause me to loose my work.  I think we'll stick with x8
SIMMs...
-- 
Yuan Chang 				      "What can go wrong, did"
UUCP:      {uunet,ucbvax,dcdwest}!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!yuan
ARPA:	   uhccux!yuan@nosc.MIL               "Wouldn't you like to 
INTERNET:  yuan@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu         be an _A_m_i_g_o_i_d too?!?"