Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fortune.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!fortune!jones From: jones@fortune.UUCP Newsgroups: net.micro Subject: Re: Re: Is parity *really* worth it? - (nf) Message-ID: <3937@fortune.UUCP> Date: Thu, 2-Aug-84 23:04:54 EDT Article-I.D.: fortune.3937 Posted: Thu Aug 2 23:04:54 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 4-Aug-84 01:41:24 EDT Sender: notes@fortune.UUCP Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA Lines: 29 #R:sri-arpa:-58600:fortune:28000047:000:1324 fortune!jones Aug 2 18:03:00 1984 The question of Parity or Error Detection and Correction (EDC) for memory utimately boils down to the market for your machine. If it is intended for business applications or runs multiusers, I believe it should have EDC. My opinion is aligned with the vanishing minority and is not marketable unless you are talking about Minis or larger. The serious user who values his data should at least have parity. I liken it to the power outage light on some freezers. It's a bother and may not work but, if it does, it could save you a barrel of money...or at least a small pocketbook. For the average personal computer user (careful, Jones, move your thumb away from that lighter) it's caveat emptor. Hey, you know, like errors are very rare and, like, the memory is probably not full anyway, and, like, if it was serious the system would probably crash, so like, you'd know, right? Confidence counts for a lot, with me anyway. I still remember the first TRS-80 manual I saw which, to my wondering eyes, stated that the only way a user could be *confident* that his program loaded correctly off of tape was to load again and compare loads...Thanks awfully. Dan Jones UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!jones DDD: (415)594-2440 USPS: Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065