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