Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!yarrina.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.hawaii.edu!ames!hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.starnet.net!wupost!newsreader.wustl.edu!sixpack.wustl.edu!not-for-mail From: ml@sixpack.wustl.edu (Matt Lundberg) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Parity SIMMS really necessary? Date: 3 Dec 1995 12:13:06 -0600 Organization: Life's too short to drink cheap beer Lines: 21 Message-ID: <49spbi$1m8@sixpack.wustl.edu> References: <49lbnr$4fq@interport.net> <49qabp$efi@zuul.nmti.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ml@sixpack.wustl.edu In article <49qabp$efi@zuul.nmti.com>, Peter da Silva <peter@nmti.com> wrote: >In article <49lbnr$4fq@interport.net>, >David Tay <davidtay@interport.net> wrote: >> I'm currently using FreeBSD with parity simms. There's a $50-$100 >> difference with parity SIMMs. I would like to save some money and use >> non-parity SIMMs. > >I'm obviously naive. I had no idea they even *made* non-parity SIMMs. > >The whole idea of putting that much memory in a box without at *least* >parity (and preferably ECC) makes me sick in the stomach. Macs (and related machines) use non-parity SIMMS. These will work in any 486 motherboard that I've tried them in. As for using non-parity SIMMS, what does that extra bit give you anyway? I agree that ECC is an advantage, but parity will only inform you that you have a memory error, in most cases by locking up the machine. This is no help. -- Matt Lundberg ml@sixpack.wustl.edu