Article View: alt.comp.hardware
Article #2110Re: Q - Parity Error, System Halted
From: James Navas
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 00:00
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 00:00
10 lines
1375 bytes
1375 bytes
I don't have the time to fully respond (nor the interest), but since you acknowledge that ECC is not parity, and that DRAM (not simply "RAM") is much more reliable, then why the objection to what I stated? BTW, you should use a "spell checker" when writing articles.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<3299E5D7.715B@pacbell.net>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<3290B0A7.3215@swbell.net> <3290BEAD.7457@pacbell.net> <3292AB4D.3551@thenet.net> <3296A85B.58E3@pacbell.net> <32974076.2512844@news.atl.mindspring.com> <329741D1.6445@pacbell.net> <3298e22f.1684565@news.atl.mindspring.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f8e37,b9ac55a17ca536c8 X-Google-Attributes: gidf8e37,public X-Google-Thread: 10265e,b9ac55a17ca536c8 X-Google-Attributes: gid10265e,public X-Google-Thread: 112149,b9ac55a17ca536c8 X-Google-Attributes: gid112149,public X-Google-Thread: f5f89,b9ac55a17ca536c8 X-Google-Attributes: gidf5f89,public From: James Navas <JNavas1@pacbell.net> Subject: Re: Q - Parity Error, System Halted Date: 1996/11/25 Message-ID: <3299E5D7.715B@pacbell.net> X-Deja-AN: 200672653 references: <3290B0A7.3215@swbell.net> <3290BEAD.7457@pacbell.net> <3292AB4D.3551@thenet.net> <3296A85B.58E3@pacbell.net> <32974076.2512844@news.atl.mindspring.com> <329741D1.6445@pacbell.net> <3298e22f.1684565@news.atl.mindspring.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="UNTITLED.TXT" organization: Navas & Associates mime-version: 1.0 reply-to: JNavas1@pacbell.net newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware,biz.comp.hardware,comp.hardware,comp.ibm.pc.hardware content-disposition: inline; filename="UNTITLED.TXT" x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win16; U)