🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <138@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu> bobd@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Bob DeBula) writes:
>
>In glancing through the prices on SIMMs, I am struck by something rather
>strange; Why are the SIMM prices for MAC SIMMs (8 chips) more than the price
>for IBM (etc.) SIMMs (9 chips).  This wouldn't bother me so much if I hadn't
>been running quite happily for the past 6 months with a bank of IBM (9 chip)
>SIMMs in my MAC-II.  Are the extra bucks just for the warm fuzzy feeling
>given by using "the right stuff" or what?  Even if there were a difference,
>production costs on the MAC SIMMs should be cheaper (with one less chip).
>Please do not flame me for referring to them as "chips", I'm sure everyone
>understands what I mean :-)
>-=-
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bob DeBula                    | Internet:   bobd@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu
>The Ohio State University     | Disclaimer: These are my views, not the U's


I believe this is an "economy of scale" issue. 9 Chip SIMMS are use for all
the newer IBM type machines (that is any of them that use SIMMS at all) and
for many PC expansion boards. Therefor the total market for these SIMMS is
considerably larger.  

As for using them in a Mac, I would have thought that it was fine, but I
do remember a recent posting saying that it wasn't  really safe, as there is 
then a line or 2 that are not tied down (or was it tied high) these supposedly
cause potential noise/heat problems.  I really dont know how true this is
(details anyone who knows?) but it would seem to be supported by one of the 
rumored design details of the fall version of the cx, that it is specifiacally
designed to accept either type of SIMM.

Josh
-------------------------

Josh Hodas    (hodas@eniac.seas.upenn.edu)
4223 Pine Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104

(215) 222-7112   (home)
(215) 898-5423   (school office)