30 Sep
2005
30 Sep
'05
5:58 p.m.
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 19:35:34 -0500
Scott Stevens <chenmel at earthlink.net> wrote:
They
the
very
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 15:24:05 +0100
Jules Richardson <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Jeff Walther wrote:
> > The real trick is figureing out the capacity of the chips from the
> > markings on them. Google searches sometimes
help, but often
(almost
> always) just lead you to chip distributers
spamming the search
engine
> > space with part numbers to lead part searches to their sites. > often
don't even have the chip in question, and rarely have any
useful
> > information available on their website.
>
> Usenet archives tend to be better when finding out memory chip
> capacities IME - luckily the spammers only seem to concentrate on > web side of things.
>
> > I beliee that most PCs could make use of the added parity bit,
while
> > Macs didn't care if it was present.
>
> (ignoring attributions here I know)
>
> Isn't that the other way around? Nearly all PCs I've come across
don't
> care about parity, but the rest of the world always seemed to make
use
of it.
No, my experience, in the 486 era and earlier, was that on the PC all
the clone motherboards required 9-bit memory. The Macintosh ignored
parity, and I used to know a few Mac enthusiasts who ridiculed the idea of parity (spending an extra 1/8 of the price,
etc etc)
Pentium and newer systems don't require memory modules.
Yikes. They don't require _parity_ memory modules. (at least,
_consumer-grade_ Pentium systems. My IBM quad PPro Server is fussier.)