FW: Parity is no longer needed

Joe Barrera (joebar@MICROSOFT.com)
Mon, 9 Mar 1998 14:26:04 -0800


The following are excerpts from a bad/dangerous article about PC memory, and
various Famous People at Microsoft commenting on said article. Names changed
to protect... well, to be honest, to protect me.

- Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: BL
Subject: RE: Parity is no longer needed

You don't understand. If the mfg puts in parity, he gets blamed for
the detected errors. If he doesn't, Microsoft gets blamed for failures
caused by undetected errors. The incentives are all wrong.

-----Original Message-----
From: GB
Subject: RE: Parity is no longer needed

I believed this once before about 1964. I was debugging
30' long PDP-6 on nite at our first customer installation. Memory was flaky
and I just wanted to know whether to work on the memory part or the cpu and
I/O. The next day we put parity in and nothing has changed except to make
it more compelling... especially since 100 M lines of code sit on top of
that hardware.

-----Original Message-----
From: RE
Subject: RE: Parity is no longer needed

Whew!
This seems to be a dangerous article, just by
seasoning the ignorance with enough fact to reliably confuse/mislead
trusting souls.

My favorite quote was:
"Remember that many sales clerks are not very
knowledgable about
technical details, and some will fake it. "
Substitute sales clerks with technical support
representatives (and correct the spelling of knowledgeable).

What a hoot ;-} or a bit scary that we use products
from this company to move data around on our disks.

Some really good information on memory or hardware
in general (because there is enough variance now days, anyone would be hard
pressed to fit it in an article as short as the one below) can be found at :
http://www.tomshardware.com/
<http://www.tomshardware.com/> (select RAM Guide in the left frame)

-----Original Message-----
From: JG
Subject: Parity is no longer needed
Importance: Low

Here is some useful information and some
humor:
I especially like the quote:

"I have never seen a DIMM stick with parity;

I don't think they are available.
That's a pretty good indicator that parity
is no longer needed."

-----Original Message-----
From: XXX Tech Support [SMTP:xxx@xxx.com]
To: XXX Tech Support Mailing List
Subject: Windows NT Tip - Selecting
Memory

[...]

It's pretty well accepted now that, in
addition to defragmenting your
system, adding more memory (RAM) is one of
the best ways to boost your
computer's performance. Having run Windows
NT on systems with 16, 32,
64, 96 and 128MB of RAM, I can assure you
that you cannot have too
much memory; the system just gets faster and
faster. I consider 64MB
to be the minimum amount to use. However,
there appears to be a fair
bit of confusion about what kind of RAM to
get.

Does Parity Matter?
-------------------

[...]

RAM chips have become much more reliable, so
parity checking is
generally unnecessary now. But if memory
errors can be expensive for
you, consider RAM with parity. I have never
seen a DIMM stick with
parity; I don't think they are available.
That's a pretty good
indicator that parity is no longer needed.