goose@kirk.nmg.bu.oz.au (Ralph Schwarten) (06/26/91)
Why does it seem that all Amiga users I come accross (except two), feel that they have to continually rehash this childish notion that "My computer is better" than yours. Granted that owners of other types of computers are culprits here as well, but it seems that they generate a bee's dick of traffic compared to Amigaoids. What gives ? Why do you feel that you always have to try to prove that the amiga is the best PC ? For example, a friend of a friend (who are both amiga users) had a look at my next the other day, the friend ( who is an open minded amiga owner like myself) accepted the next for what it was and placed it all in context, however the amigaoid could not. He compared everything always to the Amiga. "Oh, well the Amiga would do it like that, and Oh, the amiga can play 50 songs while compiling 30 C programs while it renders 300 frames at full screen in sculpt" Shit ! it start to drive a person around the bend ! I am not saying that you should stop these immature machine wars, it's just that I would like to fathom this strange Amigaoid attitude. I have been an Amiga owner for 5 years now, and a PC owner and a NeXT owner and a Mac owner. All have their relative strengths and weaknesses. The amigaoid who posted to the Atari group should be strung up by his balls for such blantant and immature "amigaoidism" How dare he try and tell users of another type of computer (who are no doubt extremely happy with their computers) to buy an Amiga !!! No wonder you don't see labs full of amiga's at universities or on executives desks (and don't flame me saying that there are amiga's in campus labs for video work, I know there are and they do a damn fine job), not only are the machines immature but also the type of users it seems to attract. goose
atiya@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Atiya Y. Hakeem) (06/27/91)
I think that the reason that Amiga owners are often fanatical and
defensive is that we have an inferiority complex due to the
attitudes of most people towards our computer. The other day
an acquaintance of mine asked me what kind of computer I had.
When I replied that I had an Amiga he said "Oh, one of those toys."
Now, whatever your preference in computers, if you are at all
familiar with the Amiga you know that an A3000 is NOT a "toy."
Well, in a way, any nifty computer is....8*)
This was not an isolated opinion, I have heard similar things
from most people I have spoken to who have even heard of the
Amiga. I try to avoid fanaticism, but when I see people
considering a Mac classic or IBM PC to be more of a serious
computer than mine, it really annoys me and makes me want to
explain the Amiga to them. When I give in to this temptation,
they are usually impressed.
Atiya Hakeem
atiya@iago.caltech.edukdarling@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Kevin Darling) (06/27/91)
goose@kirk.nmg.bu.oz.au (Ralph Schwarten) writes: >The amigaoid who posted to the Atari group should >be strung up by his balls for such blantant and immature "amigaoidism". Absolute agreement. That was in very bad taste, going in totally uninvited. OTOH, if an Atarian had posted either a request for Amiga info OR had posted misinformation, THEN a corrective reply in that group would have made sense. Previously, ronald@ecl014.UUCP (Ronald van Eijck) had written: >If we all started to think positive and post some messages about the things >the Amiga is good at and its advantages over other systems maybee we can >change some new c.s.a.* readers mind and make him buy an Amiga instead of >another system. (that'll give new users without an advertising budget :-) Yes! I've spent many years watching how the views of computers owners towards each other have changed over time. One remarkable reversal has taken place on CompuServe: a year ago CIS Amigans had almost as bad a reputation as here. Yet now I see more and more Mac/PC types gladly asking for more Amiga info. Why? Because now the replies contain much more light than heat -- more facts (both good AND bad), plus a heckuva lot more objectivity and POLITENESS in respect to the other person's system, choices, needs. This is in stark contrast to the attitude you usually see here in .advocacy; and unfortunately, spilling over into other places as well: You need only glance around other net.groups every coupla weeks or so, and you'll find at least one thread titled "Amiga Fanatics - DROP IT!!" This is _not_ because others aren't interested in hearing about the Amiga, but because of the way in which many "pro-Amiga" postings are worded (eg: bash the other guy's machine instead of simply praising their own). This really pisses me off, because then the majority of GOOD Amiga owners (who'd like to seriously present their machine) have to first contend with the fallout left from fellow Ami users. Grr. - kev <kdarling@catt.ncsu.edu>
peter@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) (06/27/91)
In article <3104@kirk.nmg.bu.oz.au> goose@kirk.nmg.bu.oz.au (Ralph Schwarten) writes: > Why does it seem that all Amiga users I come accross (except two), feel that > they have to continually rehash this childish notion that "My computer is > better" than yours. Because it is, and hardly anyone knows about it. > Why do you feel that you always > have to try to prove that the amiga is the best PC ? Because it is. > For example, a friend > of a friend (who are both amiga users) had a look at my next the other day, The NeXT isn't a PC. It's a workstation. A damned nice one for non-nerds. I'd love one... but I can't afford it. It's not a PC. > No wonder you don't see labs full of amiga's at universities or on executives > desks No, you don't. Because Commodore had to spend the critical first few years of ad money fiting of an idiotic lawsuit from Jack "I can't buy Amiga because I fucked up at Commodore" Tramiel. It's got nothing to do with the users, except partly as an explanation for why many have been driven near insanity by the past few years. The machine is the *only* PC with system software over the batch processor level, and nobody knows it. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
rjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (06/27/91)
[Summary: Sometimes it isn't the Amiga users fault, but because of other
people's attitude toward the Amiga.]
Exactly, sometimes when I mention I have an Amiga to others, I get
the "oh, that toy" remark. If someone calls my Amiga a toy I am
going to defend it. C.S.A.Advocacy is meant for flame wars so
restraint isn't expected or required, however in other groups it should be.
Primarily, the "What should I buy, Amiga or XX" posts are the number one
flame getters, and I think a protocol should be established for
answering them (like in email).
Don't blame everything entirely on Amiga users, it takes two people
to wage a war, not one. There are a few fanatics who start wars,
this in turn leads to counterattacks from the other side (Mac,IBM) this
causes the honest fun loving sane Amiga owners to respond. One person
can drag many people into a war.
--
/ INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \
| INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.|
\ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (06/27/91)
In article <3104@kirk.nmg.bu.oz.au> goose@kirk.nmg.bu.oz.au (Ralph Schwarten) writes: >Why does it seem that all Amiga users I come accross (except two), feel that >they have to continually rehash this childish notion that "My computer is >better" than yours. Granted that owners of other types of computers are >culprits here as well, but it seems that they generate a bee's dick of >traffic compared to Amigaoids. A bit of reality :) 1) Apple Computers started the whole "my computer is better than yours" style of marketing with their advertising, and it's been this way since the introduction of the Mac. You have seen Apple ads on TV, no? What's good for Apple should be good for Amiga, too. 2) Amigoids have to fight the image that the Amiga is a game machine, which it is (and isn't). But why being a game machine is a problem escapes me, because most of what makes a machine a great game machine also makes it a great business machine (and video machine and multimedia machine and...) 3) Unlike most other platforms, the vast majority of Amiga owners really like their machines. Amiga owners actually care. 4) Most people who use Amigas don't do black-and-white applications with it. It is a highly creative machine, great for programmers and artists. I have no doubt that the Amiga is THE creative edge. Now, to add my $.02: I prefer the best amiga I can get vs. any machine in its best incarnation. To say that the Amiga, in general, is superior to other machines isn't realistic. I do want to see the Amiga gain better acceptance than it has. The Amiga's strengths are clear to "knowledgable" industry people, because you can see all the Amiga features that have been "borrowed" or mimiced by other platforms. It is really stupid to compare a $20K Mac, for example, with a $500 Amiga. Even if I had a $20K Mac, I wouldn't sell it and buy 40 $500 Amigas with it :) -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/27/91)
atiya@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Atiya Y. Hakeem) writes: >I think that the reason that Amiga owners are often fanatical and >defensive is that we have an inferiority complex due to the >attitudes of most people towards our computer. The other day >an acquaintance of mine asked me what kind of computer I had. >When I replied that I had an Amiga he said "Oh, one of those toys." I saw an I#? owner in an interuser chat on my BBS with a C64 owner, and was telling him how Amigas are only toys, little improvement over the C64, have worse sound than I#?s, less pirated software(was actually a point this guy tried to make in interuser chat!), worse hard drives than I#?, etc... Ah, its these kind of things that get "fire in the belly" sometimes...I have had many computers here, everything from the PET 8032 to the C64 to the Atari 800 and I#? XT's and Amigas, and then some I#? knownothing comes around and starts telling YOU what your computer can/can not do...Grrr..I know more about his computer than he knows about mine...Plus, everyone that has ever owned an I#? that has taken me up on my challange and has come over here to see WHAT an Amiga(I have an A3000 that I am on now and an A2000 in the other room) can do has wound up buying an A500 or A2000 just to do the "cool shit"...But only three people have ever had the guts to come over here and try to show me his computer is better, and I suspect the people that did were looking for a good excuse to buy an Amiga...The Apple Mac owners I know seem to have more respect for my computer than these I#?ers I run into...And for Atari ST, I have yet to meet someone that owns one...Either on the local boards or in person..Wait a minute, I think I did have some Atari ST guy on my BBS once, and he complained left and right no one supported his computer locally...His cousin sold it to him so he could buy an Amiga(Honestly, I wouldn't make something like that up) Humm. Look what I just found(while looking for Atari ST BBS's): Atari Advocate........>< 398-3078 WI * u9 At St Ib OG SP SA WI RoOak C ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright (C) 1991 by Horst Mann. This list may be freely distributed on computer bulletin board systems; however, no commercial use of this list may be made without written permission of the copyright holder. ANY use of this list in whole or in part MUST be accompanied by this copyright notice. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Guess there is LOCAL (as in local call) support and the guy was pulling my chain. Wonder how much support his gives though...Humm, breaking down the codes, it has an HST, runs 24 hours, runs Wildcat(IBM BBS software), has sports discussions, Windows, and Online Games...File/message support for Atari, ST, and IBM..and probably has Fidonet...Seeing how its a BBS called the "Atari Advocate" and its run on an IBM, ah, hard to tell how well he'd help ya out..But seeing how he's got Windows support, I would figure his IBM users outnumber his Atari users(which on my BBS is also true, I have 194 Amiga users and 206 IBM users with allmost no IBM file support) Humm, for 313 there are BBSs supporting the following machines: 1 NeXT 1 Timex 3 Adam 4 VAX 9 Unix(generic) 11 CP/M(generic) 13 Color Computer 39 Atari ST 43 Atari 8 bit 42 Mac 47 Apple ][ class 64 C64 97 Amiga 320 IBM/MS-DOS I find it kinda strange there are exactly 64 C64 boards...Humm... Anyways, you can see whats hot in the home marketplace, and whats not...BBS's generally will try to satasify their primary users... I don't believe that there are only 320 IBM boards. That sounds too low..But the Amiga is a distant second...But then again, this is only Detriot...Where Commodore has only shown Amiga commericals at 4 in the morning according to Laurana...We'd be on top if those penny pinching money grubbing fools at CBM (BTW, which all think like me) would have set aside $50 million a month for television, radio, and printed advertising...Damn, now I get it!! Wake up CBM, don't let all that money burn a hole in your pocket, we have dealers like Al over here starving his kids so he can keep selling Amigas ;-) -- C-UseNet V0.42e Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
dac@prolix.pub.uu.oz.au (Andrew Clayton) (06/27/91)
In article <3104@kirk.nmg.bu.oz.au>, Ralph Schwarten writes: > Why does it seem that all Amiga users I come accross (except two), feel that > they have to continually rehash this childish notion that "My computer is > better" than yours. There was a neat article posted to the net a few months ago, which detailed the four phases that an Amiga owner would go through, ranging from complete monomania about their Amiga, to a sound user of a computer platform that does what they want. Amiga owners outside of USEnet are mainly games playing types. I know, my brother owns one, and does nothing else but play games, my father owns one, and after two years is just coming to grips with basic CLI operation [I purchased a modem for him, and he HAD to learn :-)] They like their computer. No big deal. Lots and LOTS of people out there plainly have never heard of the Amiga, and if they have, they think that it's a games machine. Throw the two together (games players, and people who don't know about the Amiga) and the information flow soon staggers under the lack of commonality between what an Amiga can do, and what most PC's have to put up with. Windows on the PC has finally shown millions of PC owners what 'multitasking' really means - before they thought it was just a cute label that the Amiga people would throw at them, now they can't live without it. But you couldn't TELL them that before, they just wouldn't believe it, it wasn't applicable to _THEM_ so it plainly wasn't needed. Similarly with linear memory models, excellent graphics potential, and speed upgradability - Most non-Amiga owners aren't aufait with what the machine can do. When it comes to the crunch, the 'great unwashed' outnumber the Amiga owners some 100 to 1. It's little wonder that the Amiga owners get a little tetchy when uneducated heathens heap abuse upon their choice of platform, mostly on the basis of misunderstandings about terminology. Really, there is no easy answer to your trite question, but I hope that what I've said makes some sort of sense. Then there is the choice of battleground - hassling Amiga owners in an Amiga oriented newsgroup isn't really a way to win friends and influence people, so the people bite. Sounds simple enough to me. Post a message to comp.sys.next about Amiga's, and see what sort of spiny reaction you get. BTW, I'm at the "comfortable with my choice of platform" stage of Amiga ownership :-), [but I've been through the others :-(] Dac --
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (06/28/91)
In article <mykes.3868@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes: >2) Amigoids have to fight the image that the Amiga is a game > machine, which it is (and isn't). But why being a game > machine is a problem escapes me, because most of what makes a > machine a great game machine also makes it a great business > machine (and video machine and multimedia machine and...) Here's the thing: Game machines require only medium reliability. If a game machine crashes, you lose what? Your best high score? If your business computer crashes, you may lose untold $$ worth of data. So you guard it with things like, oh, parity RAM, so that you are assured that incorrect answers are not propogated. And you choose a vendor that has a reputation for reliability. In a game machine, speed counts, price counts, but reliability can suffer, and it usually does. (I once asked Dave Haynie, hardware dude of some renown, what reliability features were present in the Amiga, and his reply was that OFS is replete with robust features that made tools like DiskSalv possible. I found it quite telling that this hardware guy pointed out a software feature.) Businesses have to choose their risks carefully. In the case of a "game" computer versus a "business" computer, the business *should* choose the computer with the least risk involved. A game computer is risky, so it typically loses. On the other hand, a game computer's market is extremely price-sensitive, and so the game computer is typically very cheap (from the absense of reliability features, no doubt). This may win it a few business desks when cost is a major factor. -- Richard Krehbiel, private citizen ckp@grebyn.com (Who needs a fancy .signature?)
navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun27.170049.21231@grebyn.com> ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes: > Here's the thing: Game machines require only medium >reliability. If a game machine crashes, you lose what? Your best high >score? If your business computer crashes, you may lose untold $$ worth >of data. So you guard it with things like, oh, parity RAM, so that >you are assured that incorrect answers are not propogated. And you >choose a vendor that has a reputation for reliability. Oh, you're so right, how could I have been so foolish. ;) Puleeeze, have you ever opened those Taiwan clones, or heck, even your IBM with the Taiwan VGA board in it. Half of those boards are visibly hand traced. And obvious noise-makers at that. If you need to protect your data, you get dedicated hardware. Single bit parity is not really accurate enough. In fact, the first thing our DB instructor said was that recovery was only important for high end systems, on IBM-type systems you don't need to worry about that. Let me ask you, after a parity error hangs your system, and your DB system has no recovery code, what are you going to do? >can suffer, and it usually does. (I once asked Dave Haynie, hardware >dude of some renown, what reliability features were present in the >Amiga, and his reply was that OFS is replete with robust features that >made tools like DiskSalv possible. I found it quite telling that this If you only rely on hardware to protect you, you're hosed. If only for the radioactive decay found in some casing materials.... So, you're saying that IBMs are better business machines because they have parity RAM? You either have a system with FULL parity checking, or your feeble attempts at covering your rear are likely to fail. IMHO, of course :) David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu 2.0 :: "You can't have your cake and eat it too." Also try c186br@holden, c260-ay@ara and c184-ap@torus
torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie) (06/28/91)
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes: >2) Amigoids have to fight the image that the Amiga is a game machine, which > it is (and isn't). But why being a game machine is a problem escapes me, > because most of what makes a machine a great game machine also makes it > a great business machine (and video machine and multimedia machine and...) No, being a great games machine means it has great hardware. Being a great business machine means it has great software. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Torrie. Stanford University, Class of 199? torrie@cs.stanford.edu "I didn't get where I am today without knowing a good deal when I see one, Reggie." "Yes, C.J."
greg@pfloyd.lonestar.org (Greg Harp) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun27.170049.21231@grebyn.com> ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes: > Here's the thing: Game machines require only medium >reliability. If a game machine crashes, you lose what? Your best high >score? If your business computer crashes, you may lose untold $$ worth >of data. So you guard it with things like, oh, parity RAM, so that ^^^^^^ ^^^ >you are assured that incorrect answers are not propogated. And you >choose a vendor that has a reputation for reliability. I have always had a bit of a beef with this one. What the *hell* kind of good does 1 parity bit do you? Ok, so you know the memory is screwed. Just what are you going to do about it? Hmmm? Fix it? Sorry... If you're actually serious about parity you need at least 3 bits. PC clones are _not_ known for reliability in any way, shape, or form, BTW. At work we have had two of our four machines completely die. One of them was a Dell and the other was a true-blue IBM -- no cheapies. The motherboard was considered less costly to replace than repair in both cases. When these machines went down they didn't stop and say, "Excuse me, but I'm going to crash in about a minute or so. Please save your work." One of them severely damaged a hard disk in the process... Between GOMF (for 1.3) and 2.0's built in process suspension I find that I reboot my Amiga (which runs UUCP 24hrs a day) much less than I reboot the PCs at work. Also, when a process on the Amiga crashes it typically gets frozen and allows you to safely shut the machine down first. PC's nearly always just lock up. -- -------greg@pfloyd.lonestar.org---greg@pfloyd.UUCP---egsner!pfloyd!greg------- "How I wish. How I wish you were here. We're just two lost souls swimming in a fishbowl year after year. Running over the same old ground. What have we found? The same old fears. Wish you were here." -- Pink Floyd
mcclend@infonode.ingr.com (William D McClendon) (06/28/91)
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes: >In article <mykes.3868@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG >(Mike Schwartz) writes: >>2) Amigoids have to fight the image that the Amiga is a game >> machine, which it is (and isn't). But why being a game >> machine is a problem escapes me, because most of what makes a >> machine a great game machine also makes it a great business >> machine (and video machine and multimedia machine and...) > Here's the thing: Game machines require only medium >reliability. If a game machine crashes, you lose what? Your best high >score? If your business computer crashes, you may lose untold $$ worth >of data. So you guard it with things like, oh, parity RAM, so that >you are assured that incorrect answers are not propogated. And you >choose a vendor that has a reputation for reliability. > In a game machine, speed counts, price counts, but reliability >can suffer, and it usually does. (I once asked Dave Haynie, hardware >dude of some renown, what reliability features were present in the >Amiga, and his reply was that OFS is replete with robust features that >made tools like DiskSalv possible. I found it quite telling that this >hardware guy pointed out a software feature.) > Businesses have to choose their risks carefully. In the case >of a "game" computer versus a "business" computer, the business >*should* choose the computer with the least risk involved. A game >computer is risky, so it typically loses. > On the other hand, a game computer's market is extremely >price-sensitive, and so the game computer is typically very cheap >(from the absense of reliability features, no doubt). This may win it >a few business desks when cost is a major factor. >-- >Richard Krehbiel, private citizen ckp@grebyn.com Whoa there dude. Lets have some more experience here on your part. I have used many machines. Many OS's. I have never run across a main stream (or branch :)) computer of ANY nature that accomplished data integrity via hardware. Hardware, EVERONES runs through diagnostics on reboot. Some more intense than others. If the memory, subsystems, etc. are functional, things continue. Data loss has more to do with the data being safe on the storage media, period. I will give you three guesses how this is accomplished: You are right! SOFTWARE SOFTWARE SOFTWARE! Either the OS syncs to disk, or the application syncs to disk, writes only at exit. Some do it for you, others let you do it. Ever used UNIX? Seen what it goes through for the filesystems when it comes up after a crash? EVER seen this on a PC? On a Mac? Amiga is in exactly the same boat. >(Who needs a fancy .signature?) Just my "two sense" worth (hands, and eyes) HA HA
leh@crane.cis.ufl.edu (Les Hill) (06/29/91)
Even though I normally avoid posting to this group, Mr. Krehbiel has made such an astounding claim that I felt compelled to reply (even though I know I'll regret it :) In article <1991Jun27.170049.21231@grebyn.com>, ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes: |> Here's the thing: Game machines require only medium |> reliability. If a game machine crashes, you lose what? Your best high |> score? If your business computer crashes, you may lose untold $$ worth |> of data. So you guard it with things like, oh, parity RAM, so that |> you are assured that incorrect answers are not propogated. And you |> choose a vendor that has a reputation for reliability. ...much deleted... Clearly every business using "business computers" (read PCs) has UPS systems, disk shadowing systems, redunant backup systems, heck even "parity RAM". (The previous was meant as sarcasm.) I have worked (and continue to do so) in MANY different "business" environments, from Hospitals to start-ups that never got a product out the door AND *NEVER* have I seen any kowtowing to this mythical "PC reliablity" god beyond what any reasonable personal computer user should do -- make frequent backups. Ideally, every personal computer would have such protections in place; the naked truth is most don't (including a majority of "business computers") have them in place, yet miraculously we all seem to keep humming along! Perhaps you have a vested interest in spurring on "My computer will fail at any moment!" [or "Amigas will fail at any moment"] paranoia? If this red herring is your best "argument" against the Amiga being a "business computer" (just what does that mean anyhow? "This computer means business!" The epithet "business computer" MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING [this comes as no surprise, the phrase was coined as a marketing tool.]) then I think you are either trying to advance some hidden agenda (unlikely as it implies a higher level of reasoning than you've shown here) or (more likely) you are one of the many millions of Americans who is uninformed about one topic or another (in this case personal computers) who will nevertheless spout some jargon, some half-remembered factoids, and some "expert" opinions on any topic that strikes their fancy. In short, all of your "argument" against the Amiga not being as reliable as any other personal computer (whether it is used in business or not) is just HOT AIR. (And yes, I know that you can buy fault tolerant personal computers -- I am glad that option is around, but for most of the world (businesses included) the reliablity of normal personal computers (including Amigas) fits the bill.) Les -- Extraordinary crimes against the people and the state have to be avenged by agents extraordinary. Two such people are John Steed -- top professional, and his partner, Emma Peel -- talented amateur; otherwise known as "The Avengers." INTERNET: leh@ufl.edu UUCP: ...!gatech!uflorida!leh BITNET: vishnu@UFPINE
jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) (06/29/91)
In article <1991Jun27.011709.18078@Sugar.NeoSoft.com> peter@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >The [Amiga] is the *only* PC with system software over the batch processor >level, and nobody knows it. We CoCo 3 users *definitely* don't know that. :-) James Jones
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (06/29/91)
In article <greg.0954@pfloyd.lonestar.org> greg@pfloyd.lonestar.org (Greg Harp) writes: >In article <1991Jun27.170049.21231@grebyn.com> ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes: >> Here's the thing: Game machines require only medium >>reliability. If a game machine crashes, you lose what? Your best high >>score? If your business computer crashes, you may lose untold $$ worth >>of data. So you guard it with things like, oh, parity RAM, so that > ^^^^^^ ^^^ >>you are assured that incorrect answers are not propogated. And you >>choose a vendor that has a reputation for reliability. > >I have always had a bit of a beef with this one. What the *hell* kind of >good does 1 parity bit do you? It does exactly one bit more good than no bits. :-) > Ok, so you know the memory is screwed. >Just what are you going to do about it? Hmmm? Fix it? Sorry... Yes, fix it. But at least, don't bet your portfolio on the answers you got just before your machine printed "MEMORY PARITY ERROR" and crashed. What do you do now when your machine has a bad memory bit? Nothing, 'cause you may not know it happened. >PC clones are _not_ known for reliability in any way, shape, or form, >BTW. I know that. I work with enough of them myself. I think customer perception is the main thing. It's not whether or not it's REALLY reliable, but whether the customer BELIEVES it's reliable. I think the Amiga should be verbose about it's startup self tests. Sure there are the screen colors, but some text that exclaims: "Testing CPU...Custom Chips...Chip RAM...Expansion devices...OK" would give me a warm fuzzy feeling, even if I didn't know what chip RAM was. (Commodore: consider this a request for KS 2.1, OK?) -- Richard Krehbiel, private citizen ckp@grebyn.com (Who needs a fancy .signature?)
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) (06/29/91)
In article <1991Jun27.170049.21231@grebyn.com> ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes: > Here's the thing: Game machines require only medium >reliability. If a game machine crashes, you lose what? Your best high >score? If your business computer crashes, you may lose untold $$ worth >of data. So you guard it with things like, oh, parity RAM, so that >you are assured that incorrect answers are not propogated. And you >choose a vendor that has a reputation for reliability. > The only time I ever lost data on my Amiga in the last 6 years was in the VERY early days when floppies were all there was. If you eject a floppy when the disk light is on, you are guaranteed to corrupt your diskette... And the disk light doesn't necessarily go out when a program returns to the DOS prompt, so it took a little training to make sure the disk light goes out before ejecting a floppy. With hard disk, I have NOT lost data, except through my own stupidness (like using the delete command). The only "bad" reputation the Amiga gets is from people who just don't know anything about it. > In a game machine, speed counts, price counts, but reliability >can suffer, and it usually does. (I once asked Dave Haynie, hardware >dude of some renown, what reliability features were present in the >Amiga, and his reply was that OFS is replete with robust features that >made tools like DiskSalv possible. I found it quite telling that this >hardware guy pointed out a software feature.) > Besides being one of the great PC designers on the planet, Dave has also contributed quite a bit of useful software to the public domain. In other words, he is a fine software person, too. > Businesses have to choose their risks carefully. In the case >of a "game" computer versus a "business" computer, the business >*should* choose the computer with the least risk involved. A game >computer is risky, so it typically loses. > You have failed to describe the REAL risk involved. If people are going to be so stupid as to assume there is risk where there is none, then Amiga owners indeed need to kick and scream to get people to wake up and smell the coffee. > On the other hand, a game computer's market is extremely >price-sensitive, and so the game computer is typically very cheap >(from the absense of reliability features, no doubt). This may win it >a few business desks when cost is a major factor. This is why Commodore makes a low-end machine like the A500, which is cheap plastic, and higher end machines like the A2000 and A3000. While the A500 is mostly capable of everything the high end machines are, you won't find many of us here in .advocacy even suggesting that businesses should go out and stock up on A500s for productivity use. On the other hand, with an A2500 or A3000, you are getting a LOT more performance for your money over other platforms - AND reliability. In fact, CBM supports the A3000 (I'm not sure about the lower models...) with ON-SITE maintenance for FREE for a year. That takes a bit of confidence in the machines' reliability. >-- >Richard Krehbiel, private citizen ckp@grebyn.com >(Who needs a fancy .signature?) -- **************************************************** * I want games that look like Shadow of the Beast * * but play like Leisure Suit Larry. * ****************************************************
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (06/29/91)
In article <29440@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> leh@crane.cis.ufl.edu (Les Hill) writes: >Even though I normally avoid posting to this group, Mr. Krehbiel has >made such an astounding claim that I felt compelled to reply (even though >I know I'll regret it :) Fear not, blaze away bold sir... >In article <1991Jun27.170049.21231@grebyn.com>, ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes: >|> Here's the thing: Game machines require only medium >|> reliability. If a game machine crashes, you lose what? Your best high >|> score? If your business computer crashes, you may lose untold $$ worth >|> of data. So you guard it with things like, oh, parity RAM, so that >|> you are assured that incorrect answers are not propogated. And you >|> choose a vendor that has a reputation for reliability. >...much deleted... > >Clearly every business using "business computers" (read PCs) has UPS >systems, disk shadowing systems, redunant backup systems, heck even >"parity RAM". (The previous was meant as sarcasm.) > >I have worked (and continue to do so) in MANY different "business" >environments, from Hospitals to start-ups that never got a product >out the door AND *NEVER* have I seen any kowtowing to this mythical >"PC reliablity" god beyond what any reasonable personal computer user >should do -- make frequent backups. Ideally, every personal computer >would have such protections in place; the naked truth is >most don't (including a majority of "business computers") have them >in place, yet miraculously we all seem to keep humming along! >Perhaps you have a vested interest in spurring on "My computer will >fail at any moment!" [or "Amigas will fail at any moment"] paranoia? Well, I obviously spoke poorly. I personally don't think of the Amiga as being unreliable. I never had a problem with my A1000, A2000, or A2500, and I expect the Amiga 3000 is the same. No, I really was speaking about a "game computer", and addressing a question which I pose once again: why is it even necessary for the Amiga to shed it's "game computer" image? What makes that image bad? I think part of it is perceived reliability. Actual reliability has nothing to do with it. Toys break. The Amiga has a reputation for crashing, true or not the reputation is there. I say confront it. Put some effort into increasing the *perceived* reliability. I think another real issue is "support". When your toy breaks you throw it away, you don't get phone support from the toy maker and you surely don't get "upgrades". Commodore supports the Amiga quite well I think, though perhaps some dealers could stand to lose the "game machine" attitude and do better. >If this red herring is your best "argument" against the Amiga being a >"business computer" (just what does that mean anyhow? "This computer >means business!" The epithet "business computer" MEANS ABSOLUTELY >NOTHING [this comes as no surprise, the phrase was coined as a >marketing tool.]) then I think you are either trying to >advance some hidden agenda (unlikely as it implies a higher level >of reasoning than you've shown here) or (more likely) you are one >of the many millions of Americans who is uninformed about one topic >or another (in this case personal computers) who >will nevertheless spout some jargon, some half-remembered factoids, >and some "expert" opinions on any topic that strikes their fancy. > >In short, all of your "argument" against the Amiga not being as >reliable as any other personal computer (whether it is used in >business or not) is just HOT AIR... > >Les Ah, .advocacy... Since we're flaming, Les, why can't you get your lines under 80 columns? I reformatted all that using vi, since I can't seem to get emacs to work reliably from rn... :-) :-) -- Richard Krehbiel, private citizen ckp@grebyn.com (Who needs a fancy .signature?)
peter@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) (06/29/91)
In article <7114@mcrware.UUCP> jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) writes: > In article <1991Jun27.011709.18078@Sugar.NeoSoft.com> peter@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >The [Amiga] is the *only* PC with system software over the batch processor > >level, and nobody knows it. > We CoCo 3 users *definitely* don't know that. :-) If the CoCo was shipped with OS/9, so I could go into any Radio Shack and buy more than a couple of obsolete editors and an assembler for OS/9, I'd agree with you. But it's not. OS/9 is an option, not the standard system software. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) (06/29/91)
In article <1991Jun29.005127.17803@grebyn.com> ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes: >In article <greg.0954@pfloyd.lonestar.org> greg@pfloyd.lonestar.org (Greg Harp) writes: >>I have always had a bit of a beef with this one. What the *hell* kind of >>good does 1 parity bit do you? >It does exactly one bit more good than no bits. :-) No, actually it is WORSE, at least in the brain-dead way that IBM clones use it. If you have 1 bit out of 9 for parity, with no error correction, that means that more than 10% of the time the error will be in the parity bit itself. Since PC clones are not designed to have any ECC bits, and the whole parity detection system is incredibly archaic, a parity error just brings the whole machine to a halt, even when it is in the parity bit itself. I cetainly call this "less reliable", since you have now added a "feature" that will cause the computer to seemingly "fail" over 10% more than it normally would. Further, the PC is too brain-dead to even see where the address is, and whether it is in use. A parity error outside of active memory should, at the most, pop up a requestor notifying you it occured, without halting the system at all (oops, PC don't have multitasking). I have been working with PC's since the first IBM "PC" (not even XT) came out, and in ALL THAT TIME, I have only seen 2, thats *TWO* parity errors. Both of which were over 6 years ago. And they occured on fairly low-quality RAM boards at that. So what this means is that all PC clone owners, whether they would want it or not, have been force to buy over 10% more RAM than they need, for a "feature" that was at best only crudely implemented, and which increases the posibility of false "errors" and MTBF by over 10%. Great deal there. Dave
lron@easy.lrcd.com (Dwight Hubbard) (06/29/91)
In article <greg.0954@pfloyd.lonestar.org> greg@pfloyd.lonestar.org (Greg Harp) writes: >Between GOMF (for 1.3) and 2.0's built in process suspension I find that >I reboot my Amiga (which runs UUCP 24hrs a day) much less than I reboot >the PCs at work. Also, when a process on the Amiga crashes it typically >gets frozen and allows you to safely shut the machine down first. PC's >nearly always just lock up. I have found the same thing, although I found Gomf to cause more problems than it solved. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -Dwight Hubbard INTERNET: lron@easy.lrcd.com - -Kaneohe, Hawaii USENET : ...!uunet!easy!lron - - BIX : lron - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
asg@sage.cc.purdue.edu (The Grand Master) (06/30/91)
In article <1991Jun29.150321.9791@NCoast.ORG> davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes:
%system at all (oops, PC don't have multitasking).
Let's be accurate here. MS-DOS doesn't have multitasking. I run MINIX on my
PC, and it multitasks just fine.
Bruce
--
"Emacs is so nice - it even tries to help | My views are crazy and strange.
you when you want to erase a mistake" | But they're right, so I like 'em.
Courtesy of you friendly neighborhood Grand Master.....
Bruce Varney (asg@sage.cc.purdue.edu)greg@pfloyd.lonestar.org (Greg Harp) (06/30/91)
In article <1991Jun29.005127.17803@grebyn.com> ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes: >In article <greg.0954@pfloyd.lonestar.org> greg@pfloyd.lonestar.org (Greg Harp) writes: >> Ok, so you know the memory is screwed. >>Just what are you going to do about it? Hmmm? Fix it? Sorry... > >Yes, fix it. But at least, don't bet your portfolio on the answers you >got just before your machine printed "MEMORY PARITY ERROR" and crashed. >What do you do now when your machine has a bad memory bit? Nothing, >'cause you may not know it happened. How can you fix the memory with just one parity bit? You can't even be sure that it's not the parity bit that is wrong. Besides, on the PC (not that there aren't other machines that use 9-bit parity memory) the machine just hangs anyway. I can understand maybe not trusting answers you got before the crash, but that's not a feature that sells computers. Buyers are more confident about machines that don't crash as much, which is why the Amiga had such a poor reputation early on. When you're multitasking and you don't have memory protection (which is a problem we're going to have to live with, at least on the lower end Amigas -- there's not a good way to do it) you're going to experience some crashes. A lot of software out there (on all platforms) has bugs, and buggy programs don't get along well with multitasking at all. How often do you see "Segmentation Fault" on Unix boxen? I see it a lot when I use buggy programs like Unix LHarc. As for MSDOS machines, I'm so used to hitting Ctrl-Alt-Del all the time that I catch myself doing it on my Amiga. Under 2.0, when a "Software Failure" occurs the requester's options are "Suspend" and "Reboot" instead of "Retry" and "Cancel." It's a lot nicer to be able to just click Suspend and continue from there... -- -------greg@pfloyd.lonestar.org---greg@pfloyd.UUCP---egsner!pfloyd!greg------- "How I wish. How I wish you were here. We're just two lost souls swimming in a fishbowl year after year. Running over the same old ground. What have we found? The same old fears. Wish you were here." -- Pink Floyd
rkushner@sycom.UUCP (Ronald Kushner) (06/30/91)
greg@pfloyd.lonestar.org (Greg Harp) writes: >How can you fix the memory with just one parity bit? You can't even >be sure that it's not the parity bit that is wrong. Besides, on the PC >(not that there aren't other machines that use 9-bit parity memory) the >machine just hangs anyway. I believe that when IBM was designing their "state of the art" PC, they felt the system might be too fast for the ram to keep up(yeah right), so they implemented parity bits as a "feature." I would suspect it was IBM that probably produced alot of ram at the time of the design could plop in another ram chip for every 4. This would keep another department at IBM busy making ram. Don't alot of clones have dummy chips that fake (calculate) parity? -- C-UseNet V0.42f Ronald Kushner Life in Hell BBS +1 (313) 939-6666 P.O. Box 353 14400 USR HST V.42 & V.42bis Sterling Heights, MI 48311-0353 Complete Amiga Support UUCP: uunet!umich!vela!sycom!rkushner (We are not satanic, just NUTS!) Experience enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (06/30/91)
In article <greg.0992@pfloyd.lonestar.org> greg@pfloyd.lonestar.org (Greg Harp) writes:
I can understand maybe not trusting answers you got before the crash, but
that's not a feature that sells computers. Buyers are more confident about
machines that don't crash as much, which is why the Amiga had such a poor
reputation early on.
When you're multitasking and you don't have memory protection (which is
a problem we're going to have to live with, at least on the lower end
Amigas -- there's not a good way to do it) you're going to experience
some crashes. A lot of software out there (on all platforms) has bugs,
and buggy programs don't get along well with multitasking at all. How
often do you see "Segmentation Fault" on Unix boxen? I see it a lot when
I use buggy programs like Unix LHarc. As for MSDOS machines, I'm so used
to hitting Ctrl-Alt-Del all the time that I catch myself doing it on my
Amiga.
Actually, there aren't any Amigas that have memory protection. There
is a Unix machine by Commodore, but now that really isn't an Amiga
with memory protection is it? Amigas don't have virtual memory
either. Even Macintoys and Windows 3.0 have this.
-Mikerjc@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (07/01/91)
In article <g!3H=4=!@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >Actually, there aren't any Amigas that have memory protection. There >is a Unix machine by Commodore, but now that really isn't an Amiga >with memory protection is it? Hmm, have you tried running /usr/amiga/bin/fractal ?(or whatever the path is). You know the A3000UX is still an Amiga when you see the live video teleconfercing demo C= on it. > Amigas don't have virtual memory >either. Even Macintoys and Windows 3.0 have this. Yes it does, there is a third party company that makes a program to give the Amiga virtual memory. (it's in germany I think). Before System 7.0, the Mac had virtual memory from a third party and Windows is a third party company. What's you point? What does virtual memory have to do with this discussion? Virtual Memory is the reason the NeXT is so damn slow(without lots of real memory). Steve Jobs should have shipped the NeXT with virtual memory turned off so NeXTStep would say "Empty your pockets and buy me 8mb more of real memory if you want me to run at any acceptable speed." What is the price of the NeXT that comes with a 200mb HD and 16mb real memory (e.g. the useable version) I want to know the list price or business price, not educational. >-Mike -- / INET:rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu * // The opinions expressed here do not \ | INET:r_cromwe@upr2.clu.net | \X/ in any way reflect the views of my self.| \ UUCP:uunet!tnc!m0023 * /
navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) (07/01/91)
In article <g!3H=4=!@cs.psu.edu> melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: >Actually, there aren't any Amigas that have memory protection. There Bzzzt. Cmdre has machines that have "memory protection" in that whenever memory unused in the system is addressed, you get a report. The enforcer is, of course, available at any ftp site. [The enforcer != Guardian Angel] That info was recently discussed in csa.programmer. Depends on your definition of "memory protection." Kind of like your definition of "multitasking", eh? :) >with memory protection is it? Amigas don't have virtual memory >either. Even Macintoys and Windows 3.0 have this. Bzzzt^2. Amigas DO have virtual memory. You will need to buy a separate harddrive controller, and _currently_ it's available only in Germany -- of course that's where the larger market is, so this makes sense. I had no idea Microsoft was selling hardware nowadays. :) Of course, when you have a user interface that doesn't take up 4-8 megs of memory, there's not the pressing need, eh. [Not a flame, believe it or not] And, of course, neither Windows nor Macs have memory protection, and there's even less reason for the Mac than there is for the Amiga. [IMHO] Not that that's an excuse. But *must* we start that argument again? >-Mike David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu 2.0 :: "You can't have your cake and eat it too." Also try c186br@holden, c260-ay@ara and c184-ap@torus
griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) (07/01/91)
navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) writes: >In article <1991Jun27.170049.21231@grebyn.com> ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes: >> If your business computer crashes, you may lose untold $$ worth >>of data. >So, you're saying that IBMs are better business machines because they have >parity RAM? You either have a system with FULL parity checking, or your >feeble attempts at covering your rear are likely to fail. We use mostly IBMs at work (~250 of 'em) and they crash and hang, too. Any one of those has lost more data than I ever have on my Amiga, and then only because my wife accidently formatted 65MB of hard drive (and then I was able to recover 99% of it using DiskSalv - thanks Dave!). -- Dan Griffin griffin@frith.egr.msu.edu
pss1@kepler.unh.edu (Paul S Secinaro) (07/01/91)
In article <1991Jun29.150321.9791@NCoast.ORG> davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) writes: >In article <1991Jun29.005127.17803@grebyn.com> ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes: >>In article <greg.0954@pfloyd.lonestar.org> greg@pfloyd.lonestar.org (Greg Harp) writes: >>>I have always had a bit of a beef with this one. What the *hell* kind of >>>good does 1 parity bit do you? >>It does exactly one bit more good than no bits. :-) > No, actually it is WORSE, at least in the brain-dead way that IBM >clones use it. If you have 1 bit out of 9 for parity, with no error correction, >that means that more than 10% of the time the error will be in the parity >bit itself. Since PC clones are not designed to have any ECC bits, and the >whole parity detection system is incredibly archaic, a parity error just brings >the whole machine to a halt, even when it is in the parity bit itself. > I cetainly call this "less reliable", since you have now added a >"feature" that will cause the computer to seemingly "fail" over 10% more than >it normally would. > Further, the PC is too brain-dead to even see where the address is, >and whether it is in use. A parity error outside of active memory should, >at the most, pop up a requestor notifying you it occured, without halting the >system at all (oops, PC don't have multitasking). > I have been working with PC's since the first IBM "PC" (not even XT) >came out, and in ALL THAT TIME, I have only seen 2, thats *TWO* parity >errors. Both of which were over 6 years ago. And they occured on fairly >low-quality RAM boards at that. So what this means is that all PC clone >owners, whether they would want it or not, have been force to buy over >10% more RAM than they need, for a "feature" that was at best only crudely >implemented, and which increases the posibility of false "errors" and MTBF >by over 10%. Great deal there. > I can't comment on the particular parity scheme used in the PC architecture, but I think you are confusing "reliability" with "system availability". What parity does is to give extra assurance that the data you just recieved is good data. If there is even the slightest chance that the data is bad, you want to know about it. If this means you sometimes have to throw away good data, or the system is down a little more frequently, that's fine. What you are really interested in, in many applications, is being assured the answer is correct. Take the space shuttle, for example. You have something like five computers all simultaneously operating on the same input and hopefully producing the same output. This means that, if all the computers give you the same answer, you are pretty sure it's the right answer. But if you go through the statistical calculations, you can show that, if the MTBF of each computer is X, the overall MTBF of the entire system is actually smaller than X. You tradeoff system availability for data integrity. It's the same idea with parity. Many sites keep plenty of spare parts (or whole computers) on hand. They would much rather take a system down for a few days and check out a false alarm than have a bad RAM chip spitting out bad data all over the company (you can imagine the havoc this might cause in, say, an accounting program, or an important engineering design application). On the other hand, as you mention, RAM errors are really pretty rare, and for personal or light business use, I wouldn't worry too much about how much error detection/correction my computer had. Paul P.S. BTW, speaking of ECC RAM, I think the DECstations use it, but judging from DEC's prices for add-ons, I'll bet it's big bucks :-). -- Paul Secinaro | Synthetic Vision and Pattern Analysis Laboratory pss1@kepler.unh.edu | Department of Computer and Electrical Engineering p_secinaro@unhh.unh.edu | University of New Hampshire (603) 862-3287
navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) (07/01/91)
In article <1991Jun30.203110.29358@unhd.unh.edu> pss1@kepler.unh.edu (Paul S Secinaro) writes: >I can't comment on the particular parity scheme used in the PC >architecture, but I think you are confusing "reliability" with "system >availability". What parity does is to give extra assurance that the >data you just recieved is good data. If there is even the slightest >chance that the data is bad, you want to know about it. If this means Okay, fine. But you'll never use a processor much more complex than a '286. You see, there's no good way of "proving" whether the newer '486 or '040s actually had "working" masks. Go figure. >Take the space shuttle, for example. You have something like five >computers all simultaneously operating on the same input and hopefully >producing the same output. This means that, if all the computers give Except that the space shuttle is just a little different, ya'know? Computers here on earth do not need to work flawlessly at G forces between 0 and 3, aren't running some 3-5 million lines of assembly, and don't have to survive Van Allen belts. Do people still not understand the exponential nature of system complexity? >is actually smaller than X. You tradeoff system availability for data >integrity. It's the same idea with parity. Many sites keep plenty of No, I don't think so. If the computers on the shuttle didn't work, we get another disaster. NOT! As I recall they use slightly different algorithms for decision making, and the majority decision wins. It's like a version of ECC. IE. errors are *corrected*, it's the only thing that really makes sense. Your analysis of error rates is only useful for "serial" systems where *ALL* systems must work at the same time. If we get three harddrive systems with a controller which takes a "majority wins" attitude your MTFB rises significantly (because two harddrives would have to fail at exactly the same time in exactly the same way, which is _less_ likely). Or am I missing something? >bad RAM chip spitting out bad data all over the company (you can >imagine the havoc this might cause in, say, an accounting program, or >an important engineering design application). No, they'd rather ignore the problem. People routinely have to *prove* the necessity of bothering repair personnal. Horror stories on demand. >On the other hand, as you mention, RAM errors are really pretty rare, >and for personal or light business use, I wouldn't worry too >much about how much error detection/correction my computer had. It's meaningless until we start using a lot more memory. The CPU is a better source of error, I would bet. Certainly I've had my power supply blow more frequently than my memory. >P.S. BTW, speaking of ECC RAM, I think the DECstations use it, but >judging from DEC's prices for add-ons, I'll bet it's big bucks :-). The new 6000 systems actually has a great deal of ECC stuff in it. At least from a talk given on it I was given that impression. Memory, datapath, and CPU all have ECC checking. Cool stuff. Doesn't matter much, we agree that parity is probably pretty meaningless for memory nowadays. Some folks think that its a way to sell computers to businessPEOPLE (ahem :) ). I'll bet the majority of businessfolks haven't a clue to what parity is. The defense dep't is a different story.... David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu 2.0 :: "You can't have your cake and eat it too." Also try c186br@holden, c260-ay@ara and c184-ap@torus
peter@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) (07/01/91)
Why has this turned into a discussion of parity RAM, for gods' sake?
--
Peter da Silva. `-_-' <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"