identifying PC Simms
chenmel at earthlink.net
Fri Sep 30 19:35:34 CDT 2005
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
> > space with part numbers to lead part searches to their sites. They
> > often don't even have the chip in question, and rarely have any
> > 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 the
> 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 very
idea of parity (spending an extra 1/8 of the price, etc etc)
Pentium and newer systems don't require memory modules.
More information about the cctech