In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt daytripper
wrote:

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 21:54:21 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
wrote:


"kony" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 15:17:57 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Smallshaw
wrote:

Yes, it did save money but why did the computer industry en masse decide
that it could safely be dispensed with?

Because they don't particularly care if a customer's
calculations/etc end up wrong if it's not guaranteed for
some critical use. The industry didn't actually abandon it
for critical uses.

In fact, for critical usage some companies have gone far beyond normal
SEC/DED error correction in servers.

If you are referring to ECC schemes and not memory mirroring, I'd be
interested in examples that *don't* simply use n Hamming codewords to turn
n-bit-wide full chip failures into correctable events - which really wasn't
that remarkable, revolutionary or heroic when it was first employed - about 20
years ago...

It's just a hamming-code.
However, about 99% of memory installed on PCs is *not* EEC or even
parity enabled. They all *should* be.

I suppose I ought to trim the crossposting...

And what fun would that be?

/daytripper ;-)

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _