From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Feb 26 11:36:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA27894 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:36:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from odin.visigenic.com (odin.visigenic.com [204.179.98.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA27889 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:36:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from VSI48 (vsi48.visigenic.com [206.64.15.185]) by odin.visigenic.com (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA26986 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:33:20 -0800 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970226113632.008f4eb0@visigenic.com> X-Sender: toneil@visigenic.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:36:32 -0800 To: hackers@freebsd.org From: "Tim Oneil" Subject: Re: [H] Optimal computer for FreeBSD Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 12:32 PM 2/26/97 -0600, you wrote: >> I think that EDO is cheaper right now than FPM, because of volume >> questions, anyways, so you get EDO even tho there's no benefit from it, >> because there's no loss from getting it. > >parity EDO is more expensive than parity FPM (40-50% more expensive at >Megatrends Technology). For those that believe parity is important and >is worth the money (and most in this group would be in that camp). >As I read this thread of conversation, the debate is if parity EDO >is worth the expense considering performance differences. If anyone cares, I've put together three machines this year alone, and never used parity chips. No problems.