[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: [OFF TOPIC] EDO
On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Biener Ariel wrote:
> > >Now at last I know enough about it to decide not to ask specifically
> for > >EDO memory next time I buy a PC, nor to expect miracles from it,
> nor to brag > >about having it (if the computer turns out to have EDO
> memory).
> > So, since you may need to add memory in the future and non-EDO
> > will be harder to find, I think you should buy EDO.
EDO and FPM will go on running side to side, maybe yo mixed the two in the
same bank, like Ariel sugested
> I have to contest that. I am using 64MB EDO memory, when 2x16MB are EDO,
> non-parity @60ns, and the other two are 2x16MB @60ns(non-EDO). They work
same here, never a problem.
> > >My suspicion that the term EDO is used as a marketing ploy, while not
> > >exactly confirmed, got some support.
> >
> > Its advantage over the non-EDO may not be that great but there is
> > a difference.
>
> The only difference there is, except for the doubtfull performance
> improvement, is that it's the STANDARD.
there is a very slight performance difference, I'd just buy whichever is
cheaper that week (yes, sometimes EDO maybe cheaper by as much as a
dollar per meg, and sometimes the opposite...). the reason for it to be an
unnoticable difference is that you should want to optimize the memory
management to make a good use of it, and so far no OS did that. I once dug
up a discussion on dejanews where Linus mentioned he was probing into
making such optimizations, and suck maybe %10 more memory speed for
caching and swapping of processes, but I don't know where it ended. read
the thread from a few monthes ago about the mem copy system call.
Follow-Ups:
References: