> On Oct 3, 2016, at 12:07 PM, william degnan <billdeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> I should have been more precise, but my point is that this is a non-parity
> RAM basic 11/35 system useful for peripheral interfacing and
> communications. As is, not good for something like RT11.
I wouldn't look at it this way. Non-parity memory is fine for any application
if you judge the risk of memory error to be low enough for that application.
Peripheral interfacing or communications may or may not be such an application.
An application running on RT11 may or may not be. The OS isn't what decides
this, but rather the requirements of the application: the expected bit error
rate for the memory technology in use vs. the failure rate that's tolerable for
the application.
paul
