From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed May 15 20:14:52 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id UAA17686
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 15 May 1996 20:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hq.icb.chel.su (icb-rich-gw.icb.chel.su [193.125.10.34])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA17679
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 15 May 1996 20:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (babkin@localhost) by hq.icb.chel.su (8.7.5/8.6.5) id JAA29529 for hackers@freebsd.org; Thu, 16 May 1996 09:15:33 +0600 (GMT+0600)
From: "Serge A. Babkin" <babkin@hq.icb.chel.su>
Message-Id: <199605160315.JAA29529@hq.icb.chel.su>
Subject: EDO, I forgot!
To: hackers@freebsd.org
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 09:15:33 +0600 (ESD)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

I'm sorry, I forgot about my question about EDO in my last mail!

May be anybody can explain me why EDO must give better access times ?
I had compared it with the common RAM and got absolutely equal results.
My motherboard is Triton with AMI BIOS, it says at boot:

	EDO/Standard RAM

May be the problem is in my motherboard ?

Thanks!

-SB