We have roughly 1200 Intel motherboards in production at the moment.. From the server line SE7500/SE7501/S2000/S3000, the desktop line, 845GLC, 945GTP, various 865 and 915 boards, and I believe we have had one single failure out of all of them including DOA, run failures, etc. YMMV but we used to use asus/tyan boards and we had a much higher failure/DOA rate. Thanks, -Drew -----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On Behalf Of Aleksandar Milivojevic Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 10:21 AM To: centos at centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] CentOS 4 and Intel D965 motherboards Quoting John R Pierce <pierce at hogranch.com>: > >> If it's not too late, return the motherboard, get something else. >> >> My personal experience with Intel's desktop motherboards is that they >> work most of the time for most of the people. > > thats been the exact opposite of my experiences with Intel branded > motherboards. They've been consistently well engineered, and well > built, have very good aftermarket support (BIOS upgrades and drivers > are still available for nearly every board they've ever made, and they > are MUCH better documented than the typical taiwan stuff). Have you ever had to actually deal with Intel support. Like, you have an issue, they resolve it? I had to call them couple of times. They did little or nothing. The answer was always "it is not our problem that motherboard we made doesn't work". Well engineered? Motherboard that doesn't want to power on because you plugged a PCI card into it can hardly be called well engineered. Thermal specs available on the web? More or less useless to end users. As I said. They work most of the time. When they do work, they work great. When they don't work, good luck in getting any kind of support from Intel. Been there, done that. Ended up dissapointed big time. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS at centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos