On Thursday 08 April 2004 03:52, Christian Schnobrich wrote: > > /rant on > > > > I should have said this in my first reply. It's common knowedge that AMD > > based systems has, compared to Intel based systems, a reputation of > > sometimes being unstable. No one ever bothers to explain why. > > [...] > > The same sources as above (hearsay alarm!) suggested not actually the > CPU as a reason, but rather the policy regarding boards. That was exactly my point. The fact that there are AMD based machines out there that run stably under heavy load for months on end, means that the chips must be OK.
My machine at home is a 2400+ AthlonXP which runs on a VIA KT133A chipset - which I wouldn't describe as the best chipset ever for Athlons. BUT: It's a Gigabyte board, which I would like to believe is good product. I've had it for a year and a half. It runs Setiathome, acts as a gateway and mailserver, squid proxy and a host of other things that puts strain on resources. I've only ever had to restart this machine when I added hardware, it's never been unstable for a second. -- Kind regards Hans du Plooy Newington Consulting Services hansdp at newingtoncs dot co dot za -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
