Re: PC Chips motherboard
- From: "Hackworth" <NoSpam4Me@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:45:35 -0500
"David Maynard" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:11oqvsebkrhfc1b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hackworth wrote:
>> "philo" <philo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:kdKdnYQR9Mc5nBDeRVn-uQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>>"Norm Riquier" <slowskan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:tpcpo1lh5nfsto33ch60su4liu4gfrrulv@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>>I need help.. this is very puzzling to say the least. In 2002
>>>>I bought and put together a computer using a PC Chips motherboard
>>>
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>*never* go with a PC Chips motherboard...
>>>there are some brands better than other...
>>>but the PC Chips is at the bottom of the line.
>>
>>
>> You know, it's funny, but I've never had a problem with PC Chips
>> motherboards. Isn't that the damndest thing? Don't get me wrong, I'm
>> fully aware of the problems and history associated with this brand, but
>> I'm knocking on wood and counting myself as one of the lucky ones.
>>
>> As the family (and extended family) computer geek, I accumulate parts and
>> then assemble systems for family members for free. (Hey, it's a hobby and
>> they appreciate it.) Because of the low price, I've used PC Chips
>> motherboards for about a decade now with no problems (for K6, PIII, P4,
>> Celeron, Athlon, and Athlon XP platforms). At least two K6-III systems
>> (for neice and nephew) that I know of are still running daily (the others
>> having since upgraded to more powerful machines).
>>
>> IMHO, if you get a PC Chips board that works, it's actually a great
>> bargain, as every subsystem most folks need is usually built in. I think
>> the biggest problem is that PC Chips had quality-control issues several
>> years ago and has been trying to shake that reputation ever since. I
>> don't think the build quality of the boards is necessarily "bad," only
>> that too many boards that *are* bad manage to leave the factory instead
>> of getting pulled before that happens. That's why I indicated that if
>> you're lucky enough to get one that works, you should have a reliable
>> workhorse for years to come.
>>
>> With all of that being said, I usually stick with Asus for my own primary
>> machine. I guess it's hard to shake those preconceived notions. Life is
>> funny, huh?
>
>
> I too have had some decent experiences with PCChips motherboards but their
> reputation doesn't stem simply from quality control issues. It also stems
> from, in the past at least, pasting "PC100" on boards that did not support
> a 100MHz FSB, boards that claimed to support 83MHz FSB but, surprise, the
> on-board sound dies at 75Mhz and the on-board video dies at 83, chipset
> names like "BX Pro" that are not in any way BX chipsets, and other
> blatantly deceptive misrepresentations. Just about any time they tacked
> "Pro" onto something you could bet it wasn't what the rest of the name
> suggested it was. It was their way of stealing the original, hoping you'd
> think that's what it was, while making it their 'trademark' for something
> different
Ah, yes. I had forgotten about those not-so-good old days! I do indeed
remember the big stinks surrounding the scenarios you mentioned. Thanks for
refreshing my memory. It was kinda nostalgic, actually.... ;-)
Fortunately, PC Chips *seems* to have dropped such tactics nowadays. I
can't imagine them being able to get away with such things today. Today's
PC geeks are far too savvy for that, I think.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: PC Chips motherboard
- From: David Maynard
- Re: PC Chips motherboard
- References:
- Re: PC Chips motherboard
- From: David Maynard
- Re: PC Chips motherboard
- Prev by Date: Re: What is your favorite PC case?
- Next by Date: Re: how do I load win98 on HD??
- Previous by thread: Re: PC Chips motherboard
- Next by thread: Re: PC Chips motherboard
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
