Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Intel Hardware

Intel Recalls New Chipset-Based Motherboards 165

Posted by Hemos from the bad-times-for-the-bottom-line dept.
VD writes "Intel Corp., world's largest chip maker, has made a serious mistake, which led the chip giant to recall its recently launched 925 and 915 chipset based motherboards. Intel reported the problem to be with the ICH6 and requested that motherboard makers recall their motherboards from the channel. The chip maker has agreed to pay compensation to motherboard makers for the losses." There's also a Reuters story as well.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Recalls New Chipset-Based Motherboards More

Intel Recalls New Chipset-Based Motherboards

Comments Filter:

  • Ouch! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheGavster ( 774657 ) on Saturday June 26, 2004 @07:45AM (#9536416) Homepage
    Well, Rueter's made it sound like no big deal, but I think its a bit of a confidence killer. Looks how issues with a small subset of a product seem to taint it for life: overheating/crushable AMDs, P4s need super-expensive RAM, GeFroceFXs require a leafblower, etc. Release bugs seem to follow computer parts in spirit well after the flaw is corrected.

    • Re:Ouch! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JAFSlashdotter ( 791771 ) on Saturday June 26, 2004 @07:57AM (#9536471)
      But a quick, well handled recall is 1000% better than deny, deny, deny, deny... oh? oh yeah! we do have a problem!
      • But a quick, well handled recall is 1000% better than deny, deny, deny, deny... oh? oh yeah! we do have a problem!

        How many people remember the Pentium floating point division bug?

    • Re:Ouch! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      What's interesting is that this comes on the heels of what could've been a PR mess for AMD [theregister.co.uk]. The Opteron errata are unlikely to be hit by compiler-generated code, and AMD's taken the appropriate countermeasures (the mentioned BIOS patching, and alerting the world so compiler vendors and so on can test for the cases), but I was expecting Intel backers to try to play it up on par with the FDIV bug. (It isn't, if you're too lazy to read the link.)

      Instead, not only do we get this Intel oops [theinquirer.net] (which actually is

  • Hey... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    How about some useful links instead of the same link repeated three times?

  • Foolish AMD quote (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bender647 ( 705126 ) on Saturday June 26, 2004 @07:46AM (#9536422)
    Sources close to Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) stated that AMD will most likely benefit from this recall as it will gain trust from more consumers.

    In general, a mistake by one competitor does not give me more trust in another. Less trust in the former, yes.

    • > In general, a mistake by one competitor does not give me more trust in another. Less trust in the former, yes.

      I agree. The market hurts when these things happen.

    • Re:Foolish AMD quote (Score:5, Insightful)

      by shird ( 566377 ) on Saturday June 26, 2004 @07:51AM (#9536442) Homepage Journal
      Well to be honest I put more trust in Intel after this incident. Afterall, they were quick to admit their mistake, and are prepared to compensate the manufacturers for any loss.

      Id have a lot less trust if they tried to deny it for ages, until theyre eventually forced to admit the mistake and then not want to compensate people for their losses.

      Of course, with the problem being that the motherboards prevent booting, I suspect its not something they could hide for long - so they really didnt have much choice.
      • I agree. Shit happens, it's how you deal with it that counts. I think a proactive recall strategy is just as important as a solid design track record.

        --
        11 Gmail invitations availiable [retailretreat.com]
      • /points at pile of defective PS2's *ahem* Sony *ahem*

      • Re:Foolish AMD quote (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SoTuA ( 683507 )
        Id have a lot less trust if they tried to deny it for ages, until theyre eventually forced to admit the mistake and then not want to compensate people for their losses.

        Yeah, that rocks. Maybe they learned something from the 585.98234587264872642348725462532 fiasco...

      • Well to be honest I put more trust in Intel after this incident. Afterall, they were quick to admit their mistake, and are prepared to compensate the manufacturers for any loss.

        Of course, with the problem being that the motherboards prevent booting, I suspect its not something they could hide for long - so they really didnt have much choice.

        I find the second point above weightier than the first. Intel was going to be found out about this rather quickly, so the best thing they could do for their own PR and their own bottom line was to neutralize this asap. IMO this doesn't really warrant "trust". They can't be counted on to avoid such huge mistakes to start with, nor is this evidence that they place the needs of partners or consumers above their own. Trust is a warm and fuzzy concept that I'm uncomfortable bestowing in response to coldly calculated bottom-line-driven strategic reactions to PR disasters.

        What this demonstrates is soundness of strategy given that they find themselves in this pickle (of their own making) to start with. They've avoided the even bigger mistake of staying silent, and the redress they're offering to mobo manufacturers is likely to minimize the damage to their relationships with these parties.

    • Re:Foolish AMD quote (Score:2, Interesting)

      by luna69 ( 529007 )
      Granted, but considering AMD's excellent new socket 939-based CPUs, I think that they will see a strong synergistic effect here, with some public doubt about Intel steering the fence-sitters toward Athlon 64 and 64 FX solutions.
    • In general, a mistake by one competitor does not give me more trust in another. Less trust in the former, yes

      Maybe so, but remember, everything is relative: just because AMD doesn't get any more trust, doesn't mean that this doesn't make me trust them more than Intel. But I have trusted AMD for quite some time, since they have not made the mistake of creating a huge pipeline. When people can make good overall decisions, the smaller parts can be worked out easily enough.

  • Costs (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mfh ( 56 ) on Saturday June 26, 2004 @07:47AM (#9536423) Homepage Journal
    The customer is going to pay for Intel's mistake, in many ways. They will have to foot the bill for it, and they will be without computers for a while, unless they have their old systems. How many of you keep old systems lying around? I've got a backup system on hand, but it certainly hurts to have to use it!

    Customers will think twice before being early adopters for Intel, and that is when prices go up.
    • How many of you keep old systems lying around?

      I would suspect that many here do, some would say to excess... I have 4 computers and spare parts enough for another 4 lying around in closets and boxes... :)

    • Re:Costs (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      According this this AP [yahoo.com] article, the majority of the chips are still in the hands of manufacturers, so the consumer impact is minimal.

      • Re:Costs (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mfh ( 56 ) on Saturday June 26, 2004 @08:49AM (#9536678) Homepage Journal
        I think it's the news that hurts most. News is picked up and spread like word of mouth. Early adopters will hold off until they hear good news from a source they trust. Early adopters fund new projects by quickly infusing cash into the company; they get the ball rolling early on in sales, and that means they are critical to sales and research. Intel will feel it, even if just a little.
    • I put my old systems to work on other tasks. Why throw away a perfectly good computer?

      -Z
      • This very philosophy is why I have a houseful of aging computers and a closet full of perfectly good but outdated parts :)

        (Even an XT!!)

    • What old systems? Do YOU have one of these motherboard? If you do, where did you get the PCI-Express video card?
    • Anyone who'd read any of the reviews would've known well enough to stay away from this chipset, even without the product flaw.

      In the grand Intel tradition, this new series of hardware is both slower & more expensive than the previous generation, not to mention that you can't actually find any PCI Express video cards yet. I don't really see too many of these things floating around in the hands of actual customers yet.
  • I was looking for one of these yesterday, and couldn't find one advertised on the sites I normally hit...only abit jank, no genuine Intel pieces.

    I guess my jetnoise athlon can hold on for a few more weeks.

    *sigh*

    • Re:Drat (Score:2, Insightful)

      by idealego ( 32141 )
      CPU's don't make noise - fans do and Intel CPU's produce more heat then AMD's so you need a higher capacity cooler while using an Intel CPU. If your setup is noisy that's because the fans used on it are noisy and you can always replace them.

  • Its clear that... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ankit ( 70020 ) * on Saturday June 26, 2004 @07:49AM (#9536433) Homepage Journal
    This time A times B times C equaled more than the cost of a recall.
    • Lady: "Which chipset manufacturer did you say you worked for?"

      Geek: "A Major one.."
    • "Now should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

      But since I have karma worse than that of satan... no one will ever get a chance to read this. *sigh* Such is life.

      Maybe someone is browsing at 0, or -1?

  • Intel rushed.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Yenhsrav_Keviv ( 694947 ) on Saturday June 26, 2004 @07:50AM (#9536435)
    it seems like everytime AMD puts pressure on Intel, Intel rushes and screws up in some way, like this. The P3 1.13ghz comes to mind.
    • I have a few pIII 1.13 tualitins here, and love them. For approximately 10W you get 80% of the performance of the fastest pIV, as measured on our own math/memory benchmarks. On solar power, this really makes a difference in what it costs to run our lan. And, oh yeah, with the right heatsink, no fan, or a fan with a 30 ohm resistor in series is enough, and they are nice and quiet. We DO have a beowulf...of these, and it rocks. Running Fedora Core 2 at the moment. http://clab.mystarband.net
    • I'd assume this happens to any competitor rushing products to market in the face of fierce competition. Or was it AMD's master plan to suddenly push s940 boards onto the desktop along with s754, killing the supply of Opteron server motherboards, and requiring users to buy [slower] registered memory, then releasing chips based on the new s939 within a year that don't require registered memory. I must have missed that one in their product roadmap.

      It happens. Intel and AMD's struggle for the desktop market is
    • I'm sorry... you're claiming that a 1.13GHz P3 (of any process) has 80% of the performance of a 3.4GHz P4? That's just incorrect. Whilst it's true the P4 executes less instructions per clock than the P3, the difference isn't that big. If anything, a P3 1.13GHz would be equal to a 1.6GHz P4, and nothing much more.
    • Yeah, and it took AMD a year to figure out SOI so they could release the Athlon 64. It goes both ways.
  • Through Xbox Live?

  • We should be more surprised (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Saturday June 26, 2004 @07:52AM (#9536448)
    That this is not a more frequent occurence. Any company that pushes complex technology the way Intel does will always run the risk of this happening. Its no big deal, they are going to fix it and make reparation. From Intels point of view the most damaging part is the marketing boost AMD get from this.
    • >From Intels point of view the most damaging
      >part is the marketing boost AMD get from this.

      I disagree.

      From my viewpoint as a consumer, Intel has gained respect in my eyes for recalling their chips and righting a wrong swiftly. Not screwing the board makers or the end-users with ongoing denials until it's too late. I think Intel gained a bit of good karma for this, not AMD.

      • I think the general point being made is that in recent years Intel has had a number of recalls. One only needs think of the P3 1.13, the i820 MTH, and now this. The biggest of course being the i820 MTH as they had been selling thefor several months before Intel admitted there was something wrong with them.

        When was the last AMD recall you can remember? Now AMD is a lot smaller than Intel and they don't make nearly the number of chipsets, but it does indicate that AMD take more care before they release a pro
  • From the article: The problem with ICH6 can even the cause the computer to not boot. Some motherboard makers reported the loss to be minimal while others reported it to be rather significant.

    Oh, lord... The comedic value to be had in that line alone...

    Were the ones who reported that loss to be "minimal" either Windows or Linux users? In any event, the inability to boot would certainly negate my ability to download that evil free stuff off the internet, so perhaps Intel just mistakenly released their DR

  • Intentions? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Sentosus ( 751729 )
    We all know that Intel puts all their equipment through a strong Quality Assurance check. They run tests on computer equipment that others in manufacturing envy.

    Do we really accept that these motherboards had a bug? Or was Intel trying to paper launch the motherboards using hardware that was still being worked upon?

    Mistakes like these do not happen due to QA or engineering. They happen due to the upper levels of the company pressing a product and tossing a coin in the air that it may work properly long

    • Re:Intentions? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Saturday June 26, 2004 @08:15AM (#9536530)
      We all know that Intel puts all their equipment through a strong Quality Assurance check. They run tests on computer equipment that others in manufacturing envy.

      The first line you wrote pretty much negates all the drivel that follows it. You obviously have absolutely no idea how a manufacturing process works.

      Intel needs to restructure their company.

      Yes because they have been such a consistently pathetic failure over the last 10- 15 years.

      all innovation in the CPU industry is put on hold until the market demands updates in speeds

      The market constantly demands increases in speed as enterprise applications become more sophisticated and complex.

      before we find an accounting error trying to sustain a broken company

      One of the dumbest comments I have ever seen on /. Intel have been in a dream position for the last 20 years to make shedloads of money. They have consistently produced high quality minor engineering miracles used by 100's of millions of people daily. You try design and build a CPU rather than spout mindless, unsubstantiated drivel.
      • "We all know that Intel puts all their equipment through a strong Quality Assurance check. They run tests on computer equipment that others in manufacturing envy.

        The first line you wrote pretty much negates all the drivel that follows it. You obviously have absolutely no idea how a manufacturing process works."

        ISO 9001. Read it. Learn it.

        "all innovation in the CPU industry is put on hold until the market demands updates in speeds

        The market constantly demands increases in speed as enterprise applicatio
    • Mistakes like these do not happen due to QA or engineering.

      RTFA, it was a fab excursion, in other words some problem during manufaturing which was not caught by their tests and or QA.

    • We all know that Intel puts all their equipment through a strong Quality Assurance check. They run tests on computer equipment that others in manufacturing envy.

      I don't know that at all.
      I mean they had the floating point error in the pentium III, the 1.13 ghz coppermine fiasco, and now this bad chipset as the most current example. While AMD may have delays, I don't ever remember them shipping a bad chip. If we look at Intels track record, thier QA is mediocre.

      • [AMD] I don't ever remember them shipping a bad chip

        I don't recall any recent CPU recall, but just last week they had to microcode fix a bug (REP MOVS* screwing up if DF=1 and an instruction from a limited somewhat unlikely set was being executed in parallell) in Opteron.

        • All the modern x86 CPUs I know of have bugs. It's a matter of how serious they are and whether you can fix them without a recall.

          See: Prescott bugs [intel.com]
          Itanium bugs [intel.com]
          Opteron bugs [amd.com]

          Just do a search of errata and the cpu you're interested in.

          Most people won't encounter these bugs because the CPU makers would have tested the CPUs on a superset of what most people do. And nowadays most people don't write new code and of the code that people write, most of it is actually written by compilers, so genuinely novel m
      • In Sept. 1998, AMD shipped a K6-2 300MHz chip that was seriously flawed, but they neither admitted it nor recalled it. And it was bad enough that it should have been recalled: On this flawed CPU, Win32 setup will not run at all; Win95 will only run in 16bit-compatibility mode (and must be cloned to the HD, it won't install there since setup won't run); Linux of any species will not run at all.

        I have a client with one of these chips, and I went round and round with AMD trying to get it replaced, to no resul

  • Tom's Hardware link (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 26, 2004 @08:00AM (#9536483)
    A little more info here:Intel Grantsdale Recall [tomshardware.com]

  • Bleeding Edge (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tx ( 96709 ) on Saturday June 26, 2004 @08:05AM (#9536496) Journal
    You buy new shit, consider yourself a beta tester. Waiting a few months to let others find these problems has always seemed smart to me, and I really don't feel like I lose anything.
    • as there could be a reason they got that last batch of motherboards real cheap. It's not like those suppliers make sure they only carry the latest and most current version of anything.


      Actually, considering the trend to not provide any kind of warrently, i.e. all returns to orig. manufacturer, you have to wonder if reputable vendors have any incentive to carry the most current versions either.

      • Since I buy mostly from clone dealers who may or may not be in business next week, I usually buy retail-boxed components -- so my warranty IS from the manuafacturer. Even so, it depends where the item is meant to be sold. Frex, my Plextor CDRW was made for sale in Europe, not the U.S. (making it a grey market item), so if it'd had any warranty issues I would have had to ship it to Belgium (it's now out of warranty and still working, so the issue is moot). However, it's the exact same hardware as was being s
  • Wow... Haven't we sung this song and danced this dance before with a previous ICH revision? I seem to remember Intel making a similar request/demand of board makers before because of MCH issues, with a similar offer of compensation. Hasn't Intel learned from past mistakes? C'mon guys... just one more reason to use non-Intel (AMD! PowerPC!) hardware - keeps you away from this sort of trouble.

    • Re:Déja vù? (Score:2, Informative)

      by fontkick ( 788075 )
      The earliest releases of Apple's G3 233/266 motherboard had one component that would cause the motherboard to fail when faster processors were added (the Royal Technology brand voltage regulator module). I don't believe Apple ever issued a recall for this. There are also tons of reports of iBook motherboard failures, which Apple is recalling. They even have a link to this problem on the main page of their website.

      There is practically no reason for the average (or above average) user to use PPC architecture

      • There is practically no reason for the average (or above average) user to use PPC architecture when AMD is readily available, cheap, and fast

        AMD is a processor (hardware) is just one piece of the puzzle.

        Most people need complete solutions, and software is the other big part!!

        No, Linux isn't an answer yet. Its good when I want to play i.e. from 5PM till 9AM on weekdays and on weekends.

        Between 9AM and 5PM when my job is at stake, I'd like that damn thing to work!! And Apple's PPC+OSX combo is bett

  • hardware vs software.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sucati ( 611768 ) on Saturday June 26, 2004 @08:11AM (#9536518) Journal
    It's ironic in that if Intel was a software (only) company, this probably wouldn't make a headline. If they were a software company, the customer would probably end up paying for the fix. You have to wonder what it would be like if software was developed and tested with the same rigor as hardware. Instead, software is often pushed out the door, chock full of bugs, and it's the customer who ultimately pays the price. Of course I'm generalizing, I understand there's plenty of quality software out there, but much more poor quality software. The obvious explanation is that software is of lesser quality because it can be; it can be patched, and with great efficiency these days via auto updates, whereas hardware doesn't afford the same benefit.
    • If intel was a software company, they could release a patch, and fix the problem, without actually having to have physical access to the product. If the hardware could be fixed by a firmware upgrade, they would have done that, and the news would not have been so big. Because there's something more complex about the problem, they actually have to replace the motherboards. Fixing mistakes is much easier when it's just software.

  • NOT a big deal (Score:5, Informative)

    by Egekrusher2K ( 610429 ) on Saturday June 26, 2004 @08:13AM (#9536521) Homepage
    For one thing, this news is 2 days old now. Thanks for staying current. :rolleyes: For another, this is not a design flaw, it was a manufacturing flaw- a thin film substrate wasn't completely removed from the chipset before the chips were sent out to the mobo manufacturers, and they believe that the "recall" will only affect, at most, 1000 motherboards. Lastly, there are no video cards available on the market that can be used on these motherboards, as they can use ONLY PCI Express video cards, not AGP. Therefore, virtually noone can even use the boards yet. Early adopters? I doubt if there are any yet. Oh yeah, one last thing- I'd like to know what manufacturer doesn't use chipset based motherboards???? The poster of this article sounds like he was just trying to raise a ruckus, without even being informed about the issue.
    • Yeah, from what I understand this story was submitted more than one time, once by myself.

      Your message needs to be modded up for people to see!
    • The poster of this article sounds like he was just trying to raise a ruckus, without even being informed about the issue.

      Seeing that there are 6 links in that article, and five of them happen to point to the same page, it would lead one to assume that the person posting the article on /. is the same one reporting on the problem.

      That would at least explain why they both seem to be written by a 14-year old.

    • You sure can use these boards... provided they are out of course.

      http://www.allstarshop.com/shop/simprod.asp?pid = 69 80&ad=pwatch

      There is of course, PCI Express video cards out there...

      However, I think reviews indicated the new PCI Express video cards were not quite taking full advantage of the new bus.

      It's quite understandable.

      In any event, I'm not one to ride to the forefront of technological changes. I'll wait for the bugs and performance issues to get ironed out and then look at upgrading next

    • Re:NOT a big deal (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ForceOfWill ( 79529 )
      Oh yeah, one last thing- I'd like to know what manufacturer doesn't use chipset based motherboards????

      It was probably meant to be parsed "((new chipset)-based) motherboards", not "new (chipset-based) motherboards". English needs explicit scoping ;-)

    • this news is 2 days old now. Thanks for staying current. :rolleyes:

      WHAT? OMFG! I'm 2 WHOLE DAYS BEHIND on my news? Just shoot me now, I don't want to live another day...

      there are no video cards available on the market that can be used on these motherboards, as they can use ONLY PCI Express video cards, not AGP.

      A quick search finds several manufacturers' press releases that say they have introduced PCI Express video cards already. Do you realize that "on the market" doesn't mean "on Best Buy shelves"

  • Maybe they can pin this on the blue man group [blueman.com]?
  • What is ICH6?

  • Chipset-based motherboards?! (Score:3, Funny)

    by MagPulse ( 316 ) on Saturday June 26, 2004 @08:51AM (#9536689)
    Good thing I'm still using my chipset-less motherboard [computercloset.org]. It's just a bus!

  • Now we know... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The Intel inside stickers are warnings! :)
  • Should a company like intel be making mistakes like this? It's truely amazing how this company, which excels in committing monopolistic practices, has virtually unlimited finiacial resources, does not have the fastest x86 processor, does not have the best value x86 processor but is still the hugely dominant market leader.

    All they have is the best name recognition- which makes no sense because they habitually relase cpu's/chipsets with major flaws, their P4's(which they said would reach 10ghz) has tapped o
  • install the DRM lockin technology, how silly of them to forget that :)
  • First off, I've seen a lot of Intel-apologist posts, along the lines of "at least they acknowledged the problem quickly" or "these mistakes happen with bleeding-edge hardware". I find it quite interesting that Intel has stumbled (again) where AMD has had (nearly) flawless product launches for several product cycles. The G5 was also a painless launch. Another issue with Intel is the "paper" nature of these launches. Try to find 3.6 GHz. parts - they aren't even listed on pricewatch.com. There is only one pa
    • AMD isn't flawless either. Frex, from this week, http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16774

      Interestingly, this isn't listed on AMD's errata page, which appears to be two years out of date.

      • AMD isn't flawless either. Frex, from this week, http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16774

        Yes, but a) this has caused no known problems and b) there will be a BIOS fix soon.

        Interestingly, this isn't listed on AMD's errata page, which appears to be two years out of date.

        I was able to find the Opteron/Athlon 64 Revision Guide [amd.com] from a post on one of AMD's online forums [amd.com]. It looks like the forums are pretty responsive, from what I saw.

    • I find it quite interesting that Intel has stumbled (again) where AMD has had (nearly) flawless product launches for several product cycles

      Wrong. This is not a design issue, this was a fab event. Anybody who works with semiconductor manufacturing can tell you that this sort of thing happens all to often.

      AMD is not any better. It took them nearly a year to get their SOI process stable enough to launch the Athlon 64. This is just part of the business. It's just unfortunate for Intel that this happen
      • AMD is not any better. It took them nearly a year to get their SOI process stable enough to launch the Athlon 64. This is just part of the business. It's just unfortunate for Intel that this happened on some of the first wafer lots out of the fab and that they didn't catch the problem from class probe and WAT data before they shipped some wafers out.

        There is a QC issue if Intel didn't catch it in time to prevent a multi-million dollar screwup.

        Note that AMD didn't ship anything until it's process was wor

    • AMD's current 35W Athlon 64 2800+ (used in the Acer Ferarri 3200 notebook) is getting close, and from the leaked roadmap [amd64notebooks.com] AMD will be down to 25W with the new 90nm chips that will be available later this year. AMD's main problem is, as usual, marketing weasles who swear up and down that customers don't want AMD chips, even when we beat them over the head and scream SELL ME A PROPER ATHLON 64 NOTEBOOK! Acer and eMachines have done a pretty good job, HP would have if they hadn't stupidly used a 3-year-old nV
  • I applaud Intel for the callback.
    I remember that they replaced my Pentium processor
    when it had the F00F bug in it.

    This was handled very well, even though I am in
    Europe, a new processor was delivered via courier,
    and I had to return the old one at the arrival of
    the replacement, so I had no large downtime.

    They did the right thing then, although at first
    they claimed that only science users should get a
    replacement, and private owners wouldnt notice
    the bug. After a storm of complaints they did the
    right thing, a
  • hmm.... so they're reverting to the breadboard and tube based design?

  • Foiled again! (Score:2, Informative)

    by gibbled ( 215234 )
    from http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20040625_1105 02.html

    According to spokesperson Christian Anderka, a piece of foil which should have been removed from the ICH6 was not removed completely which could result in leakage current in the Real Time Clock circuit and potentially stop a motherboard from booting.

Slashdot Top Deals

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken

Close