Ars Technica heeft een reactie gepost op de BX roundup van Anand. Welke methodes gebruikt Anand om te bepalen wat stabiel is?
However, I must admit, I am a bit perplexed by how one arrives at a stability rating for a motherboard. In my own testing sessions, I've seen systems crash when running a test suite like Winstone even though they would rarely crash otherwise, even in very intensive use. Is Winstone a good test of stability? The purportedly less-than-stellar stability of Abit motherboards hasn't bitten me in hours and hours of intensive use on my BH6 (nor on my old IT5H). Running Windows NT with a massively overclocked Celeron, I only need reboot to update drivers or to pop into Linux or something. The Blue Screen of Death hasn't visited for months on end. If this motherboard, as a piece of hardware, has a stability problem, it's news to me.
Of course, I'm sure it'd crash more often in Win98, but it that the fault of the hardware? The OS? Or, in the case of relative judgements of stability versus competing BX-based motherboards, does a board's reputation for stability or instability have to do with the black art of PnP interaction between the board and the OS? If it's this magical interaction with the PnP parts of Win9x that's causing a board to trip, where should the blame lie for stability problems? Or is that not it at all? Does the manufacture quality of these things vary widely? Or are semi-successful attempts at overclocking--something Abit in particular encourages--the source of stability woes?
Daar ben ik het dus helemaal mee eens. Met Winstone kun je sowieso geen stabiliteit testen omdat Winstone wazug is. Het ding fokt regelmatig zodanig op dat je 'm compleet overnieuw moet installeren, komt echt niet omdat m'n BX6 labiel zou zijn (Win98 wel)...