Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question

Stefan Patric <tootek2@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:54:36 +0000, Anton Ertl wrote:

Stefan Patric <tootek2@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
I'm not up on Intel boards. In fact, I avoid them. Have read a lot about
incompatibility issues with them and Linux -- mainly Intel chipsets,
onboard graphics and ethernet chips -- especially since the Microsoft and
Intel collaboration to develop hardware that's "Vista Ready." I'm sure
this will change after the Linux community has time to write drivers,
etc.

You don't know what you are talking about. Intel has very good Linux
support, including supplying programming information and free drivers
for the graphics chips (they are pretty much the only game in town in
that respect) and better Linux support for their wireless chips than
most other manufacturers. Their Ethernet chips give very good
performance under Linux and have been very reliable in my experience.

I don't have experience with Intel boards, but they have a good
reputation.

Then why have I been reading so much about "problems" with the new
"Vista Ready" Intel boards, and related Intel hardware, on the Usenet (and
other forums) over the past few months?

I don't know. I have not noticed many such postings. The only issues
I remember seeing: setting the resolution of Intel graphics (solved,
but requires some effort), and the lack of a PATA port on newer Intel
chipsets (and the resulting trouble with the chip providing PATA,
usually the JMicron JMB363; also solved, but may require some effort).
And these issues exist on all boards using these Intel chips, not just
the Intel boards.

This was what I was referring to.
These complaints come directly from people who purchased the boards
specifically to run Linux on. Prior to the release of these new
motherboards, there was hardly a peep about Intel hardware, which is to be
expected -- problems solved, compatibility issues resolved -- and of which
you are referring. With the release of any new hardware -- Intel, Asus,
anybody -- there are usually problems until the Linux community catches up
with the software. That's why any hardware I consider for my Linux systems
has to have been "out there" for at least 6 months or so.

That's certainly a reasonable approach.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed
anton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Most things have to be believed to be seen
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Recommendations for N00b try at DIY
    ... Intel has a huge price cut coming on the ... The Intel Core2s are the best performing chips these days but at ... absolutely no Linux problems with an Nforce board. ... When looking at motherboard reviews you should search for the ...
    (comp.os.linux.hardware)
  • Re: Recommendations for N00b try at DIY
    ... Modern CPUs are all 64 bit, your choices are Intel Core2 or AMD Athlon ... The Intel Core2s are the best performing chips these days but ... absolutely no Linux problems with an Nforce board. ...
    (comp.os.linux.hardware)
  • Re: [SLE] Gnome disappointment
    ... the problem is that Intel can't make AMD ... and SPARC was going to blow away the mainframe. ... NT/W2K have replaced the Sun kit, perhaps the IBM HMC based on Linux may ...
    (SuSE)
  • Re: Another "What Motherboard Should I Buy" question
    ... onboard graphics and ethernet chips -- especially since the Microsoft and ... Intel collaboration to develop hardware that's "Vista Ready." ... this will change after the Linux community has time to write drivers, ...
    (comp.os.linux.hardware)
  • Re: CRN is Outta Their Tree--DARL MCBRIDE?
    ... >Linux box, but I have done a moderate amount of reading) nor do I ... Apple's version of Unix. ... SCO has been about the most backward compatible company to ... that virtually all of the iNTEL based *n*x systems disappeared. ...
    (comp.unix.sco.misc)