From the article you'd just posted:
P4B266
Price: $120-140
Pros: Scads of features, including some cool, unique BIOS goodies.
Cons: Some instability ; cluttered layout.
Score: 6/10
So the 845D isn't completely bulletproof, either?
Like I said, it depends far more on the manufacturer's implementation of the chipset, as opposed to the chipset itself. The same article goes on to say that the Asus 645 board was fully stable. So Asus messed up the 'more stable' chipset and magically made the 'less stable' one stable?
Doubtful. Chances are, when a 'bad' motherboard is received, it has far more to do with the quality and the construction of THAT INDIVIDUAL board, not what type of chipsets are on it. Bad capacitors, bad voltage regulators, what have you. These things are FAR more liable to make a motherboard a poor one, not what type of chipset that are used. The most stable folding machines I've ever used was an MSI KT266A board. VIA chipsets are usually regarded as being less stable than Intel chipsets. However, MSI just knew how to put this particular board together. They used quality components and put it together in a solid fashion. Now, the worst board I've ever seen was also an MSI. A K7 Master. Although the AMD 761 chipset used in this board was generally regarded as a solid solution, this board sucked!!!! It never stopped with the problems. Eventually, one of the PCI slots died, and it would not reboot correctly, if it ever booted it at all. I didn't RMA it; I though it was so bad I let a friend of mine pull it apart with a pair of pliers. Something with this board was funny, and it was quality control, not the chipset. I owned another 761 board, a DFI AK76-SN. It was crazy stable, and inexpensive to boot. (check the aforementioned article for a review on DFI's 845D board. Typical of DFI tradition, it's solid as a rock.)
/short novel mode
I'll argue to my death that the motherboard makers' quality control and choice of components has far more to do nowadays with motherboard stability than the chipsets ever will.