Mr Steveo said:
FWIW
Late last summer I bought an Asus P4B533-E (845E). Contrary to info in this thread, that Asus 845E will support all the way up to 3.06GHz and will suport Hyperthreading with BIOS updates. Of course I sold it to get a 845PE 
so I never got to find out myself. But there are folks at www.abxzone.com running that 845E with HT CPUs.
Secondly, I then went on to an Asus P4PE (845PE). Contrary to info in this thread, Asus did relase BIOS updates for the P4C 800MHz CPUs. They will work in that Asus 845PE. Again I didnt keep it long enough to find out, but people are using the P4Cs in P4PE mobos.
Thirdly, I spent a few years with AMD systems. Sure, they didnt change the socket. But I cant tell you how many times Id buy a certain chipset mobo to find out that within six months you needed a new mobo for CPU support or optimizations. The AMD world plays the platform obsolesence game too. Intel changes sockets. AMD related mobos just stop CPU support to encourage people to upgrade. They are two different paths to the same end.
And of course ask any person with a new nForce2 who doesnt read roadmaps how happy they are that their brand new socket A is already capped out thanks to A64 coming.
My point(s)?
1. CPU support for Intel boards isnt as bad as indicated in this thread. It all depends on if the specific brand of mobo you are using is from a company that is known for updating CPU support frequently (a strong point of Asus)
2. Note that in points 1 and 2 above I state, I never kept the motherboard long enough to find out. Many enthusiasts are the same way. They buy a motherboard, drool over its anticipated CPU support life. But once CPU buses change, or features change, or 6 to 9 months go by; these said entusiasts buy a newer motherboard anyway.
Point being: When P4 C 800FSB was announced, what was everyones question in Asus forums?
It was, "Will it run in my 845PE? The answer was, "Yes it will."
The answer made everyone happy at the time. But how many people do you see running around with 845PEs and P4C CPUs? Almost none! The same people that last winter demanded their 845PEs run the new CPUs, were the same folks who bought the Canterwood the first 12 weeks it came out!
---------------------------------------
So....
In practicality, people tend to rant and cry for longer CPU support. But the majority of enthusiasts dont even use all of the CPU support life once its given to them. They end up going on to the next greatest motherboard even if their current one has a longer CPU life. And as such for the majority of people, the entire topic is moot.
JMHO
Very good observations.
I would like to add a rant or two of my own. It's infectious.
)
Failing to meet "Great Expectations" is not entirely Intel's fault. As u mentioned the i845PE chipset was not validated/designed for 800 MHz FSB operation. But what did the cream Taiwanese mobo makers do? - promise boards with 800 MHz FSB support. Some early versions don't carry the support, some later versions do - only adding to the confusion. And even buying these newer versions doesn't make "good sense" all the time, since the new platform is just over the corner, and will be available with the release of the new CPU also.
But there's a price to pay if you wanna stay on the bleeding edge.
As far as I know mobo makers skimped on the voltage requirements for Prescotts, and that has made a lot of ppl really mad at Intel. Can u blame Intel for that?
I am not advocating Intel's policy of changing sockets and FSBs, and voltages so "frequently" but mostly the intense competition is "forcing" them to do so.
Well what am I doing - Playing the Devil's advocate?
)
Maybe it would seem more fair from the consumer side if Intel/AMD would release only "mature" platforms", platforms with a longer life span - right. But they don't do that, they release sort of "intermediary platforms" in the process. But in an industry so dynamic, trying to release "mature platforms" might be = "You've missed the boat". In many cases it's like a chicken and egg question - OS first or platform first? Prescott first or DDR2 first? It would be best if consumers could have the full package - Tejas, DDR2, OS, apps, and games that can take full advantage of the new, powerful platform - but that is not gonna happen. Things in the real world are more likely to happen step by step, gathering momentum on the way.
Marketing is like a "tricky psychological intercourse" with the consumer. If the marketers get the better of the consumers, they buy what the marketing ppl want to sell. If consumers don't buy or buy with a lot of discretion, marketers are forced to lower prices, withdraw/improve the product.
The way I see it, it's a competition about getting the $ out of the consumers pocket into the corporation's pocket. Every company is fighting for the consumer $. So even if a platform will live for only 6 months, so what - it might bring million of $ to the producer. If Intel/AMD don't get the money, maybe Samsung will with it's TFT panels. ATI or Nvidia? Or some DVD player manufacturer. Or maybe some holiday tour operator. Or why not MS? So, whoever can get the ball rolling in quckest time, has a better chance of grabbing some green stuff. The product might suck big time initially - but improve within six months. To have a large mindshre and user base, getting a product out and promoting it is very important. When you've got the better version, you'll have many more adopters. And remember - enthusiasts are not the only ppl out there!
Nowadays there are too many options - so there is a lot of "cognitive disonance" or "buyer's remorse". Without hope we cannot live - we need something to look forward to. But too many things to look forward to can make us unhappy too.
Enough of babbling and wannabe philosophy - End Of Rant. Thanks everybody.
