Slashdot Mirror

Apparently those checks are at the behest of the Notebook manufacturers (Dell) who don't want to support multiple driver versions. This of course means that your card is stuck with whatever version of the driver it shipped with, even if that version was from 2005 and has bugs in modern games.

Luckily, MobiltyModder works and is pretty easy to use. Updating to the current driver cleared up the bluescreening issues I was having with Torchlight and everything.

physx seemed nice until they tried to close source it. Does Nvidia have anything left this round? Bad Yields, physx being stupid and abusive when disabled (it only uses 1 cpu core when on AMD for example instead of even all threads). Not to mention their crippling of batman as well.

So what's left for Nvidia? I don't see a whole lot.

ATI doesn't want to release drivers to notebook users.

There is an app for that!

http://www.driverheaven.net/modtool.php

That modifies the regular Catalyst suite so it doesn't go "Eh you don't have a compatible card in your system".

The new version 5.10.0.3540 of kX Audio Driver, which includes Vista support, has apparently been removed yesterday from the narod.ru server for "violation of rules". Any relation to this story?

... as an idiot-proof installer and let users download the drivers themselves, like the patcher which generates the ATI Mobility Radeon drivers from the normal ATI Radeon drivers (see here). This would probably be legal in most country with the inevitable exception of the US, but even then their complaint would be weaker as he's not distributing their IP.

Out of curiosity, why are you running Vista on your older laptop?

Because I can? Because it works? Because the laptop runs it quite well and saves me money not having to buy a new laptop (probably in the cards for this year if I get any more dead pixels in the LCD or if my battery starts dying, though)? The laptop is not dual-core, though I did upgrade to 2GB of RAM and a 7200RPM hard drive (did that back with XP just as a general hardware refresh, not in prep for Vista). Functionality-wise, Aero Glass works perfectly and is properly accelerated on my x300 to keep load off of the CPU (Dell doesn't keep up with the Vista drivers for my laptop anymore, so I have to hack the latest drivers from ATI instead. Note that while the hack tool claims you need to turn off UAC in order to run it, you really only need to run the tool with admin privileges for it to work; yet another case of amateur software developers not "getting it"). The laptop sleeps and resumes properly with Vista like it never did with XP (always had to hibernate, or risk not coming out of sleep at all). I like to play around with writing gadgets for the Sidebar, which isn't available in XP. I would swear that I even get better battery life in Vista than in XP, being able to eek out nearly 3.5 hours of battery life on my 2.5 year old battery that should be hitting its half-life (my last laptop's battery took a nose-dive around year 2), where I was lucky to run for 3 hours in XP with the exact same battery. And I have all of the "expensive" things (Aero, indexing, system restore, etc) running without any impact to performance or battery life, though I don't really know how that's possible :). I even did an upgrade (not a clean install), which is typically a terrible thing to do! Sometimes I think I have a magic Vista installation, since my net experience has been extremely positive where everybody else seems to have a worse experience compared to XP. I get the feeling that my laptop (Dell Inspiron 9300 from 2005) was a popular model with the Windows developers, and may have gotten more focus than other makes and models. Otherwise I can't explain how such an old machine (albeit upgraded) could run Vista so perfectly when so many people claim so many problems with much newer hardware.

So, is it the novelty for you? or does it actually do something better than the OS you were presumably using before you switched?

To be honest, it started out as novelty but now that I've used it for a year and with SP1 on the horizon (next week?), I can't honestly see myself ever going back to XP. What few compatibility issues I've run into have been easily solved either with software updates or by using a different app (I admit that's not always possible, but so far it has been for me). Everything else as mentioned above has been better in Vista than XP, so why would I go back?

(For the record, I'm not a fanboy. I run Linux as well, just not on this machine. See my sig for proof.)

I couldn't play Icewind Dale II in Windows XP. There are issues with many laptop input drivers screwing with the keyboard in that game. I couldn't resolve the problem, so I switched to linux, copied the Icewind Dale II directory, which was patched and had a no-CD crack, and it runs swimmingly. The only issue is that my linux cursor still shows on top of the game, but I rarely notice it.

I never got into the Windy Dale games, but the Baldur's Gate games work just fine on my Vista-running laptop (and in XP before I installed Vista). Windy Dale II still uses the Infinity Engine just like Baldur's Gate (though obviously updated), so I'm surprised it doesn't work for you.

I also remember trying to play Escape From Monkey Island(tm) in Windows XP, but there was this one part of the game that you couldn't get past (rowing up to Pegnose Pete's swamp shack). When playing The Curse of Monkey Island(tm), the cut-scenes would blaze past in seconds. I had to install Windows 98 to play the games. Compatibility mode didn't cut it. Other games that won't work in XP are Myst and Riven.

I had no problem with Escape From Monkey Island under XP (haven't gone back to play it under Vista), no compatibility switches required. For older Monkey Islands, ScummVM is the way to go. Grim Fandango (EFMI updated the Lua engine from GF) worked great in XP as well, though I did suffer an occasional crash.

Like you, I'm using a laptop (mine from Dell), and aside from having to hack official video drivers in order to get the latest updates I've had no problems with drivers.

Actually I wanted to get rid of hiberfil.sys since it was just sucking up empty hdd space.

http://www.driverheaven.net/windows-vista-forum/115306-vista-hyberfil-sys.html

Shows how to do it from command line and no one even explains the gui method since they hid it so well.

Hunted around and managed to get drivers for most things, but the nvidia driver refuses to work...

Don't blame HP for that one. Blame nVidia's insistence that OEMs support mobile chipsets with their own "official" drivers (which the likes of HP/Compaq and Dell never keep up to date, of course). The thing is, mobile chipsets are generally no different from their desktop counterparts when it comes to drivers. For nVidia drivers, check out LaptopVideo2Go.com. For ATi, try DH Mod tool. In either case, the "problem" is that the inf for the drivers don't contain the right information to detect mobile chipsets, even though the drivers will work just fine on them. The "fix" is to hack the inf so that the installers will allow you to apply the drivers to your mobile card.

Acer sucks quality-wise, however.... ATI and nVidia sell quite a few GPUs to notebook manufacturers that do not stick to the reference designs. Toshiba & HP are other nVidia / ATI notebooks that won't take the default Mobility/ForceWare drivers.

It's not that they change the GPUs (what, you think Acer et al have the ability to re-design and re-fab ATI/nVidia's chips?), but that the drivers just don't have the right enumerations for the laptop hardware. In most cases, this is a simple fix with a tool like DH Mod Tool (there may be something similar for nVidia chipsets, but I have an ATI x300 so this is the tool I use). Works flawlessly for me.

DHmod3 is your friend. As far as I can tell, his tool just hacks the 'allowed pci signature' (I don't know the technical term), so you can download generic Radeon drivers and use them on laptop chipsets (when your laptop manufacturer has not done a deal to allow the generic updates to work).

- http://www.madshrimps.be/gotoartik.php?articID=482
- http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articl eid=861&cid=1
- http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6538
- http://www.mvktech.net/content/view/3357/48/
- http://pcper.com/article.php?aid=287
- http://uk.theinquirer.net/?article=33872
- http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/08/23/review_ati _radeon_x1950_xtx/
- http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/X1950XTX
- http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=954
- http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/radeon-x1950x tx/index.x?pg=1
- http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2007324 ,00.asp
- http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/08/23/ati_releases_rad eon_x1950/
- http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/375/
- http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/131
- http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=2 020&cid=3&pg=1
- http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_x19 50_xtx_performance/
- http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/X1950XTXreview /

up to date list: http://www.madshrimps.be/forums/showthread.php?s=& threadid=26526

http://www.driverheaven.net/patje/

You need the Mobility Modder, which allows the Catalyst drivers to install on notebooks.

Alternatively check if ATI's Catalyst Mobility drivers, designed specifically for notebooks, supports your brand of notebook.

Listed alphabetically.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2593
http://www.avault.com/hardware/getreview.asp?revie w=evga6800gs
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/grafik karten/2005/test_nvidia_geforce_6800_gs/
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/X16_GS/index.h tm
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/278/
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=ODgy
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articl eid=747&cid=2
http://www.noticias3d.com/articulo.asp?idarticulo= 541
http://www.nvnews.net/previews/geforce_6800_gs/ind ex.shtml
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q4/geforce-6800g s/index.x?pg=1

There are lots of other reviews out there, too. Looks like the 6800GS kicks the X1600 where it hurts. Over and over and over again.

- [H]ard|OCP
- Avault
- Computer Base
- Driver Heaven
- Guru3D
- Hartware
- HotHardware
- Noticia3D
- nV News
- The Tech Report

I shamelessly stole this list from Hardocp.com

give this a try
http://www.driverheaven.net/showthread.php?t=71596

obviously you missed the fact that when gaming at 1600x1200 and are using 4x antialiasing and 8x anisotropic filtering that the x1800xt beats the shit out of the gf7800.

if you're buying a 500 dollar card, are you seriously worried about benchmarks that are run without aa+af? this card even does HDR (hi dynamic range) plus AA, something that the gf7800 can't.

this card is way more sophisticated and highly refined that the brute force 7800. the 7800 isn't bad but that this card can do with 16 pipelines what the 7800 can't do with 24, says a lot.

and that's just raw performance with todays games. never mind the fact that the 1800xt comes with 512megs of super fast ram... ready for well into the next generation of games, whereas 256meg 7800's are already obsolete for the high end of the next generation. sure 256 will be enough if you pare down the resolution and lower the texture detail. one example is the game F.E.A.R... on the 1800xt it absolutely trounces the 7800 in performance.

my advice... read ALL the reviews you can get your hands on. there are too many discrepencies if you only read one or two. if you want to get a more full picture, get to reading.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2552

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/r520/

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/r520reviewxvxv /

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1867116 ,00.asp

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_x18 00_xt_xl/

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/262/

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=ODIy

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=3603

http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.cfm?article id=734&cid=2

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews /ati_radeon_x1800_x1600preview

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=172

http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?id=407

http://www.techreport.com/onearticle.x/8864

and check out the wicked new 3d tech demos... both are very impressive but the toystore demo is jawdropping.

http://www.ati.com/designpartners/media/edudemos/R adeonX1k.html

wmv9 hi def format but plays fine in mplayer or VLC.

I don't think it will be *that* bad. Other sites like DriverHeaven are giving a marginal nod of the X1800XT over the 7800GTX even with the new Nvidia drivers. One thing that Nvidia has been fortunate about is by getting to market 6 mos earlier, they have 6 mos of driver tweaking to boost their performance. I trust ATI driver development more than Nvidia ,and suspect a similar 5-10% boost over the lifetime of the card will occur.

At the lower end though you're right, the 1600 and 1300 models aren't very strong contenders. But given the lower number of pipes on the X1800 (16), theoretically this chipset has ALOT more headroom if it goes to 24 or 32 down the road.

Listed alphabetically so no preference to which site is good or not.

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/r520/
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/r520reviewxvxv /
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/262/
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=ODIy
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=3603
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews /ati_radeon_x1800_x1600preview
http://www.noticias3d.com/articulo.asp?idarticulo= 527
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=172
http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?id=407
http://www.techreport.com/onearticle.x/8864

About the SLI profiles, anyone can create an SLI profile for a game if they want to, it just takes a bit of research beforehand. Have a look here. It should work for pretty much anything, but it takes a bit of tweaking.

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/crossfire/
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/09/26/ati_cr ossfire_detail/1.html
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/crossfireatire viewxxx/
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=ODE1
http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.cfm?article id=730&cid=2
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=168
http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?id=404
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q3/ati-crossfire /index.x?pg=1
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20050926/ index.html

Almost certainly. I tend to think of the Radeon 9200 as comparable to the GeForce FX 5200, although the latter does support Core Image.

The first Google hit for ati 9550 is a DriverHeaven review, which someone mentioned on one of the rumor site forums. It shows the 9550 soundly beating the 5200 in every benchmark.

The 9550 continues Apple's tradition of shipping bottom-of-the-barrel video cards, but at least the iBook has a dedicated 3D card, unlike some value notebooks.

again from driverheaven

Despite Kutaragi's comments last week that it was "game over," Sony shake-up prompts chipmakers to sit again at the negotiating table.

originally spotted on driverheaven.net

ATI is already shipping DirectX 9 class IGPs for both AMD and Intel, and the reviews are looking pretty good: here's an ASUS board for Intel CPUs, and a review of the AMD chipset. If you're looking for very good IGP, these definitely look like a very good option!

ATI and Driverheaven was planning an unofficial support for Linux Radeon drivers. They're now opening a new section in their forum for that.

ATI and Driverheaven was planning an unofficial support for Linux Radeon drivers. They're now opening a new section in their forum for that.

Hmmm, sorry previous link messed up: http://www.driverheaven.net/showthread.php?p=54186 0/

HOWEVER, you CAN mod the catalyst driver sets to work with your laptop without difficulty. It is obviously a "do at your own risk" deal, so if something fucks up you can't blame ATI for going your own route (even though in all likelihood nothing bad will happen). Go here.

In Linux, the binary driver sets specifically include support for the mobility cards:

ATI MOBLITIY(TM) Product Support The ATI Proprietary Linux driver is designed to support the following ATI MOBILITY(TM) product family: MOBILITY(TM) RADEON(TM) 9600 MOBILITY(TM) RADEON(TM) 9200 MOBILITY(TM) RADEON(TM) 9000

Here are some more review links for those who are interested:
Tom's Hardware
Bit-Tech
Driver Heaven
AMD Zone
Hard Tecs 4U
PC Perspective
Ace's Hardware
Sudhian

stolen from Anandtech

HardOCP
Ascully
DriverHeaven
TrustedReviews
K-Hardware
Hardware Analysis
Hexus
The Tech Report
Beyond3D
Neoseeker
ExtremeTech
Gamers Depot
Lost Circuits
Firing Squad
Tom's Hardware
Bjorn3D
Hot Hardware

Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 10.9). Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 12.3). Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 14.9). Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 17.4).

On Win98 you *had* to reformat regularly to keep performance up.

Shrug. I had a Win98SE box go nearly 3 years without a reformat. No noticeable performance degredation either.

With WinXP Pro I reformat when I do major hardware changes, and thats it.

Which isn't necessary either if you do a repair install instead (by "major" I'm presuming you mean a new MB and/or CPU; possibly graphics card seeing as how godawful the graphics card drivers are at properly uninstalling themselves. But there's a solution for that as well).

XP Home (why why WHY is it allowed to exist) are a different story

Uh... would you care to clarify why you feel XP Home is more vulnerable to needing a reinstall than XP Pro? The two have very minimal differences in functionality, none of it in the driver/registry/file system arena.

check this driver review at driver heaven, especially the flash animation on page 3 showing differences in image between different driver versions(also the stats for the speed difference)

it's shit like this(also $$$ issue) why i'm recommending ati over nvidia on this crop of cards to my friends when they ask.

about detonators, check this driver/hw review http://www.driverheaven.net/articles/aquamark3/ind ex.htm , especially the flash animation on page 3 that shows image quality between different driver versions.

Now, im sure most of you have read Gabes recent comments regarding the detonator 51.75s, and Nvidia's offical response but I really do have to say, having seen this first hand it confirms to both myself and Veridian that the new detonators are far from a high quality IQ set. Alot of negative publicity is currently surrounding Nvidia, and here at driverheaven we like to remain as impartial and open minded as we possibly can, but after reading all the articles recently such as here coming from good sources and experiencing this ourselves first hand, I can no longer recommend an nvidia card to anyone. Ill be speaking with nvidia about this over the coming days and if I can make anything public I will.

The Detonator 51.75 drivers loses even more details over the 45.33 drivers. Especially note how the green on the foreground landrover is darker than the other two shots. Now, these drivers are beta, and not available to the public, so let's hope by the time they're released, the lowered image quality won't be in them. Because frankly, I'm just shocked how much better the Radeon 9800 Pro looks over the new Detonator 50 drivers on a GeForce FX 5600 Ultra, and any self-respecting gamer will choose the image quality on the Radeon 9800 Pro anyday. The amount of visual quality loss is not worth the, on average, 2-3fps that are shown to have been gained with these drivers in AquaMark 3.

Don't forget that the Det 50 drivers have been shown to substantially reduce image quality.

This isn't the first time something like this has happened. Everquest (Sony is butt buddies with NVIDIA in regards to this game) runs amazingly fast on my NVIDIA GeForce2MX 220 at 60 fps at 1280x1024 with a lot of details turned on, yet runs like garbage on my ATI Radeon 9700 Pro on a similarly configured system. Sometimes it even becomes a slideshow. I am not the only person to experience this as many other people have complained about it. The unfortunate side to this is that most people complain about the hardware rather than the software.

Now this issue is quite different. There was a write up recently on why NVIDIA hardware is so much slower than ATI hardware when using 2.0 pixel shaders. I don't remember the URL, so if anyone would be so kind to post it that would be great. Basically, it was stating that the Detonator 40 drivers needed to be rewritten to better take advantage of 2.0 pixel shaders. Detonator 50 drivers are a lot faster and fix this problem, but they do reduce image quality quite noticeably. This could be the reason that swayed Valve's decisions.

The fact of the matter is, we need next generation GeForce chips.

First, I think it's important to note that Anand was instructed to not use the Det50s in his tests because they failed to render fog in the demos, which would obviously impact performance.

Second, check out this image quality comparison over at DriverHeaven with Aquamark 3. It sure looks to me like nVidia is back to their old tricks again.

As if you didn't have enough - This one is quite good.

That's not quite true anymore. The new catalyst drivers and even the cyborg custom driver sets are doing pretty good. When there was a problem with gta3 rendering too much fog it was fixed in a matter of days, pretty slick.