Well, that subject sums it up pretty well. ATI's Catalyst driver suite
look dead to me. It's been over a year (http://ati.amd.com/support/
drivers/2k/radeonx-2k.html) since they have released a new driver. I
heard it was supposed to be approximately monthly.. It seems that AMD
bought them and cancelled the whole thing. should my next video card
be an NVIDIA card? Before AMD bought them I would never have even
considered such a thing, but I hate AMD more than I hate NVIDIA, and
ATI's stopped making drivers, so.. Did AMD make them ignore the old
Radeon technology and just work on the new stuff? I see that sort of
thing happen alot.
(It would have made so much more sense for AMD to buy NVIDIA, since,
as alot of people say, NVIDIA cards perform better with AMD and that
ATI cards perform better with Intel)
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "phantom" <beatme101@gmail.com> wrote:
>Well, that subject sums it up pretty well. ATI's Catalyst driver suite
>look dead to me. It's been over a year (http://ati.amd.com/support/
>drivers/2k/radeonx-2k.html) since they have released a new driver. I
>heard it was supposed to be approximately monthly.. It seems that AMD
>bought them and cancelled the whole thing. should my next video card
>be an NVIDIA card? Before AMD bought them I would never have even
>considered such a thing, but I hate AMD more than I hate NVIDIA, and
>ATI's stopped making drivers, so.. Did AMD make them ignore the old
>Radeon technology and just work on the new stuff? I see that sort of
>thing happen alot.
>
>(It would have made so much more sense for AMD to buy NVIDIA, since,
>as alot of people say, NVIDIA cards perform better with AMD and that
>ATI cards perform better with Intel)
"phantom" <beatme101@gmail.com> wrote...
> Well, that subject sums it up pretty well. ATI's Catalyst driver suite
> look dead to me. It's been over a year (http://ati.amd.com/support/
> drivers/2k/radeonx-2k.html) since they have released a new driver.
On Apr 10, 4:48 pm, "John Weiss" <jrwe...@nospamattglobal.net> wrote:
> "phantom" <beatme...@gmail.com> wrote...
> > Well, that subject sums it up pretty well. ATI's Catalyst driver suite
> > look dead to me. It's been over a year (http://ati.amd.com/support/
> > drivers/2k/radeonx-2k.html) since they have released a new driver.
>
> V7.3 was just released. What version do you have?
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "phantom" <beatme101@gmail.com> wrote:
>The hell? I just posted a reply and it didn't get added. I'll sum it
>up:
>http://support.ati.com/ics/
>=
>http://support.ati.com/ics/support/d...asp?deptID=894
>Drivers & Software goes to:
>http://ati.amd.com/online/customerca...l/drivers.html
>Windows 2000 Professional => Radeon => Radeon 9550 series
>http://ati.amd.com/support/drivers/2k/radeonx-2k.html
>Version 6.2. Which is what I have. There was once a 6.3 on that page,
>which I had updated to, but then they rolled it back to 6.2, so,
>figuring it must be more stable, I reinstalled 6.2 on my system.
>
Ah ... I think I see the problem:
Windows 2000
Lots of people are dropping updated support for 3.1, 2000, 98, 98SE, and
Me. They figure the last update for that OS worked; so why add new
fixes? They base this assumption on the fact that Micro$hit isn't
supporting the older crap any more; so why should they?
Ah.. Well then.. I wonder if I can complain to them about it..
On Apr 10, 7:54Â*pm, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote:
> In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "phantom" <beatme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The hell? I just posted a reply and it didn't get added. I'll sum it
> >up:
> >http://support.ati.com/ics/
> >=
> >http://support.ati.com/ics/support/d...asp?deptID=894
> >Drivers & Software goes to:
> >http://ati.amd.com/online/customerca...l/drivers.html
> >Windows 2000 Professional => Radeon => Radeon 9550 series
> >http://ati.amd.com/support/drivers/2k/radeonx-2k.html
> >Version 6.2. Which is what I have. There was once a 6.3 on that page,
> >which I had updated to, but then they rolled it back to 6.2, so,
> >figuring it must be more stable, I reinstalled 6.2 on my system.
>
> Ah ... I think I see the problem:
> Windows 2000
> Lots of people are dropping updated support for 3.1, 2000, 98, 98SE, and
> Me. Â*They figure the last update for that OS worked; so why add new
> fixes? Â*They base this assumption on the fact that Micro$hit isn't
> supporting the older crap any more; so why should they?
>
> --
> Â* Â* _____
> Â* Â* Â*/ Â*' Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* / â„¢
> Â* ,-/-, __ Â*__. Â*____ Â*/_
> Â*(_/ Â* / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
ATI Catalyst seems to be dead 
Linear Mode
