I re-image every 6 months whether I need it or not.
> In certain situations a windows re-install can be done much faster than
> tracking down whats causing the root issue. And you get the added benefit
> of knowing you are starting clean. I know for certain I can have a
squeaky
> clean install of XP in 2 hours. You are not giving any guarantees that
you
> could do similar using the standard troubleshooting process.
> As Morris said he's already done a clean install and the issue still
remains
> so your point is mute..
> > I wish people would quit telling others to reformat their hard drives
and
> do
> > a fresh install of Windows to get video drivers to work better--it's
> > complete horse shit and a huge time consumer.
> > I guess I hadn't said it enough times to help you.
> > If you had searched here, you also would have found threads where I
> > discussed my installation of a Radeon 9700 Pro and how it gave the same
or
> > lower fps as a GeForce 4. However, you can run anti-aliasing and other
> > goodies with no fps hit on the Radeon where it will kill the fps on a
> > GeForce 4. Lesson: if your FPS is low to start with, likely because CPU
> > power is lacking, the Radeon won't help to boost it.
> > The Radeon and the GeForce 4 should not be affected much by resolution
or
> > colour depth.
> > Older cards would crumple under the strain of 32 bit colour or 1600 x
1200
> > resolution.
> > There are about 25 control panel settings that will adjust fps in a game
> and
> > there are about 30 settings in NR2003 that will affect NR2003. List
EVERY
> > single option choice in the game and in Windows Display settings and
> several
> > of us here may be able to help you to either adjust or realise that the
> fps
> > you are getting is "normal" for your set-up. Since there are about 7
> > billion combinations and permutations, if you do not list every single
> > setting and option then it's just guess work and you get lots of
so-called
> > experts telling you to wipe your system and start over--which is BS
> advice.
> > Anything that may be affecting the new video card negatively such as
> > left-over ***from nVIDIA, etc., can be removed easily without wiping
> your
> > system. Also, unless you installed a bunch of ***beyond the drivers
> > themselves, it won't make a*** of difference whether you uninstall it
or
> > not in XP. XP will use the proper driver and ignore the old ones until
> you
> > put the old card back in.
> > Bottom line: you cannot build a system today that will run NR2003 with
all
> > the eye candy on at 32-bit 1600x1200 resolution and have a decent frame
> > rate.
> > Put your GeForce 4 back in and wait for the next gen. of video cards to
> come
> > along.
> > Marc
> > > I just don't get it, I've done everything I can,
> > > put on a new copy of XP professional, reinstalled
> > > everything dx9a, latest drivers for everything, FPS
> > > still suck compared to what the Ti4600 was getting.
> > > using the same settings. Lost everything on the HD
> > > to try and get this card working better, but it just
> > > does not get it. Anyone what to buy it? Should
> > > have kept the Geforce FX Ultra card I had.
> > > Under the setting for D3D in the ATI control panel
> > > what does everyone else set the setting to.
> > > It does not matter what resolution 1280x960x32
> > > or 1600x1200x32 get the same FPS, start around 29 and
> > > goes down to 20 in the trioval at most tracks. The Ti4600
> > > never went below 29 using 4xAA, and 4anso.
> > > is there a tweak utility like the rivetuner somewhere for ATI stuff.
> > > Sorry for all the post about this but it is driving me crazy,
> > > i know this card should work better than this.
> > > The system again.
> > > Clean install of XP pro
> > > 1gig PC800
> > > 2.53 P4
> > > audigy 2
> > > 120gig HD
> > > momo
> > > 9800 Pro.
