From the tests and benchmarks this card is a rather large jump ahead of
the GF4. Much gained fps increase compared to the usual 'newly released'
card yet no one seems to have noticed or cared?
Anyone get one yet and want to share their views?
http://www.sudhian.com/docs.cfm/id/224.sud
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro performance and driver reputation
A poster asked why the ATI Radeon 9700 Pro, a big jump over the GeForce4, was not being discussed. Early reports were mixed in NR2002, with slow performance blamed on leftover nVidia drivers, and a long argument followed over whether ATI's poor driver reputation was still deserved. The cross-posted thread degenerated into AMD versus Intel brand loyalty and complaints about off-topic posting.
hardware: PC/graphics
Automated summary.
"Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> From the tests and benchmarks this card is a rather large jump ahead of
> the GF4. Much gained fps increase compared to the usual 'newly released'
> card yet no one seems to have noticed or cared?
>
> Anyone get one yet and want to share their views?
> http://www.sudhian.com/docs.cfm/id/224.sud
three people have already commented on it. Two have had VERY poor
performance, the 3rd says it smokes (all with N2k2) So I think this card
is going to be another driver nightmare making sure you get your OLD drivers
completely removed before installing the new card and drivers.
dave henrie
It seems the only people having problems with slow performance are the ones
going from an Nvidia card to the 9700. Those that go from an ATI card to a
9700 seem to have no problems. Nvidia conspiracy? Me thinks yes!
Vintook
"Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:PsHf9.444695$UU1.71115@sccrnsc03...
drivers
> completely removed before installing the new card and drivers.
> dave henrie
>
>
>
Quoted text (13 lines)
> > "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > From the tests and benchmarks this card is a rather large jump ahead of > > the GF4. Much gained fps increase compared to the usual 'newly released' > > card yet no one seems to have noticed or cared? > > > > Anyone get one yet and want to share their views? > > http://www.sudhian.com/docs.cfm/id/224.sud > > three people have already commented on it. Two have had VERY poor > performance, the 3rd says it smokes (all with N2k2) So I think this card > is going to be another driver nightmare making sure you get your OLD
"Destroy" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...
it's too expensive for now
not many people have it yet
Quoted text (7 lines)
> From the tests and benchmarks this card is a rather large jump ahead of > the GF4. Much gained fps increase compared to the usual 'newly released' > card yet no one seems to have noticed or cared? > > Anyone get one yet and want to share their views? > http://www.sudhian.com/docs.cfm/id/224.sud >
"Vintook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:kVHf9.2362$[email hidden]...
> Nvidia conspiracy?
No - they just didnt get rid of drivers properly
I'm very wary of ATI after drive nightmares with an orig. Radeon - but the
9700 does appear to be a real performer ( unlike the poor Parhalia)
Doug
You're probably right about the people switching from nVidia to the 9700 as
the ones with problems. All they have to do is run Detonator Destroyer
before they load the 9700 drivers and all should be well.
I have an 8500 and a Ti4400. The drivers for both of these cards are real
solid now.
--
Slot
Tweaks & Reviews
www.slottweak.com
"Vintook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:kVHf9.2362$[email hidden]...
> It seems the only people having problems with slow performance are the
ones
> going from an Nvidia card to the 9700. Those that go from an ATI card to a
> 9700 seem to have no problems. Nvidia conspiracy? Me thinks yes!
>
> Vintook
>
> "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:PsHf9.444695$UU1.71115@sccrnsc03...
> >
> > "Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> > news:[email hidden]...
> > > From the tests and benchmarks this card is a rather large jump ahead
of
> > > the GF4. Much gained fps increase compared to the usual 'newly
released'
> > > card yet no one seems to have noticed or cared?
> > >
> > > Anyone get one yet and want to share their views?
> > > http://www.sudhian.com/docs.cfm/id/224.sud
> >
> > three people have already commented on it. Two have had VERY poor
> > performance, the 3rd says it smokes (all with N2k2) So I think this
card
> > is going to be another driver nightmare making sure you get your OLD
> drivers
> > completely removed before installing the new card and drivers.
> > dave henrie
> >
> >
> >
>
>
It seems like a good card, but I'll have to wait for cheaper versions .
300-400 for any card is way out of my price range.
I've read about 4 reviews so far and all like the 9700.
One thing though is I don't really like playing games at 16x12 because the
font is way to small..... when they start making games with scalable fonts ,
then
it'll be nice at 16x12.......
and , no , I'm not buying a 21'' monitor .........heh heh
joe
Destroy <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (8 lines)
> From the tests and benchmarks this card is a rather large jump ahead of > the GF4. Much gained fps increase compared to the usual 'newly released' > card yet no one seems to have noticed or cared? > > Anyone get one yet and want to share their views? > http://www.sudhian.com/docs.cfm/id/224.sud > >Why cross post that to a strategy gaming group?
Destroy <[email hidden]> wrote:
Quoted text (24 lines)
>Path: newssvr15.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone.columbus.rr.com!cyclone3.kc.rr.com!news3.kc.rr.com!twister.rdc-kc.rr.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail >Message-ID: <[email hidden]> >From: Destroy <[email hidden]> >User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1 >X-Accept-Language: en-us >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim,rec.autos.simulators,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic >Subject: How come no talk of ATI's 9700 Pro?! >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Lines: 7 >Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:07:03 GMT >NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.167.195.236 >X-Complaints-To: [email hidden] >X-Trace: twister.rdc-kc.rr.com 1031749623 24.167.195.236 (Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:07:03 CDT) >NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:07:03 CDT >Xref: newsmst01.news.prodigy.com comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action:588527 alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim:72384 rec.autos.simulators:458015 comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic:768097 > > From the tests and benchmarks this card is a rather large jump ahead of >the GF4. Much gained fps increase compared to the usual 'newly released' >card yet no one seems to have noticed or cared? > >Anyone get one yet and want to share their views? >http://www.sudhian.com/docs.cfm/id/224.sud> It seems like a good card, but I'll have to wait for cheaper versions .
> 300-400 for any card is way out of my price range.
Or do what I'm "planning on". Wait for the new Nvidia card to hit and
everyone dumps their 9700s for it. :)
MadDAWG
Why quote full headers? Idiot...
full name wrote:
Quoted text (28 lines)
> Why cross post that to a strategy gaming group? > > Destroy <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Path: newssvr15.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone.columbus.rr.com!cyclone3.kc.rr.com!news3.kc.rr.com!twister.rdc-kc.rr.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail > >Message-ID: <[email hidden]> > >From: Destroy <[email hidden]> > >User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1 > >X-Accept-Language: en-us > >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim,rec.autos.simulators,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic > >Subject: How come no talk of ATI's 9700 Pro?! > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Lines: 7 > >Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:07:03 GMT > >NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.167.195.236 > >X-Complaints-To: [email hidden] > >X-Trace: twister.rdc-kc.rr.com 1031749623 24.167.195.236 (Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:07:03 CDT) > >NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:07:03 CDT > >Xref: newsmst01.news.prodigy.com comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action:588527 alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim:72384 rec.autos.simulators:458015 comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic:768097 > > > > From the tests and benchmarks this card is a rather large jump ahead of > >the GF4. Much gained fps increase compared to the usual 'newly released' > >card yet no one seems to have noticed or cared? > > > >Anyone get one yet and want to share their views? > >http://www.sudhian.com/docs.cfm/id/224.sud
"MadDAWG" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...
by which time ATI can have a souped up version of the R300 out, at which
point you'll say that you'll wait for Nvidia's answer to that etc :)
the current R300 core can be overclocked to 400 mhz so there's definitely
some headroom for a faster 0,15 micron version even before they swicth to
0,13
I personally just want a card with which I can play the latest games at
1280*960 with FSAA 4X and anisotropic filtering on @ >60 fps , which is
ideal for a 19" monitor....
the 9700pro does this well enough for current games and the upcoming things
like UT2003, except for some very stressfull maps.. perhaps NV30 will do
that better?... but I usually like Ati's 2D and DVD playback better.
Decisions, decisions...
Quoted text (8 lines)
> > It seems like a good card, but I'll have to wait for cheaper versions . > > 300-400 for any card is way out of my price range. > > Or do what I'm "planning on". Wait for the new Nvidia card to hit and > everyone dumps their 9700s for it. :) > > MadDAWG >
"none" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...
now that's overly harsh I think... ok he could have put an "OT:" in the
title, but,
who nowadays would buy a high -end NVDIA or Ati card for something else
than gaming???
for 3D rendering, there are special, stable cards
for bussiness, these are overkill
and just watch the benchmarks for these kind of video cards and you'll see
that everything they use to test it with is video-gaming.
Quoted text (8 lines)
> Hello newbie, > > This (where I am following up to this crossposted message) is a > newsgroup for discussing about PC action games. Not usually about new > videocards, unless related to running certain action game etc. > > There are separate newsgroups for discussing about videocards. Maybe > you should check them?ATI is known for very poor drivers and little if ANY updated drivers.
"Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:alnkb0$1s9vo1$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (13 lines)
> > "Vintook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:kVHf9.2362$[email hidden]... > > Nvidia conspiracy? > > No - they just didnt get rid of drivers properly > > I'm very wary of ATI after drive nightmares with an orig. Radeon - but the > 9700 does appear to be a real performer ( unlike the poor Parhalia) > > Doug > >
"Lannie Schafroth" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...
> ATI is known for very poor drivers and little if ANY updated drivers.
yes, like AMD is know for CPU's that cause instable systems and CPU's that
go up in smokes :)
seriously, I didn't buy an original Radeon because of some of thos issues
(and lacking brute force power) but form everything I've read, drivers are
stable now
There WERE known for that, for last while the drivers are much improved and
many more releases.
Read www.rage3d.com if you want to learn more.
"Lannie Schafroth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
the
Quoted text (12 lines)
> ATI is known for very poor drivers and little if ANY updated drivers. > > "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:alnkb0$1s9vo1$[email hidden]... > > > > "Vintook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:kVHf9.2362$[email hidden]... > > > Nvidia conspiracy? > > > > No - they just didnt get rid of drivers properly > > > > I'm very wary of ATI after drive nightmares with an orig. Radeon - butQuoted text (7 lines)
> > 9700 does appear to be a real performer ( unlike the poor Parhalia) > > > > Doug > > > > > >Quoted text (8 lines)
> Hello newbie, > > This (where I am following up to this crossposted message) is a > newsgroup for discussing about PC action games. Not usually about new > videocards, unless related to running certain action game etc. > > There are separate newsgroups for discussing about videocards. Maybe > you should check them? The Radeon 9700 looks great. I think the main drawback right now is the
price, for all but the most ardent devotees. For current games, the
incredibly fast anisotropic filtering and antialiasing look to be the reason
to get this card. I have an older monitor that really cannot do above
1024X768 without some screen flicker, but my current Radeon doesn't really
have the memory bandwith to support antialiasing at that resolution above
2X, even then some games, particularly the newer ones, will run slower.
If you had a much older card, the Radeon 9700 would probably be worth it.
It has a feature set and raw power that is going to make it a powerful card
for some time to come- Truform 2.0, displacement mapping, 128 bit color, and
so on. The difference between the 9700 and the older Radeons is much bigger
than the GeForce 4 to the GeForce 3.
"Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (7 lines)
> From the tests and benchmarks this card is a rather large jump ahead of > the GF4. Much gained fps increase compared to the usual 'newly released' > card yet no one seems to have noticed or cared? > > Anyone get one yet and want to share their views? > http://www.sudhian.com/docs.cfm/id/224.sud >Awesome card! I can play pretty much every game out there in high resolution
(1024x768 and up) with a minimum of 4x FSAA and 16x anisotropic filtering
with no slowdowns or jerkiness whatsoever. Image quality is superb on all
accounts and the antialiasing has to be the best out there, with small or no
performance hit (depends largely on the application.)
In short, I LOVE this card!
Betelgeuse,
Armpit of the Giant
=============================================
"I Am Become Death, The Destroyer Of Worlds!"
=============================================
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the
Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost
in time, like tears in rain..."
-Roy Batty
Blade Runner
betelg [ at ] cogeco [ dot ] ca
"Destroy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (7 lines)
> From the tests and benchmarks this card is a rather large jump ahead of > the GF4. Much gained fps increase compared to the usual 'newly released' > card yet no one seems to have noticed or cared? > > Anyone get one yet and want to share their views? > http://www.sudhian.com/docs.cfm/id/224.sud > Yeah, panic trolling. NVidia has gotten their ass handed to them for a
change, and the NVidiots have no response.
ATI releases drivers every month or so, and their driver support is
fairly good. I don't know how it benchmarks against NVidia drivers, but
frankly I am concerned more with stability than Q3 scores, and overall they
have been very good.
"SBD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:seLf9.251$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (14 lines)
> > "Lannie Schafroth" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht > news:[email hidden]... > > ATI is known for very poor drivers and little if ANY updated drivers. > > > yes, like AMD is know for CPU's that cause instable systems and CPU's that > go up in smokes :) > > seriously, I didn't buy an original Radeon because of some of thos issues > (and lacking brute force power) but form everything I've read, drivers are > stable now > >That's such a dated comment.
ATI just released a whole new batch of drivers in August for to be
completely compatible with XP SP1. For the past while, ATI has been working
it's arse off releasing drivers and fixing "bugs" and such.
I've been using ATI cards for the past 1.5 years, and I only ran into 1 bug.
It kept causing my early version of Max Payne to crash at a certain spot. I
had just updated the drivers a few weeks ago too. So I checked ATI's site,
and sure enough, a new set of drivers were available. and sure enough, it
fixed the problem and increased general frame rate to boot!
Nvidia seems to be a large company, and seems to get in a lot of ass kissing
sessions with reviewers and such. Also, a lot of Nvidia people seem to be
the ones telling me that "ATI has bad drivers". Then when I ask them why
they say that, they just say "that's what I've heard".
It TOTALLY reminds me of when I am trying to build a computer for someone. I
suggest to them to get AMD processors to save lots of money, and they
sometimes reply "don't AMD processors like, not work with windows, and catch
on fire or something?". Then when I ask why they said that they replay
"that's just what I've heard".
Sorry to go off on a tangent... I'm bored.
Mike
http://mikebeauchamp.com
"Lannie Schafroth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
the
Quoted text (12 lines)
> ATI is known for very poor drivers and little if ANY updated drivers. > > "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:alnkb0$1s9vo1$[email hidden]... > > > > "Vintook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:kVHf9.2362$[email hidden]... > > > Nvidia conspiracy? > > > > No - they just didnt get rid of drivers properly > > > > I'm very wary of ATI after drive nightmares with an orig. Radeon - butQuoted text (7 lines)
> > 9700 does appear to be a real performer ( unlike the poor Parhalia) > > > > Doug > > > > > >On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:40:40 GMT, "SBD" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
I have an 8500. Drivers are fine. Updated frequently, too.
Crash7
Please remove x's from email address.
Feces occurs.
Quoted text (12 lines)
> >"Lannie Schafroth" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht >news:[email hidden]... >> ATI is known for very poor drivers and little if ANY updated drivers. > > >yes, like AMD is know for CPU's that cause instable systems and CPU's that >go up in smokes :) > >seriously, I didn't buy an original Radeon because of some of thos issues >(and lacking brute force power) but form everything I've read, drivers are >stable now> ATI just released a whole new batch of drivers in August for to be
> completely compatible with XP SP1. For the past while, ATI has beenworking
> it's arse off releasing drivers and fixing "bugs" and such.
I used an ATI card for years and never had any trouble at all. Ran smoothly,
no bugs. Fairly regular driver updates.
> It TOTALLY reminds me of when I am trying to build a computer for someone.I
> suggest to them to get AMD processors to save lots of money, and they
> sometimes reply "don't AMD processors like, not work with windows, andcatch
> on fire or something?". Then when I ask why they said that they replay
> "that's just what I've heard".
Ohh I heard this type of thing from lots of "genuises" at local computer
shows just recently. I can't believe people still say this type of
thing..."AMD isn't Windows compatible!"..."It will burst into flames!". It
was hard to resist a chuckle hearing this stuff. :)
Derek
Stormcloud Creations
http://www.stormcloudcreations.com
this is relevent you fool....
none <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (15 lines)
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:07:03 GMT, Destroy <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > From the tests and benchmarks this card is a rather large jump ahead of > >the GF4. Much gained fps increase compared to the usual 'newly released' > >card yet no one seems to have noticed or cared? > > Hello newbie, > > This (where I am following up to this crossposted message) is a > newsgroup for discussing about PC action games. Not usually about new > videocards, unless related to running certain action game etc. > > There are separate newsgroups for discussing about videocards. Maybe > you should check them? >Mike Beauchamp wrote:
> It TOTALLY reminds me of when I am trying to build a computer for someone. I
> suggest to them to get AMD processors to save lots of money, and they
> sometimes reply "don't AMD processors like, not work with windows, and catch
> on fire or something?". Then when I ask why they said that they replay
> "that's just what I've heard".
While I agree with you regarding ATI cards (I have a total of 57 running here in
our A/V Studio system...
I've *seen* AMD processors overheat and catch fire (after a fan failure)! So,
while I still have a few of 'em running, the fan(s) are monitored closely. :)
Bill
--
Fr. Bill Leaming
[email hidden]
"After totaling his Nissan, he said, "Mea Maxima culpa."
"Hobbits network with Tolkien Ring adapters..."
"Honest Officer! The dwarf was on fire when I got here."
"How come pizza gets to your house faster than the police?"
[email hidden]: http://avsim.com
Personal Website: http://catholic-hymns.com/frbill
Catholic Hymns Website: http://catholic-hymns.com
Shared Contemplative Insight: http://sci-world.org
"none"
> There are separate newsgroups for discussing about videocards. Maybe
> you should check them?
> Yes Mr. None, I agree with Powell. ANYTHING that improves your sim is ON
TOPIC here. Ergo discussions about new vid cards are entirely appropriate.
Video Newsgroups DO have a place and we can probably learn from them, but
generally they wouldn't have a clue about how to tweek a vid card for better
simming.
dave henrie
Destroy <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> From the tests and benchmarks this card is a rather large jump ahead of
> the GF4. Much gained fps increase compared to the usual 'newly released'
> card yet no one seems to have noticed or cared?
>
> Anyone get one yet and want to share their views?
> http://www.sudhian.com/docs.cfm/id/224.sud
http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q3/020819/radeon9700-06.html
"Crash7" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...
that
> >go up in smokes :)
> >
> >seriously, I didn't buy an original Radeon because of some of thos issues
> >(and lacking brute force power) but form everything I've read, driversare
> >stable now
>
> I have an 8500. Drivers are fine. Updated frequently, too.
yes well the 8500 as you might know is the Radeon 2
and the 8500 did have brute power, more than it's GF3 counterparts
I was talking about the plain old Radeon...
Quoted text (10 lines)
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:40:40 GMT, "SBD" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > > > >"Lannie Schafroth" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht > >news:[email hidden]... > >> ATI is known for very poor drivers and little if ANY updated drivers. > > > > > >yes, like AMD is know for CPU's that cause instable systems and CPU'sI just bought that card and installed it on a brand new system (P4 2Ghz).
That's just a dream ! (I was using a PIII with an ASUS 8200). Everything is
pushed to the max, I have an excellent frame rate, everything is stable,
nothing more to say :-)
Olivier.
"SBD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:09Wf9.37$[email hidden]...
bericht
issues
Quoted text (8 lines)
> > "Crash7" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht > news:[email hidden]... > > On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:40:40 GMT, "SBD" <[email hidden]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >"Lannie Schafroth" <[email hidden]> schreef inQuoted text (9 lines)
> > >news:[email hidden]... > > >> ATI is known for very poor drivers and little if ANY updated drivers. > > > > > > > > >yes, like AMD is know for CPU's that cause instable systems and CPU's > that > > >go up in smokes :) > > > > > >seriously, I didn't buy an original Radeon because of some of thosQuoted text (15 lines)
> > >(and lacking brute force power) but form everything I've read, drivers > are > > >stable now > > > > I have an 8500. Drivers are fine. Updated frequently, too. > > > yes well the 8500 as you might know is the Radeon 2 > and the 8500 did have brute power, more than it's GF3 counterparts > > I was talking about the plain old Radeon... > > > >"Mike Beauchamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:xIQf9.30462$[email hidden]...
> That's such a dated comment.
> Nvidia seems to be a large company, and seems to get in a lot of asskissing
> sessions with reviewers and such. Also, a lot of Nvidia people seem to be
> the ones telling me that "ATI has bad drivers". Then when I ask them why
> they say that, they just say "that's what I've heard".
I think those Nividiots who say that "ATI has bad drivers" are the same
people who said "The V5 FSAA is blurry"!
-Tim
"none" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> As much as Boss' new album, you stupid newbie.
Are you talking about Springsteen? If so I just got floor seats for Philly
yesterday!! Is that relevant at all?????
yup same here.... never had a problem at all
"Crash7" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
that
> >go up in smokes :)
> >
> >seriously, I didn't buy an original Radeon because of some of thos issues
> >(and lacking brute force power) but form everything I've read, driversare
Quoted text (10 lines)
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:40:40 GMT, "SBD" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > > > >"Lannie Schafroth" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht > >news:[email hidden]... > >> ATI is known for very poor drivers and little if ANY updated drivers. > > > > > >yes, like AMD is know for CPU's that cause instable systems and CPU'sQuoted text (8 lines)
> >stable now > > I have an 8500. Drivers are fine. Updated frequently, too. > > > Crash7 > Please remove x's from email address. > Feces occurs.In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
> ATI is known for very poor drivers and little if ANY updated drivers.
Care to go over to the ATI site and count the updates that have come out
in the past year?
--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Quoted text (18 lines)
> "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:alnkb0$1s9vo1$[email hidden]... > > > > "Vintook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:kVHf9.2362$[email hidden]... > > > Nvidia conspiracy? > > > > No - they just didnt get rid of drivers properly > > > > I'm very wary of ATI after drive nightmares with an orig. Radeon - but the > > 9700 does appear to be a real performer ( unlike the poor Parhalia) > > > > Doug > > > > > > >In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
>
> As much as Boss' new album, you stupid newbie.
I take it your address reflects the status of your brain.
<plonk>
--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Quoted text (26 lines)
> > On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 04:21:04 +0100, "David Powell" > <DavidPowell@<nospam>clara.co.uk> wrote: > > >this is relevent you fool.... > > > >none <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:[email hidden]... > >> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:07:03 GMT, Destroy <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> > >> > From the tests and benchmarks this card is a rather large jump ahead of > >> >the GF4. Much gained fps increase compared to the usual 'newly released' > >> >card yet no one seems to have noticed or cared? > >> > >> Hello newbie, > >> > >> This (where I am following up to this crossposted message) is a > >> newsgroup for discussing about PC action games. Not usually about new > >> videocards, unless related to running certain action game etc. > >> > >> There are separate newsgroups for discussing about videocards. Maybe > >> you should check them? > >> > > > >
"none" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...
ON
> >TOPIC here. Ergo discussions about new vid cards are entirelyappropriate.
Yes, you are right. We all all wrong. Now we go away. Hail to none.
Quoted text (9 lines)
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 03:34:04 GMT, "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > > > >"none" > >> There are separate newsgroups for discussing about videocards. Maybe > >> you should check them? > >> > > Yes Mr. None, I agree with Powell. ANYTHING that improves your sim isQuoted text (11 lines)
> > Next, Mr. Dave, you could learn to read. > > The discussion was not about how to tune a 9700 for sims or anything > like that. It was a question of "why aren't people talking more about > 9700 in these gaming groups". And the answer is, in all its > simplicity: because this is not the proper place for GENERAL > DISCUSSION about video cards. > > Now go away. You are not too bright, along with some other stupid ones > who jumped the gun.> yes, like AMD is know for CPU's that cause instable systems and CPU's that
> go up in smokes :)
realy? hmm built 5 AMD systems and 2 Intel systems and never had this
problem........
its the user that makes the system unstable.........
ATI drivers truly suck, and make there Great cards slower...
ATI hardware with Nvidia Software makers would be cool...........
ok... i take my ATI comments back, its totaly true.........
well said man..... same to the Anti AMD guys.....
"Mike Beauchamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:xIQf9.30462$[email hidden]...
> That's such a dated comment.
>
> ATI just released a whole new batch of drivers in August for to be
> completely compatible with XP SP1. For the past while, ATI has beenworking
> it's arse off releasing drivers and fixing "bugs" and such.
>
> I've been using ATI cards for the past 1.5 years, and I only ran into 1bug.
> It kept causing my early version of Max Payne to crash at a certain spot.I
> had just updated the drivers a few weeks ago too. So I checked ATI's site,
> and sure enough, a new set of drivers were available. and sure enough, it
> fixed the problem and increased general frame rate to boot!
>
> Nvidia seems to be a large company, and seems to get in a lot of asskissing
> sessions with reviewers and such. Also, a lot of Nvidia people seem to be
> the ones telling me that "ATI has bad drivers". Then when I ask them why
> they say that, they just say "that's what I've heard".
>
> It TOTALLY reminds me of when I am trying to build a computer for someone.I
> suggest to them to get AMD processors to save lots of money, and they
> sometimes reply "don't AMD processors like, not work with windows, andcatch
Quoted text (33 lines)
> on fire or something?". Then when I ask why they said that they replay > "that's just what I've heard". > > Sorry to go off on a tangent... I'm bored. > Mike > http://mikebeauchamp.com > > > > "Lannie Schafroth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > ATI is known for very poor drivers and little if ANY updated drivers. > > > > "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:alnkb0$1s9vo1$[email hidden]... > > > > > > "Vintook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:kVHf9.2362$[email hidden]... > > > > Nvidia conspiracy? > > > > > > No - they just didnt get rid of drivers properly > > > > > > I'm very wary of ATI after drive nightmares with an orig. Radeon - but > the > > > 9700 does appear to be a real performer ( unlike the poor Parhalia) > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > >On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:07:03 GMT, Destroy <[email hidden]> wrote:
> How come no talk of ATI's 9700 Pro?!
Because this is the strat newsgroup and there arnt many (any?) strat
games out there that push a GF2 Pro, let alone a card 1.5 generations
later?
"none"
> >>
> > Yes Mr. None, I agree with Powell. ANYTHING that improves your sim isON
> >TOPIC here. Ergo discussions about new vid cards are entirelyappropriate.
If you are implying something, you'd better get in line. If you have
actually HELPED anyone these past few years then I might be inclined to pay
attention to what you have to say... Criticism without a solution is
meaningless.
NOW as to NOT being too bright, IF I am reading a racing sim newsgroup and
somebody brings up the topic of video cards, I can fairly easily make the
jump in logic that the poster is curious about how a certain video component
performs with sims. I do NOT need a subject line that says: "Why isn't
anyone talking about the 9700 and how it works with racing sims." My mama
taught me enuf to no that what is unsaid is often clearer than what IS said.
That's all I have to say about that.
If you'd like to discuss this further, feel free. I do prefer though, to
know whom I'm speaking with, call me old fashioned.
dave henrie
Quoted text (11 lines)
> > Next, Mr. Dave, you could learn to read. > > The discussion was not about how to tune a 9700 for sims or anything > like that. It was a question of "why aren't people talking more about > 9700 in these gaming groups". And the answer is, in all its > simplicity: because this is not the proper place for GENERAL > DISCUSSION about video cards. > > Now go away. You are not too bright, along with some other stupid ones > who jumped the gun.I think he is talking about the demo on Tom's hardware when the CPU fan dies (or
in this case removed).
Intel has a safety cutoff but AMD's chip cooked and fried itself and the
motherboard.
P.
Adam Webb wrote:
Quoted text (11 lines)
> > yes, like AMD is know for CPU's that cause instable systems and CPU's that > > go up in smokes :) > > realy? hmm built 5 AMD systems and 2 Intel systems and never had this > problem........ > > its the user that makes the system unstable......... > > ATI drivers truly suck, and make there Great cards slower... > > ATI hardware with Nvidia Software makers would be cool...........
"Adam Webb" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:alr40u$stg$[email hidden]...
> > yes, like AMD is know for CPU's that cause instable systems and CPU'sthat
oh dear, the guy was talking like: the 9700 drivers are as instable as the
original Radeon drivers (not 8500, the one before-it had real isssues)
my point was:
that 's like saying AMD is bad because their K5/6 processors had
shortcomings
both Ati and AMD had issues with old now out of production hardware
now things are better, stop sticking your head in the sand
notice the smiley Adam!!!
Quoted text (12 lines)
> > go up in smokes :) > > realy? hmm built 5 AMD systems and 2 Intel systems and never had this > problem........ > > its the user that makes the system unstable......... > > ATI drivers truly suck, and make there Great cards slower... > > ATI hardware with Nvidia Software makers would be cool........... > >
"Pete" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...
> I think he is talking about the demo on Tom's hardware when the CPU fandies (or
> in this case removed).
> Intel has a safety cutoff but AMD's chip cooked and fried itself and the
> motherboard.
Nope , I was reffering to the fact that people somehow still remember the
days when AMD CPU's were slower for 3D than Intel, and had compatibility
isssues. Just like Ati had them twoo generations of Radeon ago. For both
companies things are solved now, but people tend to go what they think is
the safe route , and they buy into the market leader.
It surpries me that people on usenet aren't smart enough to read some
reviews of the new card, before making any judgement.... you'd think they
belong to the more hardcore part of the 'net!
"Trickle" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...
Empire Earth pushes my system nicely. Perhaps C&C generals will, too.
Warcraft 3 could use a nice 3D card. So could Battle Realms. And Age of
Mythology. Impossible Creatures too, one of the mos spectacular looking PC
games coming out. Oh and Perimeter's coming out, too. Spellforce. The new
wave of strategy gaems is requiring fuky 3D hardware.
It might not have been too important before, but now it is.
Quoted text (7 lines)
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:07:03 GMT, Destroy <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > How come no talk of ATI's 9700 Pro?! > > Because this is the strat newsgroup and there arnt many (any?) strat > games out there that push a GF2 Pro, let alone a card 1.5 generations > later?FIrst impressions are everything. I had an AMD K5-PR133 (Heh, remember "Pentium ratings"? How lame!) AND an ATI 3DXpression+PC2TV (Rage II+ chipset) and BOTH sucked petunas. Needless to say, since then I've only bought Intel and nVidia and haven't had ANY problems since. I will NEVER buy AMD or ATI EVER again--EVER! Just like I won't ever buy an IBM hard drive ever again because I had one that completely failed for no reason (no warning or bad sectors or anything!).
SBD wrote:
Quoted text (25 lines)
> "Adam Webb" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht > news:alr40u$stg$[email hidden]... > > > yes, like AMD is know for CPU's that cause instable systems and CPU's that > > > go up in smokes :) > > > > realy? hmm built 5 AMD systems and 2 Intel systems and never had this > > problem........ > > > > its the user that makes the system unstable......... > > > > ATI drivers truly suck, and make there Great cards slower... > > > > ATI hardware with Nvidia Software makers would be cool........... > > oh dear, the guy was talking like: the 9700 drivers are as instable as the > original Radeon drivers (not 8500, the one before-it had real isssues) > > my point was: > > that 's like saying AMD is bad because their K5/6 processors had > shortcomings > > both Ati and AMD had issues with old now out of production hardware > > now things are better, stop sticking your head in the sandOn Fri, 13 Sep 2002 11:25:23 GMT, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=
<[email hidden]> wrote:
That's one approach - safety first. Another reason some people would
have is the brand loyalty (see, I didn't use the f word).
Doing this, however, restricts you from getting an optimal solution at
any time. Again some people are willing to live with a non-optimal
path for a) peace of mind, and b) their own definitions of 'optimal'.
For example, price plays an important role in what I consider to be
optimum. Buying a 300-400$ video card isn't practical for me, no
matter what it does unless it comes packaged with Jennifer Conelly
(and if my wife is reading this, I'll donate her to charity.. by 'her'
I mean Ms. Connelly)
I suspect, that many people including myself, do look for the best
possible solution at any given time and their decision doesn't depend
too much on what a certain brand's products used to be a few years
ago. If, let's say, I got burned out by ATI 3DXpression, my 'first
impressions' would last just for that generation of 3DXpression
products, and not for new graphic chips (with substantially different
functionality) which come out years later.
More importantly, because of always buying optimally, I wouldn't have
bought 3DXpression in the first place :)
3DFX Voodoo1 was ignored by some Rendition fans, nVidia TNT came under
fire by 3DFX fans and ATI Radeon line of cards found the life tough as
well. They all were ridiculed for past performances; nVidia for its
abysmal NV1 chip (in Diamond Edge 3D), which I am glad Eep you didn't
buy because you'll be boycotting all nVidia products as well, ATI for
its indifferent driver support for many years, AMD for its forgettable
K5 and K6.
Some of us, have an expiry date for our 'first impressions',
especially when the product, they are based on, has expired as well,
and which gives us a better chance of picking the right CPU, sound or
graphic chip, when the time comes.
That's the way of the engineer !
--
Noman
Quoted text (7 lines)
>FIrst impressions are everything. I had an AMD K5-PR133 (Heh, remember >"Pentium ratings"? How lame!) AND an ATI 3DXpression+PC2TV (Rage II+ >chipset) and BOTH sucked petunas. Needless to say, since then I've >only bought Intel and nVidia and haven't had ANY problems since. >I will NEVER buy AMD or ATI EVER again--EVER! Just like I won't ever >buy an IBM hard drive ever again because I had one that completely >failed for no reason (no warning or bad sectors or anything!).Yea, well, until I have a reason to go with AMD or ATI <shudder> I won't be jumping through hoops just because they're slightly cheaper--especially when you KNOW game developers extensively test and use industry-standard hardware (Intel and nVidia currently) FIRST and then, if they have time, bother with the more rinky-dink stuff (AMD, ATI, Matrox, etc currently).
THAT, if anything, is the way of engineering--and the industry.
noman wrote:
Quoted text (48 lines)
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 11:25:23 GMT, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >FIrst impressions are everything. I had an AMD K5-PR133 (Heh, remember > >"Pentium ratings"? How lame!) AND an ATI 3DXpression+PC2TV (Rage II+ > >chipset) and BOTH sucked petunas. Needless to say, since then I've > >only bought Intel and nVidia and haven't had ANY problems since. > >I will NEVER buy AMD or ATI EVER again--EVER! Just like I won't ever > >buy an IBM hard drive ever again because I had one that completely > >failed for no reason (no warning or bad sectors or anything!). > > That's one approach - safety first. Another reason some people would > have is the brand loyalty (see, I didn't use the f word). > > Doing this, however, restricts you from getting an optimal solution at > any time. Again some people are willing to live with a non-optimal > path for a) peace of mind, and b) their own definitions of 'optimal'. > For example, price plays an important role in what I consider to be > optimum. Buying a 300-400$ video card isn't practical for me, no > matter what it does unless it comes packaged with Jennifer Conelly > (and if my wife is reading this, I'll donate her to charity.. by 'her' > I mean Ms. Connelly) > > I suspect, that many people including myself, do look for the best > possible solution at any given time and their decision doesn't depend > too much on what a certain brand's products used to be a few years > ago. If, let's say, I got burned out by ATI 3DXpression, my 'first > impressions' would last just for that generation of 3DXpression > products, and not for new graphic chips (with substantially different > functionality) which come out years later. > > More importantly, because of always buying optimally, I wouldn't have > bought 3DXpression in the first place :) > > 3DFX Voodoo1 was ignored by some Rendition fans, nVidia TNT came under > fire by 3DFX fans and ATI Radeon line of cards found the life tough as > well. They all were ridiculed for past performances; nVidia for its > abysmal NV1 chip (in Diamond Edge 3D), which I am glad Eep you didn't > buy because you'll be boycotting all nVidia products as well, ATI for > its indifferent driver support for many years, AMD for its forgettable > K5 and K6. > > Some of us, have an expiry date for our 'first impressions', > especially when the product, they are based on, has expired as well, > and which gives us a better chance of picking the right CPU, sound or > graphic chip, when the time comes. > > That's the way of the engineer !On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:19:44 GMT, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?=
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>Yea, well, until I have a reason to go with AMD or ATI <shudder>
> I won't be jumping through hoops just because they're slightly
> cheaper--
When I bought a Radeon LE 32 meg DDR for 70$, in March 2001, I just
didn't get a slightly cheaper card. For one, it was a LOT cheaper.
Second, it had an absolutely amazing picture quality. Third, I was
getting T&L, DDR RAM and hidden-surface-removal algorithms, meaning
that it wasn't a budget card. At the time, it could run alongside or
better than GeForce2 (I am not talking about Mx) in some benchmarks
and games, at one third the price. Only GeForce2 Ultra was much ahead
but it was also five times more expensive.
I got great driver support from ATI and I still use that card.
> especially when you KNOW game developers extensively
> test and use industry-standard hardware (Intel and nVidia
> currently) FIRST and then, if they have time, bother with
> the more rinky-dink stuff (AMD, ATI, Matrox, etc currently).
That's incorrect. I'd say, they are probably testing with Intel/AMD
and nVidia/ATI first and then other hardware offerings.
> THAT, if anything, is the way of engineering--and the industry.
Game developers adapt. That's why, DOOM3 at E3 was running on an ATI
graphic chip.
--
Noman
"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Yea, well, until I have a reason to go with AMD or ATI <shudder> I won'tbe jumping through hoops just because they're slightly cheaper--especially
when you KNOW game developers extensively test and use >industry-standard
hardware (Intel and nVidia currently)
How are AMD and ATI perfectly good hardware vendors? Let me count the
ways...
Alot of game developers use AMD and ATI cards.
AMD's architecture is better for gaming- benchmarks prove this. To top it
off, it's much cheaper. The only cases that Intel is better are in
specialized productivity applications which have been optimized for Intel
processors. Intel cards are fast, both in clock rate and performance, but
only when the software is optimized fro them. AMD chips have plenty of raw
muscle to handle anything.
ATI current has the fastest consumer-level graphics card. The Radeon 8500
doesn't have the performance of the GeForce 3 Ti 500, but it was also alot
cheaper and really offers more bang for the buck than the Ti 200. The
occlusion culling architecture was better, and it offers better antialiasing
image quality and anisotropic filtering. Geforce 3 and 4 just blur textures
like crazy with antialiasing. And the Radeon 8500 also supports hardware
n-patch technology, something you won't see a GeForce card do, and this
technology has appeared in several games, despite ATI's smaller market share
in high-end graphics. The original Radeon offered occlusion culling
technology to save bandwith (Hierarchial Z), all the while the GeForce 2
lacked this important feature. So ATI cards are not crap after all, Eep.
>FIRST and then, if they have time, bother with the more rinky-dink stuff(AMD, ATI, Matrox, etc currently).
Quoted text (54 lines)
> > THAT, if anything, is the way of engineering--and the industry. > > noman wrote: > > > On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 11:25:23 GMT, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >FIrst impressions are everything. I had an AMD K5-PR133 (Heh, remember > > >"Pentium ratings"? How lame!) AND an ATI 3DXpression+PC2TV (Rage II+ > > >chipset) and BOTH sucked petunas. Needless to say, since then I've > > >only bought Intel and nVidia and haven't had ANY problems since. > > >I will NEVER buy AMD or ATI EVER again--EVER! Just like I won't ever > > >buy an IBM hard drive ever again because I had one that completely > > >failed for no reason (no warning or bad sectors or anything!). > > > > That's one approach - safety first. Another reason some people would > > have is the brand loyalty (see, I didn't use the f word). > > > > Doing this, however, restricts you from getting an optimal solution at > > any time. Again some people are willing to live with a non-optimal > > path for a) peace of mind, and b) their own definitions of 'optimal'. > > For example, price plays an important role in what I consider to be > > optimum. Buying a 300-400$ video card isn't practical for me, no > > matter what it does unless it comes packaged with Jennifer Conelly > > (and if my wife is reading this, I'll donate her to charity.. by 'her' > > I mean Ms. Connelly) > > > > I suspect, that many people including myself, do look for the best > > possible solution at any given time and their decision doesn't depend > > too much on what a certain brand's products used to be a few years > > ago. If, let's say, I got burned out by ATI 3DXpression, my 'first > > impressions' would last just for that generation of 3DXpression > > products, and not for new graphic chips (with substantially different > > functionality) which come out years later. > > > > More importantly, because of always buying optimally, I wouldn't have > > bought 3DXpression in the first place :) > > > > 3DFX Voodoo1 was ignored by some Rendition fans, nVidia TNT came under > > fire by 3DFX fans and ATI Radeon line of cards found the life tough as > > well. They all were ridiculed for past performances; nVidia for its > > abysmal NV1 chip (in Diamond Edge 3D), which I am glad Eep you didn't > > buy because you'll be boycotting all nVidia products as well, ATI for > > its indifferent driver support for many years, AMD for its forgettable > > K5 and K6. > > > > Some of us, have an expiry date for our 'first impressions', > > especially when the product, they are based on, has expired as well, > > and which gives us a better chance of picking the right CPU, sound or > > graphic chip, when the time comes. > > > > That's the way of the engineer ! >I'm waiting for tha all-in-one version, and they had better not neuter the
core/memory like they have done in the past.
I want it ALL, and I'm willing to pay for it.
-Larry
Well, that's all fine and good but, again, first impressions are everything so *I* won't ever be buying AMD/ATI EVER again. Games will ALWAYS DEFINITELY work fine on the industry-standard hardware (which is, hate to burst yo' bubble, still Intel and nVidia). Everything else is secondary...
magnulus wrote:
Quoted text (86 lines)
> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Yea, well, until I have a reason to go with AMD or ATI <shudder> I won't > be jumping through hoops just because they're slightly cheaper--especially > when you KNOW game developers extensively test and use >industry-standard > hardware (Intel and nVidia currently) > > How are AMD and ATI perfectly good hardware vendors? Let me count the > ways... > > Alot of game developers use AMD and ATI cards. > > AMD's architecture is better for gaming- benchmarks prove this. To top it > off, it's much cheaper. The only cases that Intel is better are in > specialized productivity applications which have been optimized for Intel > processors. Intel cards are fast, both in clock rate and performance, but > only when the software is optimized fro them. AMD chips have plenty of raw > muscle to handle anything. > > ATI current has the fastest consumer-level graphics card. The Radeon 8500 > doesn't have the performance of the GeForce 3 Ti 500, but it was also alot > cheaper and really offers more bang for the buck than the Ti 200. The > occlusion culling architecture was better, and it offers better antialiasing > image quality and anisotropic filtering. Geforce 3 and 4 just blur textures > like crazy with antialiasing. And the Radeon 8500 also supports hardware > n-patch technology, something you won't see a GeForce card do, and this > technology has appeared in several games, despite ATI's smaller market share > in high-end graphics. The original Radeon offered occlusion culling > technology to save bandwith (Hierarchial Z), all the while the GeForce 2 > lacked this important feature. So ATI cards are not crap after all, Eep. > > >FIRST and then, if they have time, bother with the more rinky-dink stuff > (AMD, ATI, Matrox, etc currently). > > > > THAT, if anything, is the way of engineering--and the industry. > > > > noman wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 11:25:23 GMT, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= > > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > >FIrst impressions are everything. I had an AMD K5-PR133 (Heh, remember > > > >"Pentium ratings"? How lame!) AND an ATI 3DXpression+PC2TV (Rage II+ > > > >chipset) and BOTH sucked petunas. Needless to say, since then I've > > > >only bought Intel and nVidia and haven't had ANY problems since. > > > >I will NEVER buy AMD or ATI EVER again--EVER! Just like I won't ever > > > >buy an IBM hard drive ever again because I had one that completely > > > >failed for no reason (no warning or bad sectors or anything!). > > > > > > That's one approach - safety first. Another reason some people would > > > have is the brand loyalty (see, I didn't use the f word). > > > > > > Doing this, however, restricts you from getting an optimal solution at > > > any time. Again some people are willing to live with a non-optimal > > > path for a) peace of mind, and b) their own definitions of 'optimal'. > > > For example, price plays an important role in what I consider to be > > > optimum. Buying a 300-400$ video card isn't practical for me, no > > > matter what it does unless it comes packaged with Jennifer Conelly > > > (and if my wife is reading this, I'll donate her to charity.. by 'her' > > > I mean Ms. Connelly) > > > > > > I suspect, that many people including myself, do look for the best > > > possible solution at any given time and their decision doesn't depend > > > too much on what a certain brand's products used to be a few years > > > ago. If, let's say, I got burned out by ATI 3DXpression, my 'first > > > impressions' would last just for that generation of 3DXpression > > > products, and not for new graphic chips (with substantially different > > > functionality) which come out years later. > > > > > > More importantly, because of always buying optimally, I wouldn't have > > > bought 3DXpression in the first place :) > > > > > > 3DFX Voodoo1 was ignored by some Rendition fans, nVidia TNT came under > > > fire by 3DFX fans and ATI Radeon line of cards found the life tough as > > > well. They all were ridiculed for past performances; nVidia for its > > > abysmal NV1 chip (in Diamond Edge 3D), which I am glad Eep you didn't > > > buy because you'll be boycotting all nVidia products as well, ATI for > > > its indifferent driver support for many years, AMD for its forgettable > > > K5 and K6. > > > > > > Some of us, have an expiry date for our 'first impressions', > > > especially when the product, they are based on, has expired as well, > > > and which gives us a better chance of picking the right CPU, sound or > > > graphic chip, when the time comes. > > > > > > That's the way of the engineer !
"Larry" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:5WAg9.21105$[email hidden]...
me too, but seeing as the core/memory speed were lowered because of heat &
space issues, I don't expect it to be better this time around as speeds have
been bumped up....
pity, I want 9700Pro speed
Quoted text (8 lines)
> I'm waiting for tha all-in-one version, and they had better not neuter the > core/memory like they have done in the past. > > I want it ALL, and I'm willing to pay for it. > > -Larry > >Word has it that they won't be making an All-in-wonder version of the 9700.
Not enouph space on the board.
Vintook
"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:5WAg9.21105$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (9 lines)
> I'm waiting for tha all-in-one version, and they had better not neuter the > core/memory like they have done in the past. > > I want it ALL, and I'm willing to pay for it. > > -Larry > > >
"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Well, that's all fine and good but, again, first impressions areeverything so *I* won't ever be buying AMD/ATI EVER again. Games will ALWAYS
DEFINITELY work fine on the industry-standard hardware (which is, hate to
burst yo' bubble, still Intel and nVidia). Everything else is secondary...
>
First impressions are not everything. Another sign of an unenlightened
mind.
I hope you enjoy paying more for less performance, just so you can have a
brand name on it. I meanwhile will enjoy the anisotropic filtering and free
antialiasing on my new Radeon 9700, and well, my AMD cost about 100 dollars
less than a comparable Pentium, and the motherboard cost about 200 dollars
less. I bet you buy all your clothes at the Gap or Old Navy, too, just
'cause they have the funky ads and the brand name.
END OF LINE
> magnulus wrote:
>
> > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> > news:[email hidden]...
> > > Yea, well, until I have a reason to go with AMD or ATI <shudder> Iwon't
> > be jumping through hoops just because they're slightlycheaper--especially
top it
> > off, it's much cheaper. The only cases that Intel is better are in
> > specialized productivity applications which have been optimized forIntel
> > processors. Intel cards are fast, both in clock rate and performance,but
> > only when the software is optimized fro them. AMD chips have plenty ofraw
> > muscle to handle anything.
> >
> > ATI current has the fastest consumer-level graphics card. The Radeon8500
> > doesn't have the performance of the GeForce 3 Ti 500, but it was alsoalot
> > cheaper and really offers more bang for the buck than the Ti 200. The
> > occlusion culling architecture was better, and it offers betterantialiasing
> > image quality and anisotropic filtering. Geforce 3 and 4 just blurtextures
> > like crazy with antialiasing. And the Radeon 8500 also supportshardware
> > n-patch technology, something you won't see a GeForce card do, and this
> > technology has appeared in several games, despite ATI's smaller marketshare
> > in high-end graphics. The original Radeon offered occlusion culling
> > technology to save bandwith (Hierarchial Z), all the while the GeForce 2
> > lacked this important feature. So ATI cards are not crap after all,Eep.
> >
> > >FIRST and then, if they have time, bother with the more rinky-dinkstuff
remember
> > > > >"Pentium ratings"? How lame!) AND an ATI 3DXpression+PC2TV (RageII+
> > > > >chipset) and BOTH sucked petunas. Needless to say, since then I've
> > > > >only bought Intel and nVidia and haven't had ANY problems since.
> > > > >I will NEVER buy AMD or ATI EVER again--EVER! Just like I won'tever
at
> > > > any time. Again some people are willing to live with a non-optimal
> > > > path for a) peace of mind, and b) their own definitions of'optimal'.
> > > > For example, price plays an important role in what I consider to be
> > > > optimum. Buying a 300-400$ video card isn't practical for me, no
> > > > matter what it does unless it comes packaged with Jennifer Conelly
> > > > (and if my wife is reading this, I'll donate her to charity.. by'her'
> > > > I mean Ms. Connelly)
> > > >
> > > > I suspect, that many people including myself, do look for the best
> > > > possible solution at any given time and their decision doesn'tdepend
> > > > too much on what a certain brand's products used to be a few years
> > > > ago. If, let's say, I got burned out by ATI 3DXpression, my 'first
> > > > impressions' would last just for that generation of 3DXpression
> > > > products, and not for new graphic chips (with substantiallydifferent
> > > > functionality) which come out years later.
> > > >
> > > > More importantly, because of always buying optimally, I wouldn'thave
> > > > bought 3DXpression in the first place :)
> > > >
> > > > 3DFX Voodoo1 was ignored by some Rendition fans, nVidia TNT cameunder
> > > > fire by 3DFX fans and ATI Radeon line of cards found the life toughas
> > > > well. They all were ridiculed for past performances; nVidia for its
> > > > abysmal NV1 chip (in Diamond Edge 3D), which I am glad Eep youdidn't
> > > > buy because you'll be boycotting all nVidia products as well, ATIfor
> > > > its indifferent driver support for many years, AMD for itsforgettable
> > > > K5 and K6.
> > > >
> > > > Some of us, have an expiry date for our 'first impressions',
> > > > especially when the product, they are based on, has expired as well,
> > > > and which gives us a better chance of picking the right CPU, soundor
> > > > graphic chip, when the time comes.
> > > >
> > > > That's the way of the engineer !
>
Quoted text (10 lines)
> > when you KNOW game developers extensively test and use >industry-standard > > hardware (Intel and nVidia currently) > > > > How are AMD and ATI perfectly good hardware vendors? Let me count the > > ways... > > > > Alot of game developers use AMD and ATI cards. > > > > AMD's architecture is better for gaming- benchmarks prove this. ToQuoted text (10 lines)
> > (AMD, ATI, Matrox, etc currently). > > > > > > THAT, if anything, is the way of engineering--and the industry. > > > > > > noman wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 11:25:23 GMT, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Eep=B2?= > > > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >FIrst impressions are everything. I had an AMD K5-PR133 (Heh,Quoted text (7 lines)
> > > > >buy an IBM hard drive ever again because I had one that completely > > > > >failed for no reason (no warning or bad sectors or anything!). > > > > > > > > That's one approach - safety first. Another reason some people would > > > > have is the brand loyalty (see, I didn't use the f word). > > > > > > > > Doing this, however, restricts you from getting an optimal solutionI don't pay for brands; I pay for performance and reliability--AMD and ATI are flaky and more susceptible to incompatibilities than Intel and nVidia are; that's the cold hard facts of the situation, mag. <shrug>
magnulus wrote:
Quoted text (17 lines)
> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Well, that's all fine and good but, again, first impressions are > everything so *I* won't ever be buying AMD/ATI EVER again. Games will ALWAYS > DEFINITELY work fine on the industry-standard hardware (which is, hate to > burst yo' bubble, still Intel and nVidia). Everything else is secondary... > > > > First impressions are not everything. Another sign of an unenlightened > mind. > > I hope you enjoy paying more for less performance, just so you can have a > brand name on it. I meanwhile will enjoy the anisotropic filtering and free > antialiasing on my new Radeon 9700, and well, my AMD cost about 100 dollars > less than a comparable Pentium, and the motherboard cost about 200 dollars > less. I bet you buy all your clothes at the Gap or Old Navy, too, just > 'cause they have the funky ads and the brand name.
"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> I don't pay for brands; I pay for performance and reliability--AMD and ATIare flaky and more susceptible to incompatibilities than Intel and nVidia
are; that's the cold hard facts of the situation, mag. <shrug>
AMD flakey? Prone to heat yes, but flakey? Dang I guess the last two
machines I've had just didn't work...come to think of it..I'm using an AMD
based machine to writ.......................
They've probably lost a sale then :(
-Larry
"Vintook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:52Mg9.6390$[email hidden]...
> Word has it that they won't be making an All-in-wonder version of the9700.
the
Quoted text (7 lines)
> Not enouph space on the board. > > Vintook > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:5WAg9.21105$[email hidden]... > > I'm waiting for tha all-in-one version, and they had better not neuterQuoted text (10 lines)
> > core/memory like they have done in the past. > > > > I want it ALL, and I'm willing to pay for it. > > > > -Larry > > > > > > > >Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
You are such a moron. I have several computers, including a Pentium
Ii, Pentium III, Pentium IV laptop and an AMD Athlon. Graphics card
range from Mystique through Geforce 2 and 3. I run Dos, Windows XP and
Linux. I have *no* problems with any of the computers and bar the
Mystique-powered PC, they all work great with games (the mystique is
running with a voodoo2-combo, so it's okay for Doom and Quake I & II).
I am also a software developer, and I use fairly heavy programs - this
on my Athlon computer - and it works absolutely great. Your comments
are not only stupid, which is forgivable, but also ignorant, which are
not.
- Vic
Quoted text (10 lines)
> I don't pay for brands; I pay for performance and reliability--AMD and ATI are flaky and more susceptible to incompatibilities than Intel and nVidia are; that's the cold hard facts of the situation, mag. <shrug> > > magnulus wrote: > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Well, that's all fine and good but, again, first impressions are > > everything so *I* won't ever be buying AMD/ATI EVER again. Games will ALWAYS > > DEFINITELY work fine on the industry-standard hardware (which is, hate to > > burst yo' bubble, still Intel and nVidia). Everything else is secondary...Nah, boards get smaller over time. Have you ever seen a first generation
sound blaster card?
And you thought a Voodoo 5 was big!
-Tim
"Vintook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:52Mg9.6390$[email hidden]...
> Word has it that they won't be making an All-in-wonder version of the9700.
the
Quoted text (7 lines)
> Not enouph space on the board. > > Vintook > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:5WAg9.21105$[email hidden]... > > I'm waiting for tha all-in-one version, and they had better not neuterQuoted text (10 lines)
> > core/memory like they have done in the past. > > > > I want it ALL, and I'm willing to pay for it. > > > > -Larry > > > > > > > ><shrug> Just sharing my experiences with 'em. Consider yourself lucky, I guess, dork.
Victor wrote:
Quoted text (22 lines)
> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > > I don't pay for brands; I pay for performance and reliability--AMD and ATI are flaky and more susceptible to incompatibilities than Intel and nVidia are; that's the cold hard facts of the situation, mag. <shrug> > > > > magnulus wrote: > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Well, that's all fine and good but, again, first impressions are > > > everything so *I* won't ever be buying AMD/ATI EVER again. Games will ALWAYS > > > DEFINITELY work fine on the industry-standard hardware (which is, hate to > > > burst yo' bubble, still Intel and nVidia). Everything else is secondary... > > You are such a moron. I have several computers, including a Pentium > Ii, Pentium III, Pentium IV laptop and an AMD Athlon. Graphics card > range from Mystique through Geforce 2 and 3. I run Dos, Windows XP and > Linux. I have *no* problems with any of the computers and bar the > Mystique-powered PC, they all work great with games (the mystique is > running with a voodoo2-combo, so it's okay for Doom and Quake I & II). > I am also a software developer, and I use fairly heavy programs - this > on my Athlon computer - and it works absolutely great. Your comments > are not only stupid, which is forgivable, but also ignorant, which are > not.<shrug> Just sharing my experiences with 'em. Consider yourself lucky, I guess, dork.
Victor wrote:
Quoted text (22 lines)
> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > > I don't pay for brands; I pay for performance and reliability--AMD and ATI are flaky and more susceptible to incompatibilities than Intel and nVidia are; that's the cold hard facts of the situation, mag. <shrug> > > > > magnulus wrote: > > > > > "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Well, that's all fine and good but, again, first impressions are > > > everything so *I* won't ever be buying AMD/ATI EVER again. Games will ALWAYS > > > DEFINITELY work fine on the industry-standard hardware (which is, hate to > > > burst yo' bubble, still Intel and nVidia). Everything else is secondary... > > You are such a moron. I have several computers, including a Pentium > Ii, Pentium III, Pentium IV laptop and an AMD Athlon. Graphics card > range from Mystique through Geforce 2 and 3. I run Dos, Windows XP and > Linux. I have *no* problems with any of the computers and bar the > Mystique-powered PC, they all work great with games (the mystique is > running with a voodoo2-combo, so it's okay for Doom and Quake I & II). > I am also a software developer, and I use fairly heavy programs - this > on my Athlon computer - and it works absolutely great. Your comments > are not only stupid, which is forgivable, but also ignorant, which are > not.Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> <shrug> Just sharing my experiences with 'em. Consider yourself lucky, I guess, dork.
Heh. Who're you calling a penis. Wut, you gay or something?
Why couldn't you get the AMD to work?
- Vic
he tried to run it without a Heatsink! Great feature missing there........
*cough*
"Victor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:<[email hidden]>...
> > <shrug> Just sharing my experiences with 'em. Consider yourself lucky, Iguess, dork.
>
> Heh. Who're you calling a penis. Wut, you gay or something?
>
> Why couldn't you get the AMD to work?
>
> - Vic
Victor wrote:
> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> > <shrug> Just sharing my experiences with 'em. Consider yourself lucky, I guess, dork.
>
> Heh. Who're you calling a penis. Wut, you gay or something?
Um, "dork", not "dick", moron. Learn to read.
> Why couldn't you get the AMD to work?
I got it working fine; it would just overheat (despite a heat sink--this is a K5 I'm talking about) and hang my system a lot.
No, not without--WITH.
Adam Webb wrote:
Quoted text (11 lines)
> he tried to run it without a Heatsink! Great feature missing there........ > *cough* > > "Victor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > > > <shrug> Just sharing my experiences with 'em. Consider yourself lucky, I guess, dork. > > > > Heh. Who're you calling a penis. Wut, you gay or something? > > > > Why couldn't you get the AMD to work?No, not without--WITH.
Quoted text (12 lines)
> he tried to run it without a Heatsink! Great feature missing there........ > *cough* > > > <shrug> Just sharing my experiences with 'em. Consider yourself lucky, I guess, dork. > > Heh. Who're you calling a ***. Wut, you gay or something? > > Why couldn't you get the AMD to work?In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...
You _do_ know that "dork" _is_ slang for penis, and has been since long
before it also became synonymous with nerd or eep, right, fuckface?
--
smr
Quoted text (8 lines)
> Victor wrote: > > > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > > > <shrug> Just sharing my experiences with 'em. Consider yourself lucky, I guess, dork. > > > > Heh. Who're you calling a penis. Wut, you gay or something? > > Um, "dork", not "dick", moron. Learn to read.Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
�
Try looking up dork in the dictionary, then.
> > Why couldn't you get the AMD to work?
>
> I got it working fine; it would just overheat (despite a heat sink--this is a K5 I'm talking about) and hang my system a lot.
More fans then, but that would have made it more noisy. Ok,
overheating is annoying, but it hasn't happened with my Athlon.
- Vic
Quoted text (8 lines)
> Victor wrote: > > > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > > > <shrug> Just sharing my experiences with 'em. Consider yourself lucky, I guess, dork. > > > > Heh. Who're you calling a penis. Wut, you gay or something? > > Um, "dork", not "dick", moron. Learn to read."noman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Some of us, have an expiry date for our 'first impressions',
> especially when the product, they are based on, has expired as well,
> and which gives us a better chance of picking the right CPU, sound or
> graphic chip, when the time comes.
Maybe so, but I still won't buy a Seagate HDD ... and that's a prejudice
that has lasted me almost 20 years.
Otherwise I'm happy running my AMD+ATI rig. (I have an original Radeon).
Their drivers were pretty patchy for a while, but they have picked up a lot
since. I would upgrade to the 9700 Pro, but just can't swallow the current
price tag.
"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Well, that's all fine and good but, again, first impressions areeverything so *I* won't ever be buying AMD/ATI EVER again. Games will ALWAYS
DEFINITELY work fine on the industry-standard hardware (which is, hate to
burst yo' bubble, still Intel and nVidia). Everything else is secondary...
Cr-eep,
I'm surprised that your not still trying to push 3Dfx ... I mean, there were
the industry standard, until something better and cheaper came along and
"burst yo' bubble".
"Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Victor wrote:
>
> I got it working fine; it would just overheat (despite a heat sink--thisis a K5 I'm talking about) and hang my system a lot.
>
Yeah, I had trouble with my 8086a system too. Maybe I should boycott Intel?
The Z80 I had ran real smooth.
MS-Dos 3.2 was also a bitch. Maybe I should boycott M$?
>> Um, "dork", not "dick", moron. Learn to read.
>�
>Try looking up dork in the dictionary, then.
Ironic, that. It must be a Law of some kind: that those
criticizing the literary ability of others often make a
literary mistake of some kind. My favorite, often witnessed:
criticism of "bad spelling and grammer" (sic).
C//
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 04:57:48 GMT, Courageous <[email hidden]> wrote:
I've seen that one several times. It really does seem to be impossible
to post a spelling flame without making an error yourself. Well, I know
I don't make spelling errors. Any found in my posts are obviously the
result of this defective, traitorous keyboard. :)
Want to make any bets on how crEep handles his error?
A) Act as if it never happened.
B) Insist is isn't common usage and therefore doesn't count.
I think he deserves extra points for any insults, gibberish about it
being "relative", demands for someone else to "evolve," and any <shrug>,
<twitch>, <burp>, <fart>, etc. which make it into his post.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rev. Pedro Colman-Arr�llaga | Believing is easier than thinking. Hence
| so many more believers than thinkers.
[email hidden] | - Bruce Calvert
----------------------------|
| Do I contradict myself?
"The Typhoid Mary of | Very well then, I contradict myself,
the shipping business" | (I am large, I contain multitudes).
| - Walt Whitman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted text (9 lines)
> >>> Um, "dork", not "dick", moron. Learn to read. >>� >>Try looking up dork in the dictionary, then. > >Ironic, that. It must be a Law of some kind: that those >criticizing the literary ability of others often make a >literary mistake of some kind. My favorite, often witnessed: >criticism of "bad spelling and grammer" (sic).Victor wrote:
Interesting...I've been using that term since at least junior high and have NEVER heard it used as a reference to a dick; must be recent (within past 5-10 years perhaps). <shrug>
> > > Why couldn't you get the AMD to work?
> >
> > I got it working fine; it would just overheat (despite a heat sink--this is a K5 I'm talking about) and hang my system a lot.
>
> More fans then, but that would have made it more noisy. Ok,
> overheating is annoying, but it hasn't happened with my Athlon.
<shrug> The POINT is the K5 said it only required a heatsink, not heatsinkS and (a) fan(s).
No, I'm sticking with reliable hardware, thank you: Intel and nVidia all the way.
Quoted text (11 lines)
> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > > Victor wrote: > > > > > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > > > > <shrug> Just sharing my experiences with 'em. Consider yourself lucky, I guess, dork. > > > > > > Heh. Who're you calling a penis. Wut, you gay or something? > > > > Um, "dork", not "dick", moron. Learn to read. > � > Try looking up dork in the dictionary, then.Kilgaard wrote:
Fucknutgaard,
> I'm surprised that your not still trying to push 3Dfx ... I mean, there were
> the industry standard, until something better and cheaper came along and
> "burst yo' bubble".
Huh? I NEVER pushed 3Dfx--EVER. I had a Voodoo� for a couple weeks before I got a GeForce which left it in the dust and I NEVER went back (3Dfx was struggling by that time anyway). Before that I had a crappy ATI Rage 2+. Now I got a GeForce 3 Ti 200 and it's plenty fine for my gaming needs (though it's sluggish in Mafia and Morrowind--but what chip ain't?)--and even handles the NOLF2 full demo with maxed options. :D
Quoted text (8 lines)
> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Well, that's all fine and good but, again, first impressions are > everything so *I* won't ever be buying AMD/ATI EVER again. Games will ALWAYS > DEFINITELY work fine on the industry-standard hardware (which is, hate to > burst yo' bubble, still Intel and nVidia). Everything else is secondary... > > Cr-eep,The inimitable Courageous <[email hidden]> said:
Kelsey Grammer perhaps?
Quoted text (9 lines)
>>> Um, "dork", not "dick", moron. Learn to read. >> � >> Try looking up dork in the dictionary, then. > > Ironic, that. It must be a Law of some kind: that those > criticizing the literary ability of others often make a > literary mistake of some kind. My favorite, often witnessed: > criticism of "bad spelling and grammer" (sic). >what is this, and English class?????? maybe English isnt his first language?
:-p
> No, I'm sticking with reliable hardware, thank you: Intel all the way.
Expensive,slow,shit that outputs the same heat as the equal rated AMD?
So your just paying for the name then? dont care how slow it is?
The inimitable Adam Webb <[email hidden]>
said:
> what is this, and English class?????? maybe English isnt his first
> language?
>
> :-p
Presumably not yours either......
sigh..........
"Khuli" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:am9org$e4r$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (12 lines)
> The inimitable Adam Webb <[email hidden]> > said: > > > what is this, and English class?????? maybe English isnt his first > > language? > > > > :-p > > Presumably not yours either...... > > >"Kilgaard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<am8vce$3or0l$[email hidden]>...
My abacus just broke. Damn those Akkadians.
- Vic
Quoted text (12 lines)
> "Eep�" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Victor wrote: > > > > I got it working fine; it would just overheat (despite a heat sink--this > is a K5 I'm talking about) and hang my system a lot. > > > > Yeah, I had trouble with my 8086a system too. Maybe I should boycott Intel? > The Z80 I had ran real smooth. > > MS-Dos 3.2 was also a bitch. Maybe I should boycott M$?Be advised, most hard drive manufacturers are sticking it to consumers
starting October first.
Both Maxtor and Western Digital have announced that they are killing off
their multi-year warranties, and starting October 1st the warranties on
their drives is being dropped to ONE year!
Ain't it funny how they are all doing it at the SAME time ?
The only exception I know of is WD's 'special' drives, the one's with the
8MB buffer. They are retaining the 3 year warranty.
I'm really disappointed in this, personally, and find it very interesting
that they all did it on the exact same day.
-Larry
"Kilgaard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:am8v0r$3or0l$[email hidden]...
lot
> since. I would upgrade to the 9700 Pro, but just can't swallow the current
> price tag.
>
>
Quoted text (12 lines)
> "noman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Some of us, have an expiry date for our 'first impressions', > > especially when the product, they are based on, has expired as well, > > and which gives us a better chance of picking the right CPU, sound or > > graphic chip, when the time comes. > > Maybe so, but I still won't buy a Seagate HDD ... and that's a prejudice > that has lasted me almost 20 years. > > Otherwise I'm happy running my AMD+ATI rig. (I have an original Radeon). > Their drivers were pretty patchy for a while, but they have picked up aI haven't had any problems with Intel CPUs yet--and I've been using them since my lowly 286/10. <shrug>
Adam Webb wrote:
> > No, I'm sticking with reliable hardware, thank you: Intel all the way.
>
> Expensive,slow,shit that outputs the same heat as the equal rated AMD?
>
> So your just paying for the name then? dont care how slow it is?
> I haven't had any problems with Intel CPUs yet--and I've been using themsince my lowly 286/10. <shrug>
im not saying Intel have problems (which ALL companys have), there just
slow, and expensive for the performance you get........
You didnt by a PIII1000mhz then? ;-) That would turn anyone off Intel, thats
the Worse EVER release of hardware... im sure.
Funny how the overclockers could get there cores too 1000mhz but Intel
themselfs couldnt! ;-)
But hey, im talking about you only using Intel, and not trying the faster
option, and im sticking here with just Nvidia cards (plus a sole Voodoo3 2k
in a server) hmm Whats that word? Hypocrite? (come on i cant spell, some
English lesson guy come along and correct me :-P
But then the ATI card is supposed to support AGPx8...... does it work?
nope.... doesnt work in ANY AGPx8 boards.... LOL
Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
No, it predates your junior years. Its meaning has corroded over the
years, though.
But the point is that Intel is no more reliable than AMD. Hey, even
Intel has it's faults. Do you remember the math error in the original
Pentium? What an oversight that was! And Intel has also had it's share
of heat problems - especially the older 486-processors. And if you
don't think that's relevant, then don't bring up the ancient K5!
- Vic
Quoted text (15 lines)
> Victor wrote: > > > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > > > Victor wrote: > > > > > > > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > > > > > <shrug> Just sharing my experiences with 'em. Consider yourself lucky, I guess, dork. > > > > > > > > Heh. Who're you calling a penis. Wut, you gay or something? > > > > > > Um, "dork", not "dick", moron. Learn to read. > > � > > Try looking up dork in the dictionary, then. > > Interesting...I've been using that term since at least junior high and have NEVER heard it used as a reference to a dick; must be recent (within past 5-10 years perhaps). <shrug>Quoted text (10 lines)
> > > > Why couldn't you get the AMD to work? > > > > > > I got it working fine; it would just overheat (despite a heat sink--this is a K5 I'm talking about) and hang my system a lot. > > > > More fans then, but that would have made it more noisy. Ok, > > overheating is annoying, but it hasn't happened with my Athlon. > > <shrug> The POINT is the K5 said it only required a heatsink, not heatsinkS and (a) fan(s). > > No, I'm sticking with reliable hardware, thank you: Intel and nVidia all the way.<shrug> I never had a problem with a 486 (I had a 486SX/33 or something--blah, been so long I don't give a shit).
Victor wrote:
Quoted text (22 lines)
> Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > > Victor wrote: > > > > > Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>... > > > > Victor wrote: > > > > > > > > > Why couldn't you get the AMD to work? > > > > > > > > I got it working fine; it would just overheat (despite a heat sink--this is a K5 I'm talking about) and hang my system a lot. > > > > > > More fans then, but that would have made it more noisy. Ok, > > > overheating is annoying, but it hasn't happened with my Athlon. > > > > <shrug> The POINT is the K5 said it only required a heatsink, not heatsinkS and (a) fan(s). > > > > No, I'm sticking with reliable hardware, thank you: Intel and nVidia all the way. > > But the point is that Intel is no more reliable than AMD. Hey, even > Intel has it's faults. Do you remember the math error in the original > Pentium? What an oversight that was! And Intel has also had it's share > of heat problems - especially the older 486-processors. And if you > don't think that's relevant, then don't bring up the ancient K5!"smr" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> You _do_ know that "dork" _is_ slang for penis, and has been since long
> before it also became synonymous with nerd or eep, right, fuckface?
This is what I love about this newsgroup. You just never stop learning!!
;)
-TIm
> <shrug> I never had a problem with a 486 (I had a 486SX/33 orsomething--blah, been so long I don't give a shit).
>
so, why do you give a shit about your old bad luck with the K5...? ;-)
Just remember, the last major fail ups have been from Intel's side.
Releasing a PIII running at 1000 when it couldnt compleat simple Linux
compiles and crashed very often.
And then P3 Chipset that used Rimm's then a convertor back to dimms.........
The Last good chip from Intel was the PII/III series, and the BX
chipset.....and, maybe thats the reason that was my last Intel system.....
:-(
Adam Webb wrote:
> > <shrug> I never had a problem with a 486 (I had a 486SX/33 or
> something--blah, been so long I don't give a shit).
> >
>
> so, why do you give a shit about your old bad luck with the K5...? ;-)
<shrug> K5's still in memory--just as is the ATI Rage 2+ and the IBM hard drive that died on me for no reason without bad sectors or anything. Remember, first impressions are everything...and my first impressions with these brands wasn't that nice!
> Just remember, the last major fail ups have been from Intel's side.
> Releasing a PIII running at 1000 when it couldnt compleat simple Linux
> compiles and crashed very often.
Eh, Linux...<twirl finger>
> And then P3 Chipset that used Rimm's then a convertor back to dimms.........
Eh, RIMMs...can't blame Intel for trying a new RAM type that just didn't catch on. <shrug>
> The Last good chip from Intel was the PII/III series, and the BX
> chipset.....and, maybe thats the reason that was my last Intel system.....
> :-(
Eh, Intel chipsets...
Eep� <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> <shrug> I never had a problem with a 486 (I had a 486SX/33 or something--blah, been so long I don't give a shit).
Wasn't immersive enough for you? ;P
- Vic
I'll agree on the BX. Most solid chipset Intel ever released, or has since.
I've got one left, the P3B-F that is used as my Terminal Server/Network
Monitor with a 450Mhz Slot-1 P3. Needs nothing more, and just runs and runs
and runs (and runs).
-Larry
"Adam Webb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:amdvvj$o91$[email hidden]...
dimms.........
>
> The Last good chip from Intel was the PII/III series, and the BX
> chipset.....and, maybe thats the reason that was my last Intel system.....
> :-(
>
>
Quoted text (11 lines)
> > <shrug> I never had a problem with a 486 (I had a 486SX/33 or > something--blah, been so long I don't give a shit). > > > > so, why do you give a shit about your old bad luck with the K5...? ;-) > > Just remember, the last major fail ups have been from Intel's side. > Releasing a PIII running at 1000 when it couldnt compleat simple Linux > compiles and crashed very often. > > And then P3 Chipset that used Rimm's then a convertor back toIn article <PjJi9.6152$[email hidden]>, Larry <[email hidden]>
says...
> I'll agree on the BX. Most solid chipset Intel ever released, or has since.
>
> I've got one left, the P3B-F that is used as my Terminal Server/Network
> Monitor with a 450Mhz Slot-1 P3.
That's more or less what my current system is - PIII 450 running on an ABIT
BH6.
> Needs nothing more, and just runs and runs and runs (and runs).
I had thermal cutout trouble a few months back (took a couple of weeks to
diagnose), but screwing a new fan onto the heatsink seems to have cured it.
Just as well since I can't afford a new processor even if I could find a
pre-Coppermine Slot 1 PIII.
--
Graham 'Jades' Thurlwell
Jades' FFE Site: http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier First Encounters site on the net
