Vista - Display driver stopped responding

"freddy" <fkirschen@tidalwave.net> wrote in message
news:1D3CEF9F-0156-4031-91DD-C0ACAA7F66A4@microsoft.com...
> Wayne,
>
> The VPU Recover is not an option as it's now built into Vista. What you
> have IS the VPU Recover option. It's an error, and your visual processing
> has been recovered, rather than your computer having crashed.
> --
> freddy
>
>

It shouldn't do this as I don't have my graphic card over-clocked or my cpu.
My CPU is running at 38c and my mobo at 40c. And, this only happens with
the last 3 drivers from ATI. Do a search for "Display driver stopped
responding and has recovered" and you will see the problem also exists with
the nVidia branded graphic cards.


Wayne

Wayne,

I'm well aware that this condition shouldn't happen and that it happens with
cards other than those by ATI. Overclocking and heat are only two of the
possible sources causing this condition. No one has said this condition is
exclusive to ATI cards. From where did you get that idea?

You should reread what has been posted here, and also take a look at the
reference for troubleshooting. That guide was written with ATI cards in
mind, because ATI developed the technology for VPU Recover before Vista was
developed. Microsoft incorporated that technology in Vista, so whatever card
you use with Vista can have the VPU Recover message. That guide tells you
some of the other (besides overclocking and heat) causes for the VPU Recover
condition.
--
freddy


"Wayne Wastier" wrote:

>
> "freddy" <fkirschen@tidalwave.net> wrote in message
> news:1D3CEF9F-0156-4031-91DD-C0ACAA7F66A4@microsoft.com...
> > Wayne,
> >
> > The VPU Recover is not an option as it's now built into Vista. What you
> > have IS the VPU Recover option. It's an error, and your visual processing
> > has been recovered, rather than your computer having crashed.
> > --
> > freddy
> >
> >
>
> It shouldn't do this as I don't have my graphic card over-clocked or my cpu.
> My CPU is running at 38c and my mobo at 40c. And, this only happens with
> the last 3 drivers from ATI. Do a search for "Display driver stopped
> responding and has recovered" and you will see the problem also exists with
> the nVidia branded graphic cards.
>
>
> Wayne
>
>
>

"freddy" <fkirschen@tidalwave.net> wrote in message
news:6D12C4DA-5142-41E5-A101-6DCBA63D1EB6@microsoft.com...
> Wayne,
>
> I'm well aware that this condition shouldn't happen and that it happens
> with
> cards other than those by ATI. Overclocking and heat are only two of the
> possible sources causing this condition. No one has said this condition is
> exclusive to ATI cards. From where did you get that idea?
>
> You should reread what has been posted here, and also take a look at the
> reference for troubleshooting. That guide was written with ATI cards in
> mind, because ATI developed the technology for VPU Recover before Vista
> was
> developed. Microsoft incorporated that technology in Vista, so whatever
> card
> you use with Vista can have the VPU Recover message. That guide tells you
> some of the other (besides overclocking and heat) causes for the VPU
> Recover
> condition.
> --
> freddy
>
>

Freddy, you are mistaken. This is not caused by VPU. Please get your facts
straight.

Now I see why you have been called a troll by many on this newsgroup.


Wayne

Wayne,

These are your words from your original post:

"The whole message reads,
Display driver stopped responding and has recovered
Display driver atikmdag stopped responding and has successfully
recovered."

So, what is it?

--
freddy


"Wayne Wastier" wrote:

>
> "freddy" <fkirschen@tidalwave.net> wrote in message
> news:6D12C4DA-5142-41E5-A101-6DCBA63D1EB6@microsoft.com...
> > Wayne,
> >
> > I'm well aware that this condition shouldn't happen and that it happens
> > with
> > cards other than those by ATI. Overclocking and heat are only two of the
> > possible sources causing this condition. No one has said this condition is
> > exclusive to ATI cards. From where did you get that idea?
> >
> > You should reread what has been posted here, and also take a look at the
> > reference for troubleshooting. That guide was written with ATI cards in
> > mind, because ATI developed the technology for VPU Recover before Vista
> > was
> > developed. Microsoft incorporated that technology in Vista, so whatever
> > card
> > you use with Vista can have the VPU Recover message. That guide tells you
> > some of the other (besides overclocking and heat) causes for the VPU
> > Recover
> > condition.
> > --
> > freddy
> >
> >
>
> Freddy, you are mistaken. This is not caused by VPU. Please get your facts
> straight.
>
> Now I see why you have been called a troll by many on this newsgroup.
>
>
> Wayne
>
>
>

"freddy" <fkirschen@tidalwave.net> wrote in message
news:318880B6-F198-4049-83FE-21D54487F87B@microsoft.com...
> Wayne,
>
> These are your words from your original post:
>
> "The whole message reads,
> Display driver stopped responding and has recovered
> Display driver atikmdag stopped responding and has successfully
> recovered."
>
> So, what is it?
>
> --
> freddy
>

It is a problem with the WDDM driver specification.

Also, top posting is considered to be rude on usenet.

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
By A. Smit and H.W. de Haan

Definitions:
Top-posting: Writing the message above the original text, when one replies
to an email or a post in a newsgroup.
Bottom-posting: The opposite of top-posting. Now the new message is placed
below the original text.

We are fanatic Usenet-readers. As a result we are often annoyed by people
who keep top-posting. This is considered as not good 'Net etiquette'. The
majority of Usenet-users prefer bottom-posting.
In addition to bottom-posting, it is customary to leave out non-relevant
parts of the message with regard to the reply, and to put the reply directly
beneath the quoted relevant parts. If you want to know more about writing
new posts. Check out this site:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html

Below you can find our arguments why bottom-posting is better than
top-posting.

1.. Because it is proper Usenet Etiquette. Check out the following URL:
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html . It is a little outdated but still
has a lot of valid points. Let us quote something from this site:

If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough
text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers
understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially,
is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to another, it is
possible to see a response to a message before seeing the original. Giving
context helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!

2.. We use a good news reader like Forte Agent. Good newsreaders like
Agent put the signature by default at the end of the post, which is the
Usenet convention. Microsoft Outlook Express however has some serious bugs.
Let us quote someone we know:

"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day
they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge
We are programmers ourselves, and we know it is very easy to implement to
put a signature at the end of the post instead of putting it directly above
the post you are replying to and can not change the position. Forte Agent
has as a feature that reply to a post it will remove the signature
(recognizable by '-- ', note the extra space) and everything below it, so it
will remove a part of the original message. This is good Usenet practice so
Agent is not faulty. Outlook Express on the other hand is faulty, check this
bugreport regarding the Usenet signature delimiter.

If you want to try Agent, you can get it here.


3.. Top-posting makes posts incomprehensible. Firstly: In normal
conversations, one does not answer to something that has not yet been said.
So it is unclear to reply to the top, whilst the original message is at the
bottom. Secondly: In western society a book is normally read from top to
bottom. Top-posting forces one to stray from this convention: Reading some
at the top, skipping to the bottom to read the question, and going back to
the top to continue. This annoyance increases even more than linear with the
number of top-posts in the message. If someone replies to a thread and you
forgot what the thread was all about, or that thread was incomplete for some
reasons, it will be quite tiresome to rapidly understand what the thread was
all about, due to bad posting and irrelevant text which has not been
removed.

4.. To prevent hideously long posts with a minimal account of new text, it
is good Usenet practice to remove the non-relevant parts and optionally
summarize the relevant parts of the original post, with regard to one's
reply. Top-posting inevitably leads to long posts, because most top-posters
leave the original message intact. All these long posts not only clutter up
discussions, but they also clutter up the server space.

5.. Top-posting makes it hard for bottom-posters to reply to the relevant
parts: it not possible to answer within the original message. Bottom-posting
does not make top-posting any harder.

6.. Some people will argue that quoting looks bad due line wrapping. This
can simply be dealt with by dropping Outlook Express as a start, and using
only linewidths of 65 - 70 characters. Otherwise one has do it manually, and
that can be tiresome.

7.. A reason given by stubborn top-posters: they don't like to scroll to
read the new message. We like to disagree here, because we always have to
scroll down to see the original message and after that to scroll back up,
just to see to what they are replying to. As a result you have to scroll
twice as much when reading a top-poster's message. As a counterargument they
say (believe us they do): "You can check the previous message in the
discussion". This is even more tiresome than scrolling and with the
unreliable nature of Usenet (and even email is inevitably unreliable), the
previous message in the discussion can be simply unavailable.

8.. Some newsgroups have strict conventions concerning posting in their
charter. As an example we can tell you that in most Dutch newsgroups, you
will be warned, killfiled or maybe even flamed, if you fail to follow Usenet
conventions or if you do not quote according to the quoting guidelines. In
general: it is better to practice the guidelines, if one does not want to
get flamed in a newsgroup one just subscribed to.

We can conclude that there are no good reasons we know of for top-posting.
The most top-posts originate from the minimal work people spend on making
posts. We think that one should be proud of one's post, that is it contains
relevant content, well-formed sentences and no irrelevant 'bullsh*t', before
uploading to your newsserver. If the majority of the group will adhere to
this convention, the group will be nicer, tidier and easier to read.
As a final remark we want to bring non-quoting into mind. This means that
the original content of an email or Usenet post is completely removed. It
makes it very hard for a reader to find out to what and whom one is
replying. This phenomenon can be partly attributed to wrong settings of
news- and email-clients, and partly to people who want to start with clean
replies.

Very interesting.
m

"Wayne Wastier" <hww1955@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%23QmL7OMzHHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Also, top posting is considered to be rude on usenet.
>
> http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
>
> Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
> By A. Smit and H.W. de Haan
>
> Definitions:
> Top-posting: Writing the message above the original text, when one replies
> to an email or a post in a newsgroup.
> Bottom-posting: The opposite of top-posting. Now the new message is placed
> below the original text.
>
> We are fanatic Usenet-readers. As a result we are often annoyed by people
> who keep top-posting. This is considered as not good 'Net etiquette'. The
> majority of Usenet-users prefer bottom-posting.
> In addition to bottom-posting, it is customary to leave out non-relevant
> parts of the message with regard to the reply, and to put the reply
> directly beneath the quoted relevant parts. If you want to know more about
> writing new posts. Check out this site:
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html
>
> Below you can find our arguments why bottom-posting is better than
> top-posting.
>
> 1.. Because it is proper Usenet Etiquette. Check out the following URL:
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html . It is a little outdated but still
> has a lot of valid points. Let us quote something from this site:
>
> If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you
> summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough
> text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers
> understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews,
> especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to
> another, it is possible to see a response to a message before seeing the
> original. Giving context helps everyone. But do not include the entire
> original!
>
> 2.. We use a good news reader like Forte Agent. Good newsreaders like
> Agent put the signature by default at the end of the post, which is the
> Usenet convention. Microsoft Outlook Express however has some serious
> bugs. Let us quote someone we know:
>
> "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the
> day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge
> We are programmers ourselves, and we know it is very easy to implement to
> put a signature at the end of the post instead of putting it directly
> above the post you are replying to and can not change the position. Forte
> Agent has as a feature that reply to a post it will remove the signature
> (recognizable by '-- ', note the extra space) and everything below it, so
> it will remove a part of the original message. This is good Usenet
> practice so Agent is not faulty. Outlook Express on the other hand is
> faulty, check this bugreport regarding the Usenet signature delimiter.
>
> If you want to try Agent, you can get it here.
>
>
> 3.. Top-posting makes posts incomprehensible. Firstly: In normal
> conversations, one does not answer to something that has not yet been
> said. So it is unclear to reply to the top, whilst the original message is
> at the bottom. Secondly: In western society a book is normally read from
> top to bottom. Top-posting forces one to stray from this convention:
> Reading some at the top, skipping to the bottom to read the question, and
> going back to the top to continue. This annoyance increases even more than
> linear with the number of top-posts in the message. If someone replies to
> a thread and you forgot what the thread was all about, or that thread was
> incomplete for some reasons, it will be quite tiresome to rapidly
> understand what the thread was all about, due to bad posting and
> irrelevant text which has not been removed.
>
> 4.. To prevent hideously long posts with a minimal account of new text,
> it is good Usenet practice to remove the non-relevant parts and optionally
> summarize the relevant parts of the original post, with regard to one's
> reply. Top-posting inevitably leads to long posts, because most
> top-posters leave the original message intact. All these long posts not
> only clutter up discussions, but they also clutter up the server space.
>
> 5.. Top-posting makes it hard for bottom-posters to reply to the relevant
> parts: it not possible to answer within the original message.
> Bottom-posting does not make top-posting any harder.
>
> 6.. Some people will argue that quoting looks bad due line wrapping. This
> can simply be dealt with by dropping Outlook Express as a start, and using
> only linewidths of 65 - 70 characters. Otherwise one has do it manually,
> and that can be tiresome.
>
> 7.. A reason given by stubborn top-posters: they don't like to scroll to
> read the new message. We like to disagree here, because we always have to
> scroll down to see the original message and after that to scroll back up,
> just to see to what they are replying to. As a result you have to scroll
> twice as much when reading a top-poster's message. As a counterargument
> they say (believe us they do): "You can check the previous message in the
> discussion". This is even more tiresome than scrolling and with the
> unreliable nature of Usenet (and even email is inevitably unreliable), the
> previous message in the discussion can be simply unavailable.
>
> 8.. Some newsgroups have strict conventions concerning posting in their
> charter. As an example we can tell you that in most Dutch newsgroups, you
> will be warned, killfiled or maybe even flamed, if you fail to follow
> Usenet conventions or if you do not quote according to the quoting
> guidelines. In general: it is better to practice the guidelines, if one
> does not want to get flamed in a newsgroup one just subscribed to.
>
> We can conclude that there are no good reasons we know of for top-posting.
> The most top-posts originate from the minimal work people spend on making
> posts. We think that one should be proud of one's post, that is it
> contains relevant content, well-formed sentences and no irrelevant
> 'bullsh*t', before uploading to your newsserver. If the majority of the
> group will adhere to this convention, the group will be nicer, tidier and
> easier to read.
> As a final remark we want to bring non-quoting into mind. This means that
> the original content of an email or Usenet post is completely removed. It
> makes it very hard for a reader to find out to what and whom one is
> replying. This phenomenon can be partly attributed to wrong settings of
> news- and email-clients, and partly to people who want to start with clean
> replies.
>
>

Troll

Plonk

"Cal Bear '66" <xxx@xxx.org> wrote in message
news:47F8474D-858A-453C-A17F-340F676E3601@microsoft.com...
> What is the bucket number?
>
> --
> I Bleed Blue and Gold
> GO BEARS!
>

I went to ATI and was going to file a ticket, but the issue is known to
them. See below:

Knowledge Base
AMD Customer Care Site Map > Radeon Support - PC > 737-27116: RadeonT
Series - ATIKMDAG has stopped responding error messages



The information in this article applies to the following
configuration(s):
a.. Catalyst Display Driver 7.3
b.. RadeonT X1950 series
c.. RadeonT X1900 series
d.. RadeonT X1800 series
e.. RadeonT X1650 series
f.. RadeonT X1600 series
g.. RadeonT X1550 series
h.. RadeonT X1300 series
i.. RadeonT X1050 series
j.. RadeonT X850 series
k.. RadeonT X800 series
l.. RadeonT X700 series
m.. RadeonT X600 series
n.. RadeonT X550 series
o.. RadeonT X300 series
p.. RadeonT 9800 series
q.. RadeonT 9700 series
r.. RadeonT 9650 series
s.. RadeonT 9600 series
t.. RadeonT 9550 series
u.. RadeonT 9500 series
v.. Windows Vista 32-bit Edition
w.. Windows Vista 64-bit Edition
Symptoms:


When running games or full screen video, some users may be shown a
message stating ATIKMDAG has stopped responding but was successfully
recovered. In some cases, the system will continue to work as normal.
Alternately, this error message may not result in the system being recovered
and the system may need to be reset.

Solution:
Currently there is no solution.

ATI Engineering has been advised of this issue and is investigating.
Any updates will be published when they become available.



200669


http://support.ati.com/ics/support/d...asp?deptID=894

Well, you can count me as a troll also! Freddy is one of the
most helpful and polite persons within the Vista news
groups. Since you seem to know so much, why did you even
bother coming here for assistance? And, there is nothing
wrong with top posting, especially in a group such as this -
saves a lot of scrolling when one is following a thread! If
you don't like it, go away!

Hobo


Wayne Wastier wrote:
> Troll
>
> Plonk
>
>