• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

ATI Radeon 9200se Vista Compatible Drivers? ANYWHERE?

M
#1
ATI has made some (SOME) vista compatible drivers, but it appears that it is
only for 9500 and up.

Sure, Vista installs a default driver for the card, but that doesn't help
for games that require OpenGL.

Well, what happens if someone has a 9200SE 128MB?

SOL? I don't think that is fair.

If anyone knows how to work around this please contact me.

mfelgenhauer@gmail.com
 

My Computer

#2
Vista requires that the graphics card have DX9 support and some other
functionality which the the 91xx and 92xx ATI cards do not have in order to
support the advanced graphic functions
in Vista Premium and Vista Ultimate.
"Mark" <mfelgenhauer@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:F31B57E5-3577-4D67-B130-9610900341C4@microsoft.com...
> ATI has made some (SOME) vista compatible drivers, but it appears that it
> is only for 9500 and up.
>
> Sure, Vista installs a default driver for the card, but that doesn't help
> for games that require OpenGL.
>
> Well, what happens if someone has a 9200SE 128MB?
>
> SOL? I don't think that is fair.
>
> If anyone knows how to work around this please contact me.
>
> mfelgenhauer@gmail.com
 

My Computer

J

Jane C

#4
It's not just DirectX 9 that is required. Pixel Shader 2 is also required.
The 9250 has Pixel shader 1.

--
Jane, not plain ;) 64 bit enabled :-)
Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation ;-)
"BSchnur" <BSchnur@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.2031db981b3a14de9896e6@msnews.microsoft.com...
>I was wondering about that. I've seen one manufacturer which claims
> DirectX 9 with 9250's:
>
> http://www.hisdigital.com/html/product_ov.php?id=235&view=yes
> http://www.hisdigital.com/html/product_ov.php?id=137&view=yes
> http://www.hisdigital.com/html/product_ov.php?id=44&view=yes
>
> I suspect they are confused though.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Barry Schnur
 

My Computer

#5
The Catalyst drivers for Windows XP contained 9x and shader 2 support for
91x x and 92xx cards within the driver itself. ATI has apparantly decided
not fund the effort to add this support also for their Vista drives since
the cards cannot qualify for the Vista Logo program without these features
being on the cards themselves.

"BSchnur" <BSchnur@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.2031db981b3a14de9896e6@msnews.microsoft.com...
>I was wondering about that. I've seen one manufacturer which claims
> DirectX 9 with 9250's:
>
> http://www.hisdigital.com/html/product_ov.php?id=235&view=yes
> http://www.hisdigital.com/html/product_ov.php?id=137&view=yes
> http://www.hisdigital.com/html/product_ov.php?id=44&view=yes
>
> I suspect they are confused though.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Barry Schnur
 

My Computer

P

Peter

#6
Look on eBay for an ATI Radeon 9550 - Vista drivers are available for it.
That is the cheapest way of getting all the Vista effects working.

--
Peter
Toronto, Canada
XP Pro SP2 x 2 + Vista RC2
P4 D865GBFL HT @ 3.0ghz 2.0gb DDR 700gb HD
ATI Radeon 9550 Graphics
Creative Soundblaster Audigy 4 Audio

"Mark" <mfelgenhauer@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:F31B57E5-3577-4D67-B130-9610900341C4@microsoft.com...
> ATI has made some (SOME) vista compatible drivers, but it appears that it
> is only for 9500 and up.
>
> Sure, Vista installs a default driver for the card, but that doesn't help
> for games that require OpenGL.
>
> Well, what happens if someone has a 9200SE 128MB?
>
> SOL? I don't think that is fair.
>
> If anyone knows how to work around this please contact me.
>
> mfelgenhauer@gmail.com
 

My Computer

L

Luke Chalmers

#7
HOW FRUSTRATING!!!

I currently have the RC1 on my machine. When I got the computer with XP it
only had a integrated 64mb video card. I wanted to explore the Vista graphics
features as I work in IT and need to know Vista before it is rolled out to
our customers.

I find the Radeon 9250 and notice it has 256Mb Ram and Directx9. I thought
this was what Vista required. I install it and Windows Vista cannot find the
drivers. I go online and find that ATI are not supporting Vista drivers for
this video card. I only bought it Thursday.

I am now going to return the card for the updated 9550 card. The funny thing
is, is that it is only £4 more.

Vista is starting to be a pain as far as hardware is concerned. I thought I
was buying a resonable, good value graphics card. Obviously not. I feel sorry
for the people that have a graphics card which seems up to the job but does
not work with Vista.

I will let you all know how I get on with the new one.

Luke

"JW" wrote:

> The Catalyst drivers for Windows XP contained 9x and shader 2 support for
> 91x x and 92xx cards within the driver itself. ATI has apparantly decided
> not fund the effort to add this support also for their Vista drives since
> the cards cannot qualify for the Vista Logo program without these features
> being on the cards themselves.
>
> "BSchnur" <BSchnur@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2031db981b3a14de9896e6@msnews.microsoft.com...
> >I was wondering about that. I've seen one manufacturer which claims
> > DirectX 9 with 9250's:
> >
> > http://www.hisdigital.com/html/product_ov.php?id=235&view=yes
> > http://www.hisdigital.com/html/product_ov.php?id=137&view=yes
> > http://www.hisdigital.com/html/product_ov.php?id=44&view=yes
> >
> > I suspect they are confused though.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Barry Schnur

>
>
>
 

My Computer

B

BSchnur

#8
> It's not just DirectX 9 that is required. Pixel Shader 2 is also required.
> The 9250 has Pixel shader 1.
>

OK -- sort of goes to a point I was making in another thread. Folks
going to Vista as an upgrade on hardware purchased a year or so ago and
wanting to take full advantage of gaming (or other high end stuff) are
going to find that purchasing new hardware to go with the $200+ OS
upgrade makes a lot of sense.


--
Barry Schnur
 

My Computer

B

BSchnur

#9
OK -- and those cards are sub $50 cards, so it makes sense I suppose.

The thing is, while I'm running Vista on one test box 939 motherboard
(with an X2 3800), the newer AM2 motherboards, which support PCI-X16
are the configuration I expect to use for Vista deployments -- and
apparently I need to research further as to the right video card -- I
was hoping for most set ups the X850 would be a good match, but it
looks like I may need to explore further up the cost/food chain.

I have both small business clients (even the x550 should be fine for
them) and home users as clients -- for them, x1300 might make more
sense.

One thing though, I don't see that I'll be pushing Vista on users with
AMD 754 or even AMD 939 systems currently running XP -- if they want
it, I will query them as to what they are looking for first.


--
Barry Schnur
 

My Computer

B

BSchnur

#10
That is the thing here -- the 9600 Radeons were well over $100 here at
one point, they are now $60 -- so they are a decent choice.


--
Barry Schnur
 

My Computer

D

Dustin Harper

#11
Exactly. I feel that if you have a PC no more than a year old (and it
was a mid to high end), you should be able to upgrade to Vista.
Otherwise, you'll need to upgrade your PC first.

Excellent point.

--
Dustin Harper
dharper@vistarip.com
http://www.vistarip.com


BSchnur wrote:
>> It's not just DirectX 9 that is required. Pixel Shader 2 is also required.
>> The 9250 has Pixel shader 1.
>>

> OK -- sort of goes to a point I was making in another thread. Folks
> going to Vista as an upgrade on hardware purchased a year or so ago and
> wanting to take full advantage of gaming (or other high end stuff) are
> going to find that purchasing new hardware to go with the $200+ OS
> upgrade makes a lot of sense.
>
>
 

My Computer

B

BSchnur

#12
> Exactly. I feel that if you have a PC no more than a year old (and it
> was a mid to high end), you should be able to upgrade to Vista.
> Otherwise, you'll need to upgrade your PC first.
>

Right, my first test box (with 64 bit RC1) was a 939MB which supports
dual channel DDR RAM (up to 4G total), but with PCI x16. So it is
pretty much ready for Vista 32 (and runs Vista 64 just fine). That
motherboard was available more than a year ago.

In the AMD world, the 939 based motherboards are sort of the crossover
point -- early ones don't provide dual memory channel, and none of them
support DDR2, early ones are AGP 4x/8x, later ones support PCI-X16
including SLI. Folks have those and want to do Vista, with a bit of
tweaking (adding RAM, better video card) they should be happy.

Folks with AM2 based boards are in even better shape.

But folks with 754 boards -- slower process, no dual channel RAM, often
2G max memory and mostly AGP (though some of them do have PCI x16).
Well, Windows XP is probably a better fit.

I suspect the same thing applies in the Intel side of the world as
well.

The important thing is to respect those who ask first before shelling
out money for Vista and find out what they use Windows for, what sort
of hardware and applications they are running and then find out why
they want Vista.

The whole Vista is God, Vista Sucks dialectic seems rather foolish.


--
Barry Schnur
 

My Computer

H

Hugh Wyn Griffith

#13
I have the ATI Radeon 9600XT (?on the letters) and it runs fine under
VISTA but I've no idea at present if I'm using Aero or anything fancy.
 

My Computer

B

BSchnur

#14
> I have the ATI Radeon 9600XT (?on the letters) and it runs fine under
> VISTA but I've no idea at present if I'm using Aero or anything fancy.


Right, most of the business computers I deployed last year that had AGP
slots got the 9250SE. About the fourth quarter, those business systems
I deployed got motherboards with PCI-X16 slots and Radeon X550 or X850
cards.


--
Barry Schnur
 

My Computer

D

David Hearn

#15
I built my PC in May 2005. It's a Shuttle NForce 2 based bare bones PC
which I put in an Athlon XP 3000+, 1GB RAM + ATI Radeon AIW 9700 Pro
(bought 2nd hand for £50 in May 2005).

This runs Vista Ultimate perfectly fine for me. Only hardware upgrade
was an ageing Umax scanner which didn't work in Vista. Now have a much
nicer, smaller one which also supports scanning of my old negatives.
Oh, and I spent £20 on a 2GB flash drive for ReadyBoost.

The spec I went for in 2005 wasn't top of the range. It was pretty good
- but not the 64bit etc which was on the market at the time.

Saying that more than a year old needs a hardware upgrade first, or that
if it's less than a year old you need mid to high end hardware, that's
probably a bit strict.

David

Dustin Harper wrote:
> Exactly. I feel that if you have a PC no more than a year old (and it
> was a mid to high end), you should be able to upgrade to Vista.
> Otherwise, you'll need to upgrade your PC first.
>
> Excellent point.
>
> --
> Dustin Harper
> dharper@vistarip.com
> http://www.vistarip.com
>
>
> BSchnur wrote:
>>> It's not just DirectX 9 that is required. Pixel Shader 2 is also
>>> required. The 9250 has Pixel shader 1.
>>>

>> OK -- sort of goes to a point I was making in another thread. Folks
>> going to Vista as an upgrade on hardware purchased a year or so ago
>> and wanting to take full advantage of gaming (or other high end stuff)
>> are going to find that purchasing new hardware to go with the $200+ OS
>> upgrade makes a lot of sense.
>>
>>
 

My Computer

D

David Hearn

#16
BSchnur wrote:
>> Exactly. I feel that if you have a PC no more than a year old (and it
>> was a mid to high end), you should be able to upgrade to Vista.
>> Otherwise, you'll need to upgrade your PC first.
>>

> Right, my first test box (with 64 bit RC1) was a 939MB which supports
> dual channel DDR RAM (up to 4G total), but with PCI x16. So it is
> pretty much ready for Vista 32 (and runs Vista 64 just fine). That
> motherboard was available more than a year ago.
>
> In the AMD world, the 939 based motherboards are sort of the crossover
> point -- early ones don't provide dual memory channel, and none of them
> support DDR2, early ones are AGP 4x/8x, later ones support PCI-X16
> including SLI. Folks have those and want to do Vista, with a bit of
> tweaking (adding RAM, better video card) they should be happy.
>
> Folks with AM2 based boards are in even better shape.
>
> But folks with 754 boards -- slower process, no dual channel RAM, often
> 2G max memory and mostly AGP (though some of them do have PCI x16).
> Well, Windows XP is probably a better fit.


I have an Athlon XP 3000+ running via Socket A (which is older than
socket 754) nForce 2 Shuttle board. I have dual channel RAM (2x512MB
installed) using 8xAGP with a Radeon 9700 Pro and I get excellent
performance in my machine. Certainly better than I did in XP.

D
 

My Computer

D

David Hearn

#17
Peter wrote:
> Look on eBay for an ATI Radeon 9550 - Vista drivers are available for it.
> That is the cheapest way of getting all the Vista effects working.


I bought a Radeon 9700 Pro All in Wonder in May 2005 for £50 from eBay.
Excellent card, brilliant performance in HL2 I found, and also now,
nearly 2 years later, is fully Vista compatible. Brilliant - probably
one of the better £50 I spend on PC components!

David
 

My Computer

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)