have just purchased a ati radeon x550 pci express

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Guest, Jan 4, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    cannot get the drivers installed in xp pro 64-bit.

    is their a list of campatible video cards that will work with xp pro 64-bit
     
    Guest, Jan 4, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. If you check the download section at http://www.planetamd64.com, you should
    be able to find a list of Video cards that are supported under Windows x64.
    As for your, ATI Radeon, x550, you might want to check the manufacturers
    website for drivers, click Drivers & Software > select Windows XP
    Professional 64-bit.
    --
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
     
    Andre Da Costa, Jan 4, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Guest

    John Barnes Guest

    John Barnes, Jan 4, 2006
    #3
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    have checked these sites, useless

    does microsoft have an approved hardware list for xp pro 64-bit
     
    Guest, Jan 4, 2006
    #4
  5. Andre Da Costa, Jan 4, 2006
    #5
  6. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Rick:
    On December 21st. I posted:
    "ATI has released a brand new set of drivers for their RADEON series of
    graphic cards.
    Here's the download page
    https://support.ati.com/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=894&task=knowledge&folderID=293
    Here's the download link
    https://a248.e.akamai.net/f/674/9206/0/www2.ati.com/drivers/5-13_xp64_dd_ccc_29127.exe
    (a 52.3 megs download)
    Here are the release notes
    https://a248.e.akamai.net/f/674/9206/0/www2.ati.com/drivers/catalyst_x64_513.html"
    Those are RADEON drivers so they should work with your card.
    A couple of comments now.
    NET framework 1.1 (for x64) needs to be installed for using the new Catalyst
    Control Center (CCC) which has replaced the older Catalyst Control Panel (CCP)
    You can still install the drivers without NET framework but you will not get
    the CCC functionality.
    I highly recommend removing CCC from the startup group because it increases
    Windows boot time a lot, and we don't need that (i.e.: longer boot time).
    Good luck!
    Carlos
     
    Guest, Jan 4, 2006
    #6
  7. Guest

    John Barnes Guest

    Microsoft doesn't even have a designation for vendors to use for this
    operating system. The Windows XP logo is useless as they can apparently
    still use the XP logo even when it won't work on x64. Same for the
    designation 'Windows all'
    Since the system is a little bastard that Microsoft threw out to appease
    AMD64 owners while they worked on Vista, I doubt it will ever be treated as
    a real system.
     
    John Barnes, Jan 4, 2006
    #7
  8. Guest

    John Barnes Guest

    I only repeated the warning that Charlie has also posted, that it was only
    as accurate as its posters. I should have added that caveat for the
    hardware too. Many here have mentioned it and I haven't really looked thru
    it except to see that several video cards were listed. Unfortunately, as
    far as software is concerned, what works for one may not for another. Roxio
    8 comes to mind. Barb seems to have no problem with it, but when it was
    installed on my machine, I had numerous anomalies that made it impossible to
    stay with, but Roxio 7 works great.
    Thanks for the reminder. :) Happy New Year
     
    John Barnes, Jan 4, 2006
    #8
  9. Me too. I'm in the middle of a tech support discussion with ATI. Their web
    site is as incompetent as their drivers. I listed for them the 4 lines that
    I added to their INF file in order to be able to force install their driver
    (which became an unsigned driver) for Radeon X550, and quoted the resulting
    error messages that were recorded in the system log, but this wasn't enough
    for them. They told me to download a problem reporting tool from a
    nonexistent link, then they e-mailed the problem reporting tool, then their
    web site wouldn't even accept the output of their problem reporting tool
    because the output was bigger than their limit.

    Compare this to nVidia, for which there is no way to get a GeForce 6100
    driver to even start (exception: you can do it by removing some of your
    real RAM, leaving even less for yourself after the 6100 takes some of it),
    and nVidia has copied Microsoft's policy of usually not even allowing
    victims to report problems in the first place.

    Who does that leave? Matrox? For only 10 times the price of the
    non-working ATI garbage and non-working nVidia garbage. Anyone know any
    affordable AND working video adapters?
     
    Norman Diamond, Jan 5, 2006
    #9
  10. Guest

    John Barnes Guest

    What's affordable. nVidia 6600 GT now run around $125, only $25 more than
    the x550
     
    John Barnes, Jan 5, 2006
    #10
  11. Guest

    Guest Guest

    ATI 9600 works fine with Catalyst 5.13's
    NVidia 6600 works fine with latest NVidia drivers.
    Carlos
     
    Guest, Jan 5, 2006
    #11
  12. Guest

    Chuck Cook Guest

    ATI X700 AGP works fine, Catalyst 5.12
     
    Chuck Cook, Jan 5, 2006
    #12
  13. Guest

    Lenard Lund Guest

    You must be the only people in the intire wolrd that can't follow the
    instructions to install the video driverts. ATI's has the best tech
    support I have ever delt with, and I have been in this business for over
    14 years. The Catalyst drivers will work if you uninstall what you have
    first and install .net as instructed.
     
    Lenard Lund, Jan 5, 2006
    #13
  14. My Radeon 9600 worked fine, but there were some issues with AGP access,
    and the GUI was not really functional. In the end I went back to 32-bit,
    and the driver there is not perfect, but works well enough for me.
    I agree that their web site is broken, but it is a positive surprise
    that they actually responded to your problem :)
    Unfortunately, Matrox seems to adopt all the unpleasent common practices
    (closed source Linux drivers, lots of hassle, instabilities etc...),
    while sticking to their pricepoint. No, I don't think they are the way out.
    What about Intel? I know, they concentrate on integrated graphics, which
    can be inconvenient, but driver wise I have heard good things.

    Thomas
     
    Thomas Steffen, Jan 5, 2006
    #14
  15. I followed the instructions. And as mentioned in your quotation of my
    previous posting, and as mentioned in my original submission on ATI's web
    site, I even told ATI the 4 lines that I had to add to ATI's INF file in
    order to be able to force their driver to install.

    You say to uninstall what I had first. That would be what, the null set or
    the Microsoft VGA Save driver (which it uses when no valid driver works).
    Suppose it's possible to uninstall the VGA Save driver, what will you do
    next with your 100% black screen?
     
    Norman Diamond, Jan 5, 2006
    #15
  16. Actually I personally don't care about closed source modules which don't
    contain any GPL'ed code. But this discussion has been about WINDOWS 64-bit
    so far.

    If Matrox is as unstable and hassleful as ATI and nVidia, that doesn't sound
    good either.
    OK, I do agree that Intel is still mostly a pretty responsible company, a
    rarity these days. But... are there any motherboards that contain a Socket
    939 and an Intel graphics adapter, or does Intel make add-on PCI x16
    graphics cards?
     
    Norman Diamond, Jan 5, 2006
    #16
  17. As mentioned, just prior to trying ATI (4 years after previously regretting
    trying ATI), nVidia taught me a lesson with the GeForce 6100. Why should I
    give in and buy a GeForce 6600 when I had already paid for and been deceived
    by a 6100?

    The GeForce 6100 can be made to work by reducing your RAM to 2GB (or maybe
    3GB but I didn't try it). That's pretty useless for anyone planning to run
    a few guest machines under Virtual Server R2 or VMWare. With 4GB of RAM the
    6100's driver doesn't start because the 6100 demands memory address space
    that conflicts with its own frame buffer.

    00000000D0000000 - 00000000DFFFFFFF unavailable to 6100
    because
    00000000DC000000 - 00000000DFFFFFFF motherboard resources
    and if you change the size of the frame buffer then the size of the
    motherboard resources reservation changes correspondingly.

    (Sure the competitor of a motherboard with integrated 6100 would be a
    motherboard with integrated X200, but I thought I found a good price point
    with an X200P and separate X550. I thought. Well, now I know why their
    prices looked good.)
     
    Norman Diamond, Jan 5, 2006
    #17
  18. Guest

    fb Guest

    Hummm...my Matrox P750 works just fine build 5270 (x64) installing the
    available Matrox x64 pro drivers.
    Frank
     
    fb, Jan 5, 2006
    #18
  19. Guest

    Lenard Lund Guest

    Man, all I know is that when I got the newest Catalyst drivers I was
    able to install them correctly and everything has worked like a charm
    ever since. I am runningt an X600 AIW, in an ASUS A8V-E Deluxe with the
    VIA VIA K8T890 chipset, AMD 4400+ dual core CPU, 2 Gigs of PC3200 ram
    and WD sata 10,000 RPM HDD. The drivers that shipped with the card
    didn't work after installing. I downloaded the newest version of the
    drivers and everything installed and works fine. this was last May. The
    newer drivers should be even better. I just get very tired of people
    ragging on ATI when they are probably the best video card maker out
    there. I have never had any difficulty with them and I have been dealing
    with them for about 15 years. I can't stand the NVidia stuff. good
    enough cards but too much hype and to many conflicts. As for Matrox I
    thought they had finally died a much needed death. Poor support and not
    as good a card.
     
    Lenard Lund, Jan 5, 2006
    #19
  20. Several times ATI replied with non-solutions for my Gigabyte GV-RX55256D,
    and last night they essentially confirmed that they will not issue a driver
    for this chipset. Gigabyte told me to get the driver from ATI and ATI told
    me to get the driver from Gigabyte, and of course a driver doesn't exist.

    In the above paragraph I called it "my Gigabyte GV-RX55256D" but next
    weekend it's going to be the dealer's Gigabyte GV-RX55256D, at the store
    where I was foolish enough to buy it. I hope the dealer will follow through
    and return it to Gigabyte. I hope Gigabyte will follow through and send the
    chips back to ATI.
     
    Norman Diamond, Jan 11, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.