Which is better? 256mb fx5700 or 128mb fx5900?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

I am a budget gamer on an athlon xp 2800 oced slightly and 512 mb of ram
and a geforce 4 mx440 64mb oced to 312/579 and a SB Live! LS 5.1. I'm
running Windows 98 and I'm pretty sure my graphics card is the
bottleneck for UT2004, Sims 2, etc. I am interested in Doom 3. So,
like I said which card is better, 256mb fx5700 or 128mb fx5900?? The
fx5700 is about $30 cheaper give or take a few... Thx!
28 answers Last reply
More about which better 256mb fx5700 128mb fx5900
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    the 5700 has a beaming fast 128bit memory interface(sic), while the 5900 has
    256bit...you do tha math!
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    5900 baby.


    "John Dawg" <jmoorman22@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:10rk2fm5mj95eb9@corp.supernews.com...
    >I am a budget gamer on an athlon xp 2800 oced slightly and 512 mb of ram
    >and a geforce 4 mx440 64mb oced to 312/579 and a SB Live! LS 5.1. I'm
    >running Windows 98 and I'm pretty sure my graphics card is the bottleneck
    >for UT2004, Sims 2, etc. I am interested in Doom 3. So, like I said which
    >card is better, 256mb fx5700 or 128mb fx5900?? The fx5700 is about $30
    >cheaper give or take a few... Thx!
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    So then what advantage is more ram on the card? I may sound dumb but I'm
    just curious... if I got a 256mb 5900 what advantage would I see over
    the 128mb 5900?
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    "John Dawg" <jmoorman22@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:10rk3tnd9ghkk18@corp.supernews.com...
    > So then what advantage is more ram on the card? I may sound dumb but I'm
    > just curious... if I got a 256mb 5900 what advantage would I see over the
    > 128mb 5900?


    Simple answer -
    You simply have more data for storage if need.

    CapFusion,...
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    "John Dawg" <jmoorman22@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:10rk2fm5mj95eb9@corp.supernews.com...

    " So, like I said which card is better, 256mb fx5700 or 128mb fx5900?? "


    The 5900 is well worth the extra $20.
    http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-08.html
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Okay just checked prices again at newegg, they seem to have the best
    prices... (Surprisingly, the other low price leader is Amazon!! Who
    would think?!?) Now another dilemma... the fx5900 128mb is a refurb at
    $147.60 with no extras, the fx5700 256mb is $86.39 new oem, and includes
    WinDVD 6 channel, WinDVD Creator, and WinPlay if I'm reading the text on
    the jpg accurately.. I think I just might go for the fx5700 since this
    computer is gonna be for sale in 6 months anyways.. :) if anyone thinks
    I'm making a mistake I would appreciate the info.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Okay just checked prices again at newegg, they seem to have the best
    prices... (Surprisingly, the other low price leader is Amazon!! Who
    would think?!?) Now another dilemma... the fx5900 128mb is a refurb at
    $147.60 with no extras, the fx5700 256mb is $86.39 new oem, and includes
    WinDVD 6 channel, WinDVD Creator, and WinPlay if I'm reading the text on
    the jpg accurately.. Is a refurb significantly less reliable? I think I
    just might go for the fx5700 since this
    computer is gonna be for sale in 6 months anyways.. :) if anyone thinks
    I'm making a mistake I would appreciate the info.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Hmm, been a long time since I've used a newsgroup... Thunderbird has an
    edit button, which I now know makes a new post. Sorry guys.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    "John Dawg" <jmoorman22@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:10rk3tnd9ghkk18@corp.supernews.com...
    > So then what advantage is more ram on the card? I may sound dumb but I'm
    > just curious... if I got a 256mb 5900 what advantage would I see over the
    > 128mb 5900?

    Mostly no advantage on current games in fact they often use slower memory so
    that the 256meg cards are slower.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Thx for all the great info!! I really appreciate!! And researching
    further, more vram just increases your maximum possible
    resolution/depth...which right now 128 mb is getting high enough for
    anything smaller than a 4 foot monitor. ;) Mine's only 17", don't know
    why I would ever want 2048x1536 @ 32bpp anyway. :)
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Now looking at the specs on the cards it seems as though the 128 mb
    supports the same resolution... is video memory used for something
    different nowadays than what is in the website I'm reading? If i'm
    getting too far OT please warn me, I'm new to this ng. Thanks!
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    John Dawg wrote:

    > Now looking at the specs on the cards it seems as though the 128 mb
    > supports the same resolution... is video memory used for something
    > different nowadays than what is in the website I'm reading? If i'm
    > getting too far OT please warn me, I'm new to this ng. Thanks!

    I wouldn't think asking about the abilities of an nVidia video card would be
    OT in here, but we DO enjoy 2 or 3 page long posts about one's prowess at
    Quake. An inability to form complete sentences wouldn't hurt, either.

    dvus
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    "John Dawg" <jmoorman22@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:10rk3tnd9ghkk18@corp.supernews.com...

    " So then what advantage is more ram on the card? I may sound dumb but I'm
    just curious... if I got a 256mb 5900 what advantage would I see over the
    128mb 5900? "


    For games that don't utilise 128MB RAM, you'll actually get no benefit from
    having the 256MB version. Cards with 256MB usually use slower RAM than
    their equal 128MB counterparts anyway.

    Retailers seem to be charging a hell of a lot for the 256MB 5900. For the
    cost of a 256MB 5900, you'd do better off looking at the 6600GT, 6800LE or
    6800.

    http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/over2k4/index.html
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    John Dawg wrote:
    > Now looking at the specs on the cards it seems as though the 128 mb
    > supports the same resolution... is video memory used for something
    > different nowadays than what is in the website I'm reading? If i'm
    > getting too far OT please warn me, I'm new to this ng. Thanks!

    In the old days, the vid mem was indeed a factor to take into account
    when calculating which resolution could be output to a screen. I
    remember buying a Matrox Millenium 4MB, which coulnd't output 1600x1200
    at 32bit color, not enough mem on the card.

    Anything beyond 16 MB will be able to output just about any resolution
    at any bitdepth you may need. The video memory on these cards is for
    buffering texture information mainly. So the more memory onboard, the
    better it will perform in games that use a lot of (high quality)
    textures. Almost all games don't need more than 128MB for now, although
    the latest (Far Cry, Doom3, Half Life 2) may run a tad smoother or allow
    higher quality settings with more memory. When running these games at a
    high setting using the 5900, you may get some lag now and then when the
    game swaps textures, but the framerate will be considerable higher
    compared to the 5700 with 258MB.

    Safe to say you're probably better off with the 5900.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Wow, lots of great info!!! Much better than anything I've seen on most
    web forums!!! Now, as dvus suggested, here's my post about ut2004
    skills. ;)

    d00dz!! Yew shud haf sin me last nite!!11 I was total like as tho
    blowing EVERYBODY!! I pwned 500 frags and never tuk like once hp fo
    damga.! So 133t!!! Roxxors!!!!111oneone It was gibs everywhere!
    Grizards hot and chwey flying in teh err!!!!!one Sry my enkless is sew
    pour, I'm form the nother kntrey. (How I learned to write this way is
    unimaginable. Only in the US would I get by in school without any
    communication skills. However, I still claim it's because I'm from
    Kajmhenistan.)
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    John Dawg wrote:
    > Okay just checked prices again at newegg, they seem to have the best
    > prices... (Surprisingly, the other low price leader is Amazon!! Who
    > would think?!?) Now another dilemma... the fx5900 128mb is a refurb
    > at $147.60 with no extras, the fx5700 256mb is $86.39 new oem, and
    > includes WinDVD 6 channel, WinDVD Creator, and WinPlay if I'm reading
    > the text on the jpg accurately.. Is a refurb significantly less
    > reliable? I think I just might go for the fx5700 since this
    > computer is gonna be for sale in 6 months anyways.. :) if anyone
    > thinks I'm making a mistake I would appreciate the info.

    I got a MSI FX5900 about 3 months ago, very happy with it, but the e-tailer
    had an impressive bundle listed with it, when the card arrived, no bundle.
    A quick call to customer services confirmed that the cards no longer shipped
    to them with bundles, but he'd check in the ware house for me and see what
    they had, 3 days later an ASUS bundle landed on my door mat :-)

    So don't necessarily think you'll get the bundle with older generation
    cards.

    Cheers

    Hamish

    --
    Go Strugglers

    "I never comment on referees, and I'm not going to break the habit of a
    lifetime for that prat"
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    "dvus" <dven1invalid@adelphia.net> wrote in message
    news:31um8qF3f0qquU1@individual.net...
    > John Dawg wrote:
    >
    > > Now looking at the specs on the cards it seems as though the 128 mb
    > > supports the same resolution... is video memory used for something
    > > different nowadays than what is in the website I'm reading? If i'm
    > > getting too far OT please warn me, I'm new to this ng. Thanks!
    >
    > I wouldn't think asking about the abilities of an nVidia video card would
    be
    > OT in here, but we DO enjoy 2 or 3 page long posts about one's prowess at
    > Quake. An inability to form complete sentences wouldn't hurt, either.


    Quaek r0x0rz! ur moma 2....

    (insert 3 pages of obligatory Quakeholioness...)

    I, me, me, mine, my Nvid yer cod r0x0rz ur moma in Quaek ATI suxx0rz u r
    dribbel bandit u think ur droolkacher ATI POS catch me YOU'RE ALL BIG MOUSE!

    ;-)

    It sure beats politics...

    The 5900 has much better shadowing capabilities. This means it'll sneak up
    on you real quiet-like and step on your shadow when u.r. not looking and
    make vodoun pain where it ste...
    Basically, the 5900 allows for faster, more accurate shadow generation. I
    think this is done thru z-culling non-inclusive areas (outside of
    light-source bounds)---the most seemingly likely and most efficient fashion
    I'd imagine--- Suffice it to say, it works, and the 5900 provides for faster
    shadow calcs, especially using multiple and moving light-sources. This means
    realistic shadows can be used without much speed penalty---i.e. no more
    typical blobs that move at some seemingly random tangent to the actor
    depending on which way it's facing. Shadows that look more like the real
    thing, and can grow and shrink relative to light source position. That
    r0x0rs! ESPECIALLY IN QUAEK1 WHICH USES ALL_SHADOWS_EVERYWHERE !!! (&
    rEALLYrEALLY IN DOOM3)

    >
    > dvus
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    I got \cg_madSkillz 1

    :-)

    --
    "War is the continuation of politics by other means.
    It can therefore be said that politics is war without
    bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


    "Nerdillius Maximus" <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote in message
    news:mttud.219179$HA.53669@attbi_s01...
    > Quaek r0x0rz! ur moma 2....
    >
    > (insert 3 pages of obligatory Quakeholioness...)
    >
    > I, me, me, mine, my Nvid yer cod r0x0rz ur moma in Quaek ATI suxx0rz u r
    > dribbel bandit u think ur droolkacher ATI POS catch me YOU'RE ALL BIG
    MOUSE!
    >
    > ;-)
    >
    > It sure beats politics...
    >
    > The 5900 has much better shadowing capabilities. This means it'll sneak up
    > on you real quiet-like and step on your shadow when u.r. not looking and
    > make vodoun pain where it ste...
    > Basically, the 5900 allows for faster, more accurate shadow generation. I
    > think this is done thru z-culling non-inclusive areas (outside of
    > light-source bounds)---the most seemingly likely and most efficient
    fashion
    > I'd imagine--- Suffice it to say, it works, and the 5900 provides for
    faster
    > shadow calcs, especially using multiple and moving light-sources. This
    means
    > realistic shadows can be used without much speed penalty---i.e. no more
    > typical blobs that move at some seemingly random tangent to the actor
    > depending on which way it's facing. Shadows that look more like the real
    > thing, and can grow and shrink relative to light source position. That
    > r0x0rs! ESPECIALLY IN QUAEK1 WHICH USES ALL_SHADOWS_EVERYWHERE !!! (&
    > rEALLYrEALLY IN DOOM3)
    >
    > >
    > > dvus
    >
    >
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    John Dawg:

    > Now another dilemma... the fx5900 128mb is a refurb
    > at $147.60 with no extras, the fx5700 256mb is $86.39 new oem

    Hold up... you're about to make a mistake. The $86.39 card is not a 5700,
    it is a 5700LE. Big difference in performance! Although the 5700LE will
    still be faster than your MX440, you will have to overclock it greatly to
    get a significant performance improvement from it. The 5700LE cards have
    been very hit or miss on overclocking, some websites have been able to
    clock them up to 600Mhz, but several people posted here that they could
    only go a little over 400Mhz.

    A 5700 will be plenty fast for UT2004 and probably the Sims, but it's a
    little low end for Doom3 although it should run fine. I wouldn't waste the
    extra money on a 256Mb card, get a 128Mb card.

    Lastly, I hate to say it, but the Radeon 9600XT is a better value right
    now than either the 5700 or 5900XT.

    http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/index.html
    --
    Mac Cool
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    defintely the 5900XT but at last check, Doom3 only plays on 2000/xp. Not
    Win98/SE.

    John Dawg wrote:
    > I am a budget gamer on an athlon xp 2800 oced slightly and 512 mb of ram
    > and a geforce 4 mx440 64mb oced to 312/579 and a SB Live! LS 5.1. I'm
    > running Windows 98 and I'm pretty sure my graphics card is the
    > bottleneck for UT2004, Sims 2, etc. I am interested in Doom 3. So,
    > like I said which card is better, 256mb fx5700 or 128mb fx5900?? The
    > fx5700 is about $30 cheaper give or take a few... Thx!
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    "First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:CuqdnThiEPkUlybcRVn-ow@rogers.com...
    > I got \cg_madSkillz 1
    >

    *w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00
    t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w00t!*w
    00t!*w00t!*w00t!*

    l33tness!

    > :-)
    >
    > --
    > "War is the continuation of politics by other means.
    > It can therefore be said that politics is war without
    > bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."
    >
    >
    > "Nerdillius Maximus" <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote in message
    > news:mttud.219179$HA.53669@attbi_s01...
    > > Quaek r0x0rz! ur moma 2....
    > >
    snippage...
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    "Mac Cool" <Mac@2cool.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns95BC426F49FA7MacCool@24.25.9.42...
    > John Dawg:
    >
    > > Now another dilemma... the fx5900 128mb is a refurb
    > > at $147.60 with no extras, the fx5700 256mb is $86.39 new oem
    >
    > Hold up... you're about to make a mistake. The $86.39 card is not a 5700,
    > it is a 5700LE. Big difference in performance! Although the 5700LE will
    > still be faster than your MX440, you will have to overclock it greatly to
    > get a significant performance improvement from it. The 5700LE cards have
    > been very hit or miss on overclocking, some websites have been able to
    > clock them up to 600Mhz, but several people posted here that they could
    > only go a little over 400Mhz.
    >
    > A 5700 will be plenty fast for UT2004 and probably the Sims, but it's a
    > little low end for Doom3 although it should run fine. I wouldn't waste the
    > extra money on a 256Mb card, get a 128Mb card.

    Me myself, I'd wait until the 6600 GT AGP drop$ a bit, although I just don't
    see how someone suffered with the MX4 for that long, and it's just begging
    for a dirt-nap...

    > Lastly, I hate to say it, but the Radeon 9600XT is a better value right
    > now than either the 5700 or 5900XT.

    No! He's hopped the fence! Ack! He has demenATIa! Get the o'derlies, sedate
    that boah! What will we tell his folks?

    Well this may be true, and especially since ATI's OpenGL can only get better
    to nip at the decent DirectX performance, but then again, there's ATI's
    wonderful new direction in control panel fluffage. Still, since you can pick
    up a new 9600XT for the price of the refurb 5900, it's pretty much a
    no-brainer. Doom 3 will run on it ok, and UT '04 will fly with all the
    eye-candy!

    BTW you have to hex-edit the Doom 3 executable in order to get it to work in
    98SE or ME, and it no work with patch, only the original .exe, and textures
    are not as good, and she a little slower. Better to run it at least under
    Win2k, and especially if it's XP Pro, I'd throw in the obligatory half more
    gig RAM without hesitation. A gig is pretty much the minimum these days for
    serious work 'n' play.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Doom3 only on xp?!?!? Eeeeeeeek!! Am I the last gamer out there using
    Win 98 in a belief that it gives more memory and cpu to my games/winamp
    visualizers/lame ?!?!? Surely there's an army of people just like me
    who are scared of XP! Anyway, if that's the case, I'll just stick with
    Sims 2 and UT2004 and UT2003... and the fact that the 5900 is a refurb,
    is that a fairly moot point?

    Sim wrote:
    > defintely the 5900XT but at last check, Doom3 only plays on 2000/xp. Not
    > Win98/SE.
    >
    > John Dawg wrote:
    >
    >> I am a budget gamer on an athlon xp 2800 oced slightly and 512 mb of
    >> ram and a geforce 4 mx440 64mb oced to 312/579 and a SB Live! LS 5.1.
    >> I'm running Windows 98 and I'm pretty sure my graphics card is the
    >> bottleneck for UT2004, Sims 2, etc. I am interested in Doom 3. So,
    >> like I said which card is better, 256mb fx5700 or 128mb fx5900?? The
    >> fx5700 is about $30 cheaper give or take a few... Thx!
    >
    >
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    UPDATE - I waited too late... now the cheapest AGP 5900 at newegg is
    $162 ... I can get a refurb 128mb 5700le for $75, or the new 256mb
    5700le for $86, that basically seals the deal, since this is my next For
    Sale machine in 6 months.

    Sim wrote:
    > defintely the 5900XT but at last check, Doom3 only plays on 2000/xp. Not
    > Win98/SE.
    >
    > John Dawg wrote:
    >
    >> I am a budget gamer on an athlon xp 2800 oced slightly and 512 mb of
    >> ram and a geforce 4 mx440 64mb oced to 312/579 and a SB Live! LS 5.1.
    >> I'm running Windows 98 and I'm pretty sure my graphics card is the
    >> bottleneck for UT2004, Sims 2, etc. I am interested in Doom 3. So,
    >> like I said which card is better, 256mb fx5700 or 128mb fx5900?? The
    >> fx5700 is about $30 cheaper give or take a few... Thx!
    >
    >
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    "John Dawg" <jmoorman22@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:10rns2as8l2hbe@corp.supernews.com...
    > Doom3 only on xp?!?!? Eeeeeeeek!! Am I the last gamer out there using
    > Win 98 in a belief that it gives more memory and cpu to my games/winamp
    > visualizers/lame ?!?!?

    I multiboot for this sort of thing. I use W2k as my work environment,
    because this install is as bomb-proof as it gets.

    Surely there's an army of people just like me
    > who are scared of XP!

    Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf? (yeah there's an army, and we prolly are
    tending toward back pain, arthritis, and bifocals...or at least the
    beginnings of hair loss...) What's there to be afraid of? A little more
    elbow grease flogging it into shape, and a bit more necessary "getting on
    the ball" when it comes to security?


    Anyway, if that's the case, I'll just stick with
    > Sims 2 and UT2004 and UT2003... and the fact that the 5900 is a refurb,
    > is that a fairly moot point?

    Only if it woiks properly...

    >
    > Sim wrote:
    > > defintely the 5900XT but at last check, Doom3 only plays on 2000/xp. Not
    > > Win98/SE.


    Wanna bet? I take PayPal, credit/debit, postal money orders, travelers'
    checks, preferably CASH! Hundred bucks! Wait, make it a thousand, that way I
    can buy MYSELF a nice Xmas present...

    Nah, I'll bet you know better than to bet with me (betcha on this too! How
    'bout for beer?)!

    I believe I covered this in another post...it does indeed work but it's not
    as pretty or as smooth as running it where it was meant to be...

    Would anyone like a complete description of how to get Doom 3 to work on
    98SE/ME? Naturally, it works better on W2k/XP, but it'll run where it's not
    s'poto...


    > >
    > > John Dawg wrote:
    > >
    > >> I am a budget gamer on an athlon xp 2800 oced slightly and 512 mb of
    > >> ram and a geforce 4 mx440 64mb oced to 312/579 and a SB Live! LS 5.1.
    > >> I'm running Windows 98 and I'm pretty sure my graphics card is the
    > >> bottleneck for UT2004, Sims 2, etc. I am interested in Doom 3. So,
    > >> like I said which card is better, 256mb fx5700 or 128mb fx5900?? The
    > >> fx5700 is about $30 cheaper give or take a few... Thx!
    > >
    > >
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    > Doom3 only on xp?!?!? Eeeeeeeek!! Am I the last gamer out there using
    > Win 98 in a belief that it gives more memory and cpu to my
    > games/winamp visualizers/lame ?!?!? Surely there's an army of people
    Yes. :)

    The stability of 2000/XP is worth any insignificant performance hit that
    might be incurred.
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    "tq96" <tq96@tq96.tq96> wrote in message
    news:Xns95BD83FD879DAtq96@127.0.0.1...
    > > Doom3 only on xp?!?!? Eeeeeeeek!! Am I the last gamer out there using
    > > Win 98 in a belief that it gives more memory and cpu to my
    > > games/winamp visualizers/lame ?!?!? Surely there's an army of people
    > Yes. :)
    >
    > The stability of 2000/XP is worth any insignificant performance hit that
    > might be incurred.

    Really isn't much of one, it's just that W2k and especially XP have a bigger
    footprint, requiring more RAM and a little faster processor than is required
    for 98SE. But 98SE, like W2k and XP, can be made very stable, so this is not
    an issue here at all. I have one particular 98SE install that's been thru
    more boxes than...a sailor on shore leave...all the way from the Socket 7
    days, and it's still kicking, and stability is not an issue. In fact, aside
    from IE in general, which is just a problem waiting to happen, and IE6 which
    should never be installed on 9x because it causes issues, 98SE can be 24-7
    functional for about as much uptime as you'd like, it's lack of
    fault-tolerance notwithstanding...

    Many computer problems can be summed up with one acronym: PEBCAK.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    > than is required for 98SE. But 98SE, like W2k and XP, can be made very
    > stable, so this is not an issue here at all. I have one particular

    The main fault with 98 is the fact that all the main system DLL's are
    shared by all processes. So a bug in one program can overwrite part of
    kernel32.dll and take out the whole system. It is possible to have a
    stable 98 system and things are much better now that all software
    developers can write and debug their programs on 2000/XP. Remember back
    when 2000 came out and many games would crash with "access violation"
    errors? That was poorly written programs trying to write to/read from a
    place they had no business accessing. Those bugs, while causing the games
    to crash on 2000, would just add the eventual collapse of the 98 system.
Ask a new question

Read More

Nvidia Graphics