TNT2 Ultra incompatible with DirectX 9.0c?

[Guest]

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

While rebuilding (literally) my parents' computer--

And installing Win 98 SE (they already own it and we're trying to keep the
budget down), I (probably) mistakenly installed DirectX 9.0c while
downloading/installing all the OS updates. Now, their TNT2 Ultra card fails
all 3D rendering tests through the DX diagnostic utility. This is running the
45.23 drivers from nVidia. No problems running with this driver previously
under DX 8.1, btw, so I can only conclude the issue is with DX 9.0c.

My parents' aren't gamers and primarily use the machine for 2D apps, but this
annoys me as the tech doing the rebuild, and I'd like to resolve it, if
possible to do so without purchasing a new VC. Would moving up to a new
nVidia driver help? I was staying with the 45.23 set based on recommendations
for the older nVidia VC's, but if this might solve the rendering problem, I'm
willing to give it a try. Of course, there's always the scorched earth method
of wiping the C: partition and reinstalling the OS with DX 8.1, but I was
hoping not to do that all over again.

Any thoughts, ideas, suggestions greatly appreciated.


Thanks in advance for any and all replies --
--
/\ /\ | "I have studied many philosophers and
^o o^ D.K. "Cat" Kraft | many cats. The wisdom of cats is
->T<- cat@eskimo.com | infinitely superior."
~ Lynnwood, WA |
___oOO___OOo___ | -- Hippolyte Taine (1828-1893)

 

[Guest]

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

A quick look at the nVidia drivers archive for Win95/98/ME suggests that the
66.94 drivers are the oldest that support DX 9.0c.

I'd probably go straight to the 71.84 drivers, myself.

With any luck, the performance hit of using an old card (DX7?) with DX9c
compatible drivers won't be noticeable.


Address scrambled. Replace nkbob with bobkn.

"D. K. Kraft" <cat@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:d8lc37$2gb$1@eskinews.eskimo.com...
> While rebuilding (literally) my parents' computer--
>
> And installing Win 98 SE (they already own it and we're trying to keep the
> budget down), I (probably) mistakenly installed DirectX 9.0c while
> downloading/installing all the OS updates. Now, their TNT2 Ultra card
> fails all 3D rendering tests through the DX diagnostic utility. This is
> running the 45.23 drivers from nVidia. No problems running with this
> driver previously under DX 8.1, btw, so I can only conclude the issue is
> with DX 9.0c.
>
> My parents' aren't gamers and primarily use the machine for 2D apps, but
> this annoys me as the tech doing the rebuild, and I'd like to resolve it,
> if possible to do so without purchasing a new VC. Would moving up to a
> new nVidia driver help? I was staying with the 45.23 set based on
> recommendations for the older nVidia VC's, but if this might solve the
> rendering problem, I'm willing to give it a try. Of course, there's
> always the scorched earth method of wiping the C: partition and
> reinstalling the OS with DX 8.1, but I was hoping not to do that all over
> again.
>
> Any thoughts, ideas, suggestions greatly appreciated.
>
>
> Thanks in advance for any and all replies --
> --
> /\ /\ | "I have studied many philosophers and
> ^o o^ D.K. "Cat" Kraft | many cats. The wisdom of cats is
> ->T<- cat@eskimo.com | infinitely superior."
> ~ Lynnwood, WA |
> ___oOO___OOo___ | -- Hippolyte Taine (1828-1893)

 

[Guest]

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

DXDiag is trying to run the rendering tests through DX9 calls, which the old
driver cannot handle. Have you tried the latest drivers, 71.84?

BTW, DX9.0c support was added to the drivers only recently in 66.94, which
is one release older than the 71.84 drivers.

Whatever recommendation you get on using an older set of drivers for an
older card will be based on [very] limited personal experiences. The 71.84s
still work with TNT2 cards. Use them.

--
"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."


"D. K. Kraft" <cat@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:d8lc37$2gb$1@eskinews.eskimo.com...
> While rebuilding (literally) my parents' computer--
>
> And installing Win 98 SE (they already own it and we're trying to keep the
> budget down), I (probably) mistakenly installed DirectX 9.0c while
> downloading/installing all the OS updates. Now, their TNT2 Ultra card
> fails all 3D rendering tests through the DX diagnostic utility. This is
> running the 45.23 drivers from nVidia. No problems running with this
> driver previously under DX 8.1, btw, so I can only conclude the issue is
> with DX 9.0c.
>
> My parents' aren't gamers and primarily use the machine for 2D apps, but
> this annoys me as the tech doing the rebuild, and I'd like to resolve it,
> if possible to do so without purchasing a new VC. Would moving up to a
> new nVidia driver help? I was staying with the 45.23 set based on
> recommendations for the older nVidia VC's, but if this might solve the
> rendering problem, I'm willing to give it a try. Of course, there's
> always the scorched earth method of wiping the C: partition and
> reinstalling the OS with DX 8.1, but I was hoping not to do that all over
> again.
>
> Any thoughts, ideas, suggestions greatly appreciated.
>
>
> Thanks in advance for any and all replies --
> --
> /\ /\ | "I have studied many philosophers and
> ^o o^ D.K. "Cat" Kraft | many cats. The wisdom of cats is
> ->T<- cat@eskimo.com | infinitely superior."
> ~ Lynnwood, WA |
> ___oOO___OOo___ | -- Hippolyte Taine (1828-1893)

 

[Guest]

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

>> "D. K. Kraft" <cat@eskimo.com> wrote in message news:d8lc37$2gb$1@eskinews.eskimo.com...
>>
>> While rebuilding (literally) my parents' computer--
>>
>> And installing Win 98 SE (they already own it and we're trying to keep the
>> budget down), I (probably) mistakenly installed DirectX 9.0c while
>> downloading/installing all the OS updates. Now, their TNT2 Ultra card
>> fails all 3D rendering tests through the DX diagnostic utility. This is
>> running the 45.23 drivers from nVidia. No problems running with this
>> driver previously under DX 8.1, btw, so I can only conclude the issue is
>> with DX 9.0c.
>>
>> My parents' aren't gamers and primarily use the machine for 2D apps, but
>> this annoys me as the tech doing the rebuild, and I'd like to resolve it,
>> if possible to do so without purchasing a new VC. Would moving up to a
>> new nVidia driver help? I was staying with the 45.23 set based on
>> recommendations for the older nVidia VC's, but if this might solve the
>> rendering problem, I'm willing to give it a try. Of course, there's
>> always the scorched earth method of wiping the C: partition and
>> reinstalling the OS with DX 8.1, but I was hoping not to do that all over
>> again.
>>
>> Any thoughts, ideas, suggestions greatly appreciated.

With patience akin to a cat's, First of One, on 6/13/05 7:32 PM typed:
> DXDiag is trying to run the rendering tests through DX9 calls, which the old
> driver cannot handle. Have you tried the latest drivers, 71.84?
>
> BTW, DX9.0c support was added to the drivers only recently in 66.94, which
> is one release older than the 71.84 drivers.
>
> Whatever recommendation you get on using an older set of drivers for an
> older card will be based on [very] limited personal experiences. The 71.84s
> still work with TNT2 cards. Use them.
>

Thanks for the advice, First. My basis for sticking with the 45.23 drivers
was due to the general opinion that newer drivers didn't render 2D that great
with older cards (such as TNT2 & GeForce 2), and some less than stellar
results of my own trying the 53.04 drivers. I will definitely give the latest
a spin and see what happens, though.

I really appreciate knowing when DX 9.0c support was added the nVidia driver
sets, that will be useful in the future with other machine rebuilds/updates.


Thanks again!
--
/\ /\ | "I have studied many philosophers and
^o o^ D.K. "Cat" Kraft | many cats. The wisdom of cats is
->T<- cat@eskimo.com | infinitely superior."
~ Lynnwood, WA |
___oOO___OOo___ | -- Hippolyte Taine (1828-1893)

 

[Guest]

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

In article <d8lc37$2gb$1@eskinews.eskimo.com>, D. K. Kraft says...
> While rebuilding (literally) my parents' computer--
>
> And installing Win 98 SE (they already own it and we're trying to keep the
> budget down), I (probably) mistakenly installed DirectX 9.0c while
> downloading/installing all the OS updates. Now, their TNT2 Ultra card fails
> all 3D rendering tests through the DX diagnostic utility. This is running the
> 45.23 drivers from nVidia. No problems running with this driver previously
> under DX 8.1, btw, so I can only conclude the issue is with DX 9.0c.
>
Or the fact 45.23 don't support DX9.0c....


--
Conor


"Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree"

 

[Guest]

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

D. K. Kraft wrote:

> Thanks for the advice, First. My basis for sticking with the 45.23
> drivers was due to the general opinion that newer drivers didn't
> render 2D that great with older cards (such as TNT2 & GeForce 2),

What "general opinion"? This opionion is simply BS. 2D performance
remains unaffected between different driver releases because it's
stagnating at a very high level for several card generations and didn't
suffer from any changes at all. The only thing why sometimes older
drivers are better is that newer drivers tend to get optimized for
current GPUs which can lead to some performance hits on older cards. But
that's a 3D-related problem only...

Benjamin

 

[Guest]

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

With patience akin to a cat's, Benjamin Gawert, on 6/14/05 8:12 AM typed:
> D. K. Kraft wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the advice, First. My basis for sticking with the 45.23
>> drivers was due to the general opinion that newer drivers didn't
>> render 2D that great with older cards (such as TNT2 & GeForce 2),
>
>
> What "general opinion"? This opionion is simply BS. 2D performance
> remains unaffected between different driver releases because it's
> stagnating at a very high level for several card generations and didn't
> suffer from any changes at all. The only thing why sometimes older
> drivers are better is that newer drivers tend to get optimized for
> current GPUs which can lead to some performance hits on older cards. But
> that's a 3D-related problem only...
>
> Benjamin

Well, Benjamin, I beg to differ, although I admit I should have clarified my
"general opinion" source. I was referring to the circle of colleagues of mine
also performing IT and computer repair/building on the side. We generally
deal with non-gaming people, who value crisp, clear, visible text on their
machines, and responsiveness when it comes to 2D redraw, over 3D capabilities.
And from our combined experience, we've found that although the differences
between the nVidia Detonator and ForceWare drivers on cards with the
TNT/GeForce2 chipsets are subtle, there *are* differences.

For example, I did try the 71.84 ForceWare drivers on my parents' machine,
and although it solved the 3D rendering problem vis a vis DirectX 9.0c being
on board, it appeared the driver fought against the OS with regard to the
refresh rate, insisting on "Adapter Default," while Win 98 SE tried to set it
for the rate I'd chosen that would be easiest on the eyes. This apparent
conflict resulted in some kind of refresh rate (I'm unsure at what level) that
gave myself and my parents eye fatigue and headaches when viewing the screen
for more than 15 minutes. (BTW, their box is running an AMD Sempron 2800+ CPU,
just to note.) Additionally, text appeared subtly shifted, as though it had
been given a soft focus, which my mom found "blurry." After a short time of
working with the video set up this way, I had to agree: although the
differences weren't large, they were at a level that would cause a great deal
of annoyance with daily computer work.

My stance usually is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," and thus will be
reinstalling the OS on my parents' machine to allow for DirectX 8.1 and the
45.23 Detonator drivers--which have proven themselves to work flawlessly for
the applications and programs they use. It really was my mistake to install
DX 9.0c in the first place, since my parents' don't use any programs or games
that require this version.

It may very well be that there is a "comfort zone," for the TNT/GeForce2
chipset with the Detonator drivers that the ForceWare drivers, all power to
their backward compatibility, just don't deliver. For that possibility alone,
I don't think the recommendation to remain with the Detonator drivers for this
particular chipset should be dismissed out of hand. Ultimately, users need to
experiment with the available drivers and see which set provides the video
response they find usable. YMMV, as usual.


Apologies for the long post, but I had more than two whiskers' worth to say --
--
/\ /\ | "I have studied many philosophers and
^o o^ D.K. "Cat" Kraft | many cats. The wisdom of cats is
->T<- cat@eskimo.com | infinitely superior."
~ Lynnwood, WA |
___oOO___OOo___ | -- Hippolyte Taine (1828-1893)

 

[Guest]

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

There were actually noticeable bugs in the 45.23 drivers when I used it with
my Geforce3. For example, running Pro|Engineer 2000i under Win98SE and
opening multiple 3D windows would cause screen corruption. The next release
fixed it.

--
"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."


"D. K. Kraft" <cat@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:d8lje1$3si$1@eskinews.eskimo.com...
> Thanks for the advice, First. My basis for sticking with the 45.23
> drivers was due to the general opinion that newer drivers didn't render 2D
> that great with older cards (such as TNT2 & GeForce 2), and some less than
> stellar results of my own trying the 53.04 drivers. I will definitely
> give the latest a spin and see what happens, though.
>
> I really appreciate knowing when DX 9.0c support was added the nVidia
> driver sets, that will be useful in the future with other machine
> rebuilds/updates.

 

[Guest]

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

D. K. Kraft wrote:

> Well, Benjamin, I beg to differ, although I admit I should have
> clarified my "general opinion" source. I was referring to the circle
> of colleagues of mine also performing IT and computer repair/building
> on the side. We generally deal with non-gaming people, who value
> crisp, clear, visible text on their machines, and responsiveness when
> it comes to 2D redraw, over 3D capabilities. And from our combined
> experience, we've found that although the differences between the
> nVidia Detonator and ForceWare drivers on cards with the TNT/GeForce2
> chipsets are subtle, there *are* differences.

Well, on our location we have over 3500 employees doing 2D and 3D work
we have to take care for, and we do driver developments with Nvidia and
ATI GPUs for non-standard applications. And there definitely are no
differences in 2D handling in the last generations of
Detonator/Forceware...

> For example, I did try the 71.84 ForceWare drivers on my parents'
> machine, and although it solved the 3D rendering problem vis a vis
> DirectX 9.0c being on board, it appeared the driver fought against
> the OS with regard to the refresh rate, insisting on "Adapter
> Default," while Win 98 SE tried to set it for the rate I'd chosen
> that would be easiest on the eyes. This apparent conflict resulted
> in some kind of refresh rate (I'm unsure at what level) that gave
> myself and my parents eye fatigue and headaches when viewing the
> screen for more than 15 minutes.

And Your knowlegded colleagues didn't tell You that the refresh rate has
exactly _nothing_ to do with the 2D part of drivers?

> (BTW, their box is running an AMD
> Sempron 2800+ CPU, just to note.) Additionally, text appeared subtly
> shifted, as though it had been given a soft focus, which my mom found
> "blurry."

Of course depending on the age and quality of the CRT that You use there
is a deep impact on the image quality dependend on the refresh rate. But
this also has _nothing_ to to with 2D performance of the driver...

> After a short time of working with the video set up this
> way, I had to agree: although the differences weren't large, they
> were at a level that would cause a great deal of annoyance with daily
> computer work.

Understandable. The refresh rate is a imminent part of working
ergonomics as is the display quality.

> My stance usually is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," and thus will
> be reinstalling the OS on my parents' machine to allow for DirectX
> 8.1 and the 45.23 Detonator drivers--which have proven themselves to
> work
> flawlessly for the applications and programs they use. It really was
> my mistake to install DX 9.0c in the first place, since my parents'
> don't use any programs or games that require this version.

I'm not confident with Win98 since I never used it, but Your refresh
rate problem sounds very clear to conflict with remainings of older
drivers. If You don't remove _everything_ from old drivers before
installing newer ones, problems like the one You have can occur.

I wonder why Your competent and experienced colleagues didn't tell You
that. Even if You only have contact with Windows PCs one should know
that the refresh rate is something different than the 2D performance and
that such problems often come from remainings of older drivers...

Benjamin

 

[Guest]

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

In article <d8np0s$i39$1@eskinews.eskimo.com>, D. K. Kraft says...

> Well, Benjamin, I beg to differ, although I admit I should have clarified my
> "general opinion" source. I was referring to the circle of colleagues of mine
> also performing IT and computer repair/building on the side.
> For example, I did try the 71.84 ForceWare drivers on my parents' machine,
> and although it solved the 3D rendering problem vis a vis DirectX 9.0c being
> on board, it appeared the driver fought against the OS with regard to the
> refresh rate, insisting on "Adapter Default,"

In that case, it looks like you and your circle of "computer building
friends" have about as much knowledge of building computers as an ice
cube.

Did any of you numpties actually bother to check that the monitor was
installed as the correct one?


--
Conor


"Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree"

 

[Guest]

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

Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <d8np0s$i39$1@eskinews.eskimo.com>, D. K. Kraft says...
>
>> Well, Benjamin, I beg to differ, although I admit I should have
>> clarified my "general opinion" source. I was referring to the
>> circle of colleagues of mine also performing IT and computer
>> repair/building on the side.
>> For example, I did try the 71.84 ForceWare drivers on my parents'
>> machine, and although it solved the 3D rendering problem vis a vis
>> DirectX 9.0c being on board, it appeared the driver fought against
>> the OS with regard to the refresh rate, insisting on "Adapter
>> Default,"
>
> In that case, it looks like you and your circle of "computer building
> friends" have about as much knowledge of building computers as an ice
> cube.

Not that it matters for the problem at hand, but before attacking other
people's credentials, you better present your own.

> Did any of you numpties actually bother to check that the monitor was
> installed as the correct one?

They shouldn't have to, as long as the monitors and the card has working
DDC. Even so, I would say you're barking up the wrong tree, because the
monitor information obviously doesn't change when changing graphics
drivers, and it worked for him with the older driver.

--
*Art

 

[Guest]

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

"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote
>
> In that case, it looks like you and your circle of "computer building
> friends" have about as much knowledge of building computers as an ice
> cube.
>
> Did any of you numpties actually bother to check that the monitor was
> installed as the correct one?

Nasty nasty .. you.


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at
uce@ftc.gov
Thanks, robots.

 

[Guest]

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

"Arthur Hagen" <art@broomstick.com> wrote
> They shouldn't have to, as long as the monitors and the card has working
> DDC. Even so, I would say you're barking up the wrong tree, because the
> monitor information obviously doesn't change when changing graphics
> drivers, and it worked for him with the older driver.
Wouldn't it have to be pre-plug and play not to tell the os what it can do?


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at
uce@ftc.gov
Thanks, robots.

 

[Guest]

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

In article <d8p54s$apa$1@cauldron.broomstick.com>, Arthur Hagen says...

> Not that it matters for the problem at hand, but before attacking other
> people's credentials, you better present your own.
>
Been using computers for 24 years, building PCs for 15, repaired 8 bit
ones to component level in the late 80's as well as designing a 6502
based one for a course I did. Also, as an afterthought, MCSE.

Oh and I am able to think for myself.

> > Did any of you numpties actually bother to check that the monitor was
> > installed as the correct one?
>
> They shouldn't have to, as long as the monitors and the card has working
> DDC.

ROFLMAO. And when the monitor isn't on the HCL? Wonder what it sets it
as.

> Even so, I would say you're barking up the wrong tree, because the
> monitor information obviously doesn't change when changing graphics
> drivers, and it worked for him with the older driver.
>
Actually it's a known fact that it defaults to Standard Monitor most
times when you change drivers which gives you a 60Hz refresh rate.


--
Conor


"Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree"

 

[Guest]

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

"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote
> Actually it's a known fact that it defaults to Standard Monitor most
> times when you change drivers which gives you a 60Hz refresh rate.

For all the times I can remember it has started out flickering after new
drivers, but the monitor has told the os what it can do and so a bit of a
tweak with the settings and it is happily at 85hz.

Then if you install the monitor drives it also gets a color profile.


--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at
uce@ftc.gov
Thanks, robots.

 

[Guest]

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

"Ed Light" <nobody@nobody.there> wrote in message
news:CKYre.10$eV4.8@fed1read01...
>
> "Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote
>> Actually it's a known fact that it defaults to Standard Monitor most
>> times when you change drivers which gives you a 60Hz refresh rate.
>
> For all the times I can remember it has started out flickering after new
> drivers, but the monitor has told the os what it can do and so a bit of a
> tweak with the settings and it is happily at 85hz.
>
> Then if you install the monitor drives it also gets a color profile.
>
>
> --
> Ed Light
>
> Smiley :-/
> MS Smiley :-\
>
> Send spam to the FTC at
> uce@ftc.gov
> Thanks, robots.
>

Windows checks the DDC info against the monitor's inf file. Windows will
only use those setting that are present in both. Therefore, if you use
PlugnPlay monitor inf in windows, you get what that inf file says (60 Hz for
all resolutions), not what the monitor is capable of.

You must install the inf file from the manufacturer of your monitor if you
want to use the full capablilities of your monitor.

 

[Guest]

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

With patience akin to a cat's, Benjamin Gawert, on 6/15/05 12:44 AM typed:
> D. K. Kraft wrote:
>> Well, Benjamin, I beg to differ, although I admit I should have
>> clarified my "general opinion" source. I was referring to the circle
>> of colleagues of mine also performing IT and computer repair/building
>> on the side. We generally deal with non-gaming people, who value
>> crisp, clear, visible text on their machines, and responsiveness when
>> it comes to 2D redraw, over 3D capabilities. And from our combined
>> experience, we've found that although the differences between the
>> nVidia Detonator and ForceWare drivers on cards with the TNT/GeForce2
>> chipsets are subtle, there *are* differences.
>
> Well, on our location we have over 3500 employees doing 2D and 3D work
> we have to take care for, and we do driver developments with Nvidia and
> ATI GPUs for non-standard applications. And there definitely are no
> differences in 2D handling in the last generations of
> Detonator/Forceware...

Then to what do you attribute the differences we have collectively observed,
especially text rendering? Would you place this in the area of individual
monitor type and presentation? If so, though, how would that explain the
difference in text rendering I myself observed on my parents' machine, between
the 71.84 and the 45.23 drivers?

>> For example, I did try the 71.84 ForceWare drivers on my parents'
>> machine, and although it solved the 3D rendering problem vis a vis
>> DirectX 9.0c being on board, it appeared the driver fought against
>> the OS with regard to the refresh rate, insisting on "Adapter
>> Default," while Win 98 SE tried to set it for the rate I'd chosen
>> that would be easiest on the eyes. This apparent conflict resulted
>> in some kind of refresh rate (I'm unsure at what level) that gave
>> myself and my parents eye fatigue and headaches when viewing the
>> screen for more than 15 minutes.
>
> And Your knowlegded colleagues didn't tell You that the refresh rate has
> exactly _nothing_ to do with the 2D part of drivers?

My colleagues didn't need to inform me of anything. I have personally
observed an improvement in text sharpness and ease of viewing by setting *any*
monitor to above 60 Mhz (usually 85 Mhz). And if the refresh rate isn't
controlled by the drivers on *both* 2D and 3D levels, how do you explain this
visible improvement? If the 2D aspect of any driver set had nothing to do
with the refresh rate, I would not expect any visible change when increasing
that rate.

(small quoted bit snipped)
> Of course depending on the age and quality of the CRT that You use there
> is a deep impact on the image quality dependend on the refresh rate. But
> this also has _nothing_ to to with 2D performance of the driver...

I believe this leads right back to the questions I posed above.

(video response description snipped)
> I'm not confident with Win98 since I never used it, but Your refresh
> rate problem sounds very clear to conflict with remainings of older
> drivers. If You don't remove _everything_ from old drivers before
> installing newer ones, problems like the one You have can occur.

I *always* perform a clean install of nVidia drivers, and have a standard
operating procedure for removal of the old drivers that has every nVidia file
location documented, and all associated registry entries. I work in QC for my
day job, where any deviation from the norm requires paperwork filed, and all
t's must be crossed, all i's dotted.

I more than acknowledge that installing DirectX 9.0c was the error that led to
this situation, which could have been avoided, and was the direct result of
pushing too hard, too late on that particular day, after a hard drive failure.

> I wonder why Your competent and experienced colleagues didn't tell You
> that. Even if You only have contact with Windows PCs one should know
> that the refresh rate is something different than the 2D performance and
> that such problems often come from remainings of older drivers...

Again, none of us are IT "professionals." We do this work on the side because
we have a knack for it, and most of what I've communicated is from collective
personal experience, not technical documentation. However, all of us are
quite aware of the need for clean driver installations, whichever the driver
in question, and I personally resent your backhanded maligning of my friends
and co-workers. This type of response isn't necessary at all.

If you have helpful information to pass on, I welcome it. If you wish to
answer my questions above and provide me with enlightenment regarding those
issues, I thank you. However, snide attitudes and insults don't assist anyone.


Respectfully --
--
/\ /\ | "I have studied many philosophers and
^o o^ D.K. "Cat" Kraft | many cats. The wisdom of cats is
->T<- cat@eskimo.com | infinitely superior."
~ Lynnwood, WA |
___oOO___OOo___ | -- Hippolyte Taine (1828-1893)

 

[Guest]

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

With patience akin to a cat's, Conor, on 6/15/05 6:52 AM typed:
>
> In article <d8np0s$i3...@eskinews.eskimo.com>, D. K. Kraft says...
>
>> Well, Benjamin, I beg to differ, although I admit I should have clarified my
>> "general opinion" source. I was referring to the circle of colleagues of mine
>> also performing IT and computer repair/building on the side.
>> For example, I did try the 71.84 ForceWare drivers on my parents' machine,
>> and although it solved the 3D rendering problem vis a vis DirectX 9.0c being
>> on board, it appeared the driver fought against the OS with regard to the
>> refresh rate, insisting on "Adapter Default,"
>
> In that case, it looks like you and your circle of "computer building
> friends" have about as much knowledge of building computers as an ice
> cube.

Lack of knowledge isn't grounds for insulting a person. And we have over 100
successfully rebuilt machines between us, as well as countless computer
problems successfully resolved. I'm familiar primarily with Win 98SE, some
Win XP (although I don't care for the OS, personally), three others are *Nix
savvy, and the rest span the whole spectrum of Windows.

I respectfully suggest you put your efforts toward enlightening a person and
providing them with knowledge rather than gathering more karma through
negative comments.

> Did any of you numpties actually bother to check that the monitor was
> installed as the correct one?

If you had read my initial post, you would know that I was/am the only person
working on this particular machine. Any reference to my colleagues was to
illustrate collective observations/experience.

And yes, the OS recognized the monitor correctly in the display properties
when I attempted to change the refresh rate.


Respectfully --
--
/\ /\ | "I have studied many philosophers and
^o o^ D.K. "Cat" Kraft | many cats. The wisdom of cats is
->T<- cat@eskimo.com | infinitely superior."
~ Lynnwood, WA |
___oOO___OOo___ | -- Hippolyte Taine (1828-1893)

 

[Guest]

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

PhxGrunge <noname@qwest.net> wrote:
> "Ed Light" <nobody@nobody.there> wrote in message
> news:CKYre.10$eV4.8@fed1read01...
>>
>> "Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Actually it's a known fact that it defaults to Standard Monitor most
>>> times when you change drivers which gives you a 60Hz refresh rate.

"A known fact" that happened to be correct about, say, 10 years ago, but
isn't anymore.

>> For all the times I can remember it has started out flickering after
>> new drivers, but the monitor has told the os what it can do and so a
>> bit of a tweak with the settings and it is happily at 85hz.
>>
>> Then if you install the monitor drives it also gets a color profile.
>>
>
> Windows checks the DDC info against the monitor's inf file. Windows
> will only use those setting that are present in both. Therefore, if
> you use PlugnPlay monitor inf in windows, you get what that inf file
> says (60 Hz for all resolutions), not what the monitor is capable of.

Wrong. As long as DDC is working, you can set the refresh rate to any
combination the card and monitor can handle.

> You must install the inf file from the manufacturer of your monitor
> if you want to use the full capablilities of your monitor.

Wrong again. You may get an ICC colour profile, which isn't going to do
most people much good, as it's not being used except when converting
from one device to another, and both have profiles. Other than that,
installing a monitor inf file will *limit* your range of
resolution/frequency combinations from what the monitor+card both can do
to what all of the monitor+card+inf file says you can do.

As an example, one of my monitors here run at 1280x960@72Hz if used with
the default monitor profile, but if I install the profile for it, I'm
limited to 60Hz (unless I uncheck "Hide modes that this monitor cannot
display").

Regards,
--
*Art

 

[Guest]

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

D. K. Kraft wrote:

> Then to what do you attribute the differences we have collectively
> observed, especially text rendering? Would you place this in the
> area of individual monitor type and presentation? If so, though, how
> would that explain the difference in text rendering I myself observed
> on my parents' machine, between the 71.84 and the 45.23 drivers?

You observed differences in the image quality. From the other side You
said there is a difference in 2D performance. Sorry, but it should be
basic knowledge that the 2D performance has absolutely _nothing_ to do
with image quality. Apples and Oranges...

Out of curiosity, before answering I installed Win98SE on an old Siemens
P3-650 that is collecting dust here. It has a Guillemot TNT2 M64 gfx
card. The 71.84 driver works perfectly, in 3D and in 2D...

> My colleagues didn't need to inform me of anything. I have personally
> observed an improvement in text sharpness and ease of viewing by
> setting *any* monitor to above 60 Mhz (usually 85 Mhz). And if the
> refresh rate isn't controlled by the drivers on *both* 2D and 3D
> levels, how do you explain this visible improvement? If the 2D
> aspect of any driver set had nothing to do with the refresh rate, I
> would not expect any visible change when increasing that rate.

You will see differences in the image quality on almost every CRT when
changing the refresh rate. If it's too low, You'll notice flickering, if
it's too high, You'll see the picture loosing sharpness.

The refresh rate is controlled by a part of the driver that programs the
RAMDAC which is inside Your GPU. Again this has nothing to do with 2D
performance...

If the older drivers aren't removed correctly (means: there are still
files remaining) it can happen that You end up with a mixture of older
and newer files. There also are Registry settings which are left behind
from the Nvidia drivers. This usually isn't a problem when upgrading to
the next or the one after that driver release. But it's often a real
problem when upgrading from a very old Release to a much newer one as
there are a lot of changes in the registry structure. This all can lead
to funny effects, from system hanging/crashing to "just" a miserable
performance or even to ignoring the refresh rate settings..

> I *always* perform a clean install of nVidia drivers, and have a
> standard operating procedure for removal of the old drivers that has
> every nVidia file location documented, and all associated registry
> entries.

I really suspect that You missed something. If the current drivers
really would be as bad as You say, it shouldn't work on my old box. And
they probably wouldn't work in other installations.

> I work in QC for my day job, where any deviation from the
> norm requires paperwork filed, and all t's must be crossed, all i's
> dotted.

If You work in QC You be aware that if something doesn't work for You
but for others, it's very likely that it's a factor in Your environment
why it fails.

> I more than acknowledge that installing DirectX 9.0c was the error
> that led to this situation, which could have been avoided, and was
> the direct result of pushing too hard, too late on that particular
> day, after a hard drive failure.

I assume You did a fresh Win98 install after the hd failure? If so, the
only mistake You made was installing the old drivers...

> Again, none of us are IT "professionals." We do this work on the
> side because we have a knack for it, and most of what I've
> communicated is from collective personal experience, not technical
> documentation. However, all of us are quite aware of the need for
> clean driver installations, whichever the driver in question, and I
> personally resent your backhanded maligning of my friends and
> co-workers. This type of response isn't necessary at all.

Sorry, I didn't want to offend anyone personally. I don't know You or
Your colleagues. But fact is, You were reffering to the opinion of IT
"amateurs" as "general opinion". You say none of You are professionals,
but in the same time You make assertions how a driver works that (sorry)
show that You have absolutely no clue. It's ok if You have a problem and
are looking for help. But it's very counterproductive to make assertions
and present pseudo-facts if You really lack the necessary knowledge. You
didn't say "I think the newer driver has a worse 2D performance", You
claimed it. If You really want help You'd better stay away from making
speculations and concentrate on facts...

> If you have helpful information to pass on, I welcome it. If you
> wish to answer my questions above and provide me with enlightenment
> regarding those issues, I thank you. However, snide attitudes and
> insults don't assist anyone.

Again, I have nothing against You personally. But I really can't stand
when people make claims about things they simply don't know. I also
don't know everything, and as I said I'm no Win98 specialist (I avoided
Win9x for several reasons). But I also know my limitations.

As to Your problem: if I were You I'd save time and hazzle and do a
fresh Win98 install with latest drivers and updates without installing
Your ancient gfx drivers again. If for some reason (applications already
installed etc) You don't want to do that, You could install the old
drivers again and use one of the many driver removing tools to get rid
of them (be sure that it also supports Win98!). This should remove
really everything. After that install the latest driver, and it should
work fine.

Benjamin

 

[Guest]

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

In article <d8qcvm$dkc$1@cauldron.broomstick.com>, Arthur Hagen says...

> Wrong. As long as DDC is working, you can set the refresh rate to any
> combination the card and monitor can handle.
>
And if you actually had some experience of Windows, you'd know that
identification by DDC hardly ever works.


--
Conor


"Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree"

 

[Guest]

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

In article <d8qm2m$552$1@eskinews.eskimo.com>, D. K. Kraft says...

> Lack of knowledge isn't grounds for insulting a person.

It is when they're saying they have clue.

> And we have over 100
> successfully rebuilt machines between us,

Wow. Rebuilt. I'm trying to muster some excitement about that but I
just really can't.

> If you had read my initial post, you would know that I was/am the only person
> working on this particular machine. Any reference to my colleagues was to
> illustrate collective observations/experience.
>
So why did you mention it? To try and prove you've some credibility?


--
Conor


"Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree"

 

[Guest]

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

In article <iIYre.9$eV4.8@fed1read01>, Ed Light says...
>
> "Arthur Hagen" <art@broomstick.com> wrote
> > They shouldn't have to, as long as the monitors and the card has working
> > DDC. Even so, I would say you're barking up the wrong tree, because the
> > monitor information obviously doesn't change when changing graphics
> > drivers, and it worked for him with the older driver.
> Wouldn't it have to be pre-plug and play not to tell the os what it can do?
>
Nope. DCC is pretty much broke. Even on latest hardware it seldom
works.


--
Conor


"Be incomprehensible. If they can't understand, they can't disagree"

 

[Guest]

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

With patience akin to a cat's, Conor, on 6/16/05 2:46 AM typed:
> In article <d8qm2m$552$1@eskinews.eskimo.com>, D. K. Kraft says...
>
>>Lack of knowledge isn't grounds for insulting a person.
>
> It is when they're saying they have clue.

Really? My, I shall have to try that with the department heads, most of which
have pHd's, when they don't read equipment instructions, or fail to wear the
proper protective equipment when dispensing hazardous chemicals. </sarcasm off>

Let me rephrase my statement: insults have no place in a civilized
conversation and the mutual sharing of knowledge. Polite instruction is more
appreciated than insulting a person's intelligence. I fail to see what such
an attitude gains you in or out of the workplace.

>>And we have over 100
>>successfully rebuilt machines between us,
>
>
> Wow. Rebuilt. I'm trying to muster some excitement about that but I
> just really can't.

Yes, rebuilt. As in not forcing someone to purchase a new case when the
current one serves; replacing MB, CPU, and upgrading the power supply as
needed; and retaining the CD-ROM/RW/what-have-you drive if it still operates
correctly and does the job. Most individuals we assist don't *need* a
completely new machine.

And it's not about excitement. It's about helping people on a budget,
teaching the computer-phobic that yes, they *can* learn to operate their
machine, and assisting elderly people in making the most of the computers they
have. Perhaps you wouldn't find such actions gratifying, but we do.

>>If you had read my initial post, you would know that I was/am the only person
>>working on this particular machine. Any reference to my colleagues was to
>>illustrate collective observations/experience.
>>
>
> So why did you mention it? To try and prove you've some credibility?

(Sigh...) As I said above, to illustrate collective observations; that
collectively, as a group, these were computer responses and behaviors
observed. Yes, this is known as anecdotal evidence, but when responses are
seen by more than one person, on more than one machine, one does tend to
believe a pattern exists.

I've worked with individuals like yourself, and I've found that the best
response to such unreasonable hostility is to simply walk away. So this is my
last reply to your posts. However, it saddens me that you feel you must lash
out before someone else strikes you. I hope life holds better for you, and
those around you, in the future.


Shanti --
--
/\ /\ | "I have studied many philosophers and
^o o^ D.K. "Cat" Kraft | many cats. The wisdom of cats is
->T<- cat@eskimo.com | infinitely superior."
~ Lynnwood, WA |
___oOO___OOo___ | -- Hippolyte Taine (1828-1893)

 

[Guest]

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

"D. K. Kraft" <cat@eskimo.com> wrote

> Let me rephrase my statement: insults have no place in a civilized
> conversation and the mutual sharing of knowledge. Polite instruction is
> more appreciated than insulting a person's intelligence.

Hear hear!!!


> I've worked with individuals like yourself, and I've found that the best
> response to such unreasonable hostility is to simply walk away. So this
> is my last reply to your posts.

Right on!!!

--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at
uce@ftc.gov
Thanks, robots.