MMC 9.02

[Guest]

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

I note that MMC9.02 is now posted for download (08/16)

I downloaded this and installed over 9.1. When I tried to open MMC it
opened with the 9.02 label but the TV would not work and I got the dreaded
MS error helping screen to send in the problem.

I tried Pinnacle 9 and it would not Capture and produced the same error
screen from MS.

I tried to install 9.1 over 0.02 and it would not allow it saying I already
had the latest update.

I uninstalled 9.1 in Control Panel (there was no 9.02 listed) and
reinstalled 9.1. Everything is now working fine.

Does anyone know why the new MMC posted on 8/16 is designated 9.02 and not
9.2. Has anyone had a similar or same problem with loading 9.02?

Jack

 

[Guest]

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

> I note that MMC9.02 is now posted for download (08/16)

> Does anyone know why the new MMC posted on 8/16 is designated 9.02 and not
> 9.2. Has anyone had a similar or same problem with loading 9.02?

I can't get it to load either. It hangs just after copying files to the
temporary setup directory.

Tom Lake

 

[M]

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

"Nevada Jack" <lasvegasjack@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newsoeUc.109769$sh.15938@fed1read06...
> I note that MMC9.02 is now posted for download (08/16)
>
> I downloaded this and installed over 9.1.

What kind of weirdness is this. 9.1 is a higher version number than 9.02 (or
9.0-anything, for that matter). Can't these guys at ATI count?

M

 

[Guest]

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

"Tom Lake" <tlake@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3IgUc.30591$Kt5.10050@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > I note that MMC9.02 is now posted for download (08/16)
>
> > Does anyone know why the new MMC posted on 8/16 is designated 9.02 and
not
> > 9.2. Has anyone had a similar or same problem with loading 9.02?
>
> I can't get it to load either. It hangs just after copying files to the
> temporary setup directory.
>
> Tom Lake
>
9.02 is running fine on my Win 98 SE (with unofficial service pack 1.5)
machine so far - and 98 SE isn't even a supported OS! I hade to use the
version 2.1 DVD Wizard and older DVD Decoder though as the latest versions
don't seem to work under this OS. Only problem I noticed was that the
"custom" installation option didn't allow me to (de)select any items -
custom may as well have not been an option. Its actually fixed some screen
corruption which occurred under previous versions when library was started
also (a grey band/block in the top left of the screen). It also gets rid of
that annoying detection icon that was present in the system tray for no
reason. I did a full uninstall of MMC 9, DAO and DVD Decoder prior to
rebooting and beginning the installation of the required new bits (in the
listed order on ATIs website). Perhaps they called it 9.02 because they want
to introduce quite a few more releases down the track and didn't want to run
out of numbers before they get to a specific point - does it really matter
though, surely the main thing is that its newer and is an improvement over
its predecessor (well, certainly for me anyway)? ATI should look at making
this combo supported under Windows 98SE as 8.9 (the current supported
version) has more (initially obvious) problems.

Paul

 

[Guest]

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

"Paul Murphy" <p_murphynothanks@tospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4121c377$0$47093$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
> "Tom Lake" <tlake@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3IgUc.30591$Kt5.10050@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > > I note that MMC9.02 is now posted for download (08/16)
> >
> > > Does anyone know why the new MMC posted on 8/16 is designated 9.02 and
> not
> > > 9.2. Has anyone had a similar or same problem with loading 9.02?
> >
> > I can't get it to load either. It hangs just after copying files to the
> > temporary setup directory.
> >
> > Tom Lake
> >
> 9.02 is running fine on my Win 98 SE (with unofficial service pack 1.5)
> machine so far - and 98 SE isn't even a supported OS! I hade to use the
> version 2.1 DVD Wizard and older DVD Decoder though as the latest versions
> don't seem to work under this OS. Only problem I noticed was that the
> "custom" installation option didn't allow me to (de)select any items -
> custom may as well have not been an option. Its actually fixed some screen
> corruption which occurred under previous versions when library was started
> also (a grey band/block in the top left of the screen). It also gets rid
of
<snip>
Oops - spoke to soon re the graphics corruption being fixed. If Library is
the only MMC app open, then the problem is still there.

Paul

 

[Guest]

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

"M" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:Cu6dnUrcwYgFlr_cRVn-tw@zhonka.net...
>
> "Nevada Jack" <lasvegasjack@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> newsoeUc.109769$sh.15938@fed1read06...
> > I note that MMC9.02 is now posted for download (08/16)
> >
> > I downloaded this and installed over 9.1.
>
> What kind of weirdness is this. 9.1 is a higher version number than 9.02
(or
> 9.0-anything, for that matter). Can't these guys at ATI count?
>
They've changed their numbering system - that's easy enough to understand
for people who can and can't count. It's obviously a newer version as
indicated by the posted date and supposedly incorporates several fixes -
isn't that what truly counts?

Paul
PS That's an interesting handle you've got there "M", you don't know
"Agent777" in a neighbouring thread by any chance......

 

[M]

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

"Paul Murphy" <p_murphynothanks@tospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4122104f$0$519$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...

> They've changed their numbering system - that's easy enough to understand
> for people who can and can't count. It's obviously a newer version as
> indicated by the posted date and supposedly incorporates several fixes -
> isn't that what truly counts?
>
>> PS That's an interesting handle you've got there "M", you don't know
> "Agent777" in a neighbouring thread by any chance......

I really don't think I person should have to check for posted dates...or
release dates...in order to figure out what is the newer version of any
piece of software. To my way of thinking, to start counting backwards is no
different that gnilleps backwards...it is just pain stupid. There is NO need
for it...it accomplishes nothing, except to confuse the issue. Maybe if
these guys could count properly they could write better software...just a
point to ponder..

M
(and nope...I do not know Agent777)

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:28:21 -0800, "M" <none@none.com> waffled on
about something:

>
>"Paul Murphy" <p_murphynothanks@tospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4122104f$0$519$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
>
>> They've changed their numbering system - that's easy enough to understand
>> for people who can and can't count. It's obviously a newer version as
>> indicated by the posted date and supposedly incorporates several fixes -
>> isn't that what truly counts?
>>
>>> PS That's an interesting handle you've got there "M", you don't know
>> "Agent777" in a neighbouring thread by any chance......
>
>I really don't think I person should have to check for posted dates...or
>release dates...in order to figure out what is the newer version of any
>piece of software. To my way of thinking, to start counting backwards is no
>different that gnilleps backwards...it is just pain stupid. There is NO need
>for it...it accomplishes nothing, except to confuse the issue. Maybe if
>these guys could count properly they could write better software...just a
>point to ponder..

The problem is the non techies see digits.digits and immediately think
of it as one decimal, when in reality it's two different numbers with
a dot in between. Version.revision

So 9.02 is actually no different to 9.002 or 9.0000000002.

It would probably be better if they put a build number of the end and
then people would be less likely to see it as a "real" number... e.g.
9.02.325, or split the numbers with something else like a hyphen...
9-02, oh no, someone would ask if that's the same as version 7
wouldn't they!

D0d6y.
--
MUSHROOMS ARE THE OPIATE OF THE MOOSES

 

[Guest]

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

Lets confuse this further.

I tried again this morning to load 9.02 by uninstalling all my MMC's in the
Control Panel. Same result as I stated above. When I went back to the
Control Panel to unistall 9.02, it was listed as 9.03!

I went back to 9.1 and everything is working fine...think I will stay there
until someone at ATI comes up with 10.0...that way I miss all the "reverses"
planned in the near future...)))))

Jack

"Dodgy" <Dodgy@earth.planet.universe> wrote in message
news:cla4i05qvbl47lpl0tob241tkc0m50cl58@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:28:21 -0800, "M" <none@none.com> waffled on
> about something:
>
>>
>>"Paul Murphy" <p_murphynothanks@tospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:4122104f$0$519$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
>>
>>> They've changed their numbering system - that's easy enough to
>>> understand
>>> for people who can and can't count. It's obviously a newer version as
>>> indicated by the posted date and supposedly incorporates several fixes -
>>> isn't that what truly counts?
>>>
>>>> PS That's an interesting handle you've got there "M", you don't know
>>> "Agent777" in a neighbouring thread by any chance......
>>
>>I really don't think I person should have to check for posted dates...or
>>release dates...in order to figure out what is the newer version of any
>>piece of software. To my way of thinking, to start counting backwards is
>>no
>>different that gnilleps backwards...it is just pain stupid. There is NO
>>need
>>for it...it accomplishes nothing, except to confuse the issue. Maybe if
>>these guys could count properly they could write better software...just a
>>point to ponder..
>
> The problem is the non techies see digits.digits and immediately think
> of it as one decimal, when in reality it's two different numbers with
> a dot in between. Version.revision
>
> So 9.02 is actually no different to 9.002 or 9.0000000002.
>
> It would probably be better if they put a build number of the end and
> then people would be less likely to see it as a "real" number... e.g.
> 9.02.325, or split the numbers with something else like a hyphen...
> 9-02, oh no, someone would ask if that's the same as version 7
> wouldn't they!
>
> D0d6y.
> --
> MUSHROOMS ARE THE OPIATE OF THE MOOSES

 

[Guest]

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

> I went back to 9.1 and everything is working fine...think I will stay
there
> until someone at ATI comes up with 10.0...that way I miss all the
"reverses"
> planned in the near future...)))))

Except that it'll probably be called 100.0!

Tom L

 

[Guest]

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

"Tom Lake" <tlake@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:yauUc.32175$Kt5.27880@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > I went back to 9.1 and everything is working fine...think I will stay
> there
> > until someone at ATI comes up with 10.0...that way I miss all the
> "reverses"
> > planned in the near future...)))))
>
> Except that it'll probably be called 100.0!
>
> Tom L
>
>
This version is the next in line to the version that came with the HDTV
Wonder 9.01. Version 9.01 and 9.02 have the DTV(Digital TV) player. Version
9.1 Does not have the DTV player. Possibly it should have been put in the
HDTV Wonder section instead of Radeon.
Just started playing with it. Have seen new features in configuration. No
problems yet!

 

[Guest]

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

"M" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:16qdnSuUnv9svr_cRVn-tA@zhonka.net...
>
> "Paul Murphy" <p_murphynothanks@tospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4122104f$0$519$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
>
> > They've changed their numbering system - that's easy enough to
understand
> > for people who can and can't count. It's obviously a newer version as
> > indicated by the posted date and supposedly incorporates several fixes -
> > isn't that what truly counts?
> >
> >> PS That's an interesting handle you've got there "M", you don't know
> > "Agent777" in a neighbouring thread by any chance......
>
> I really don't think I person should have to check for posted dates...or
> release dates...in order to figure out what is the newer version of any
> piece of software. To my way of thinking, to start counting backwards is
no
> different that gnilleps backwards...it is just pain stupid. There is NO
need
> for it...it accomplishes nothing, except to confuse the issue. Maybe if
> these guys could count properly they could write better software...just a
> point to ponder..
>
> M
> (and nope...I do not know Agent777)
The posted date is right there on the download screen before you click the
link - surely that's no more difficult than if you "should have to check"
for the number on the splash screen and anyone can figure it out. Only the
latest version will be listed on ATIs drivers website and if you want
previous versions you need to go to another page so the chances of selecting
the wrong version for download are zilch. If you run a problem report from
9.02, it actually lists 9.03 on the bottom but that's not confusing its just
a bug. I'm sure this numbering system won't be as it is because someone
can't "count properly" - it'll be because that's how they wanted things to
go and they realise that people will figure it out. Having worked as a
teacher of computer programming (albeit QBasic) and observed student
progress, the pupils who achieved the highest standards in programming also
tended to excel in maths. Numerical literacy is important in this field and
ATI won't be hiring software developers who can't count - no pondering
required. If its anything like Microsoft's numbering system, version
increments of .01 indicate minor changes whereas increments of 0.1 indicate
more significant changes. I'm glad ATI isn't going fully down the MSFT route
and introducing letters as well (like DirectX versions).

If allot of complaints received about this release relate to the numbering,
I take that as a good sign because it shows people have nothing more
substantial to complain about (such as the actual functioning - or not) of
the product.

Paul

 

[Guest]

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

I also can't get 9.02 to load. Noticed my download was 28.4mb and it was
listed as a 29.7mb download at ATI. Went back to 9.1.

lzbear


"Tom Lake" <tlake@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3IgUc.30591$Kt5.10050@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > I note that MMC9.02 is now posted for download (08/16)
>
> > Does anyone know why the new MMC posted on 8/16 is designated 9.02 and
not
> > 9.2. Has anyone had a similar or same problem with loading 9.02?
>
> I can't get it to load either. It hangs just after copying files to the
> temporary setup directory.
>
> Tom Lake
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"lzbear" <nothanks@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:_tTUc.779$v86.239@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> I also can't get 9.02 to load. Noticed my download was 28.4mb and it was
> listed as a 29.7mb download at ATI. Went back to 9.1.

> > > 9.2. Has anyone had a similar or same problem with loading 9.02?
> >
> > I can't get it to load either. It hangs just after copying files to the
> > temporary setup directory.

I had initially uninstalled 9.1 before attempting to load 9.02. That didn't
work as evidenced by the above. I then reinstalled 9.1 and installed 9.02
over the TOP of 9.1 and it worked perfectly, including a message that it was
upgrading 9.1. In the past, if I didn't uninstall the previous MMC version,
I'd have two MMC entries in Add/Remove Programs but now I only have 9.02.
ATI is FINALLY getting the picture that it's much easier to upgrade than
uninstall old version/install new version. I still wonder why I couldn't
install 9.02 on a clean system. Maybe ATI is still experimenting.

Tom Lake

 

[Guest]

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

Thanks for the tip. I installed MMC 9.02 over 9.01 and everything is
running fine!





"Tom Lake" <tlake@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:0EWVc.165188$bp1.115017@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "lzbear" <nothanks@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:_tTUc.779$v86.239@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> > I also can't get 9.02 to load. Noticed my download was 28.4mb and it
was
> > listed as a 29.7mb download at ATI. Went back to 9.1.
>
> > > > 9.2. Has anyone had a similar or same problem with loading 9.02?
> > >
> > > I can't get it to load either. It hangs just after copying files to
the
> > > temporary setup directory.
>
> I had initially uninstalled 9.1 before attempting to load 9.02. That
didn't
> work as evidenced by the above. I then reinstalled 9.1 and installed 9.02
> over the TOP of 9.1 and it worked perfectly, including a message that it
was
> upgrading 9.1. In the past, if I didn't uninstall the previous MMC
version,
> I'd have two MMC entries in Add/Remove Programs but now I only have 9.02.
> ATI is FINALLY getting the picture that it's much easier to upgrade than
> uninstall old version/install new version. I still wonder why I couldn't
> install 9.02 on a clean system. Maybe ATI is still experimenting.
>
> Tom Lake
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"lzbear" <nothanks@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:JA4Wc.8580$Jn5.326@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> Thanks for the tip. I installed MMC 9.02 over 9.01 and everything is
> running fine!
>
>
>
>
>
> "Tom Lake" <tlake@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:0EWVc.165188$bp1.115017@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> >
> > "lzbear" <nothanks@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:_tTUc.779$v86.239@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> > > I also can't get 9.02 to load. Noticed my download was 28.4mb and it
> was
> > > listed as a 29.7mb download at ATI. Went back to 9.1.
> >
> > > > > 9.2. Has anyone had a similar or same problem with loading 9.02?
> > > >
> > > > I can't get it to load either. It hangs just after copying files to
> the
> > > > temporary setup directory.
> >
> > I had initially uninstalled 9.1 before attempting to load 9.02. That
> didn't
> > work as evidenced by the above. I then reinstalled 9.1 and installed
9.02
> > over the TOP of 9.1 and it worked perfectly, including a message that it
> was
> > upgrading 9.1. In the past, if I didn't uninstall the previous MMC
> version,
> > I'd have two MMC entries in Add/Remove Programs but now I only have
9.02.
> > ATI is FINALLY getting the picture that it's much easier to upgrade than
> > uninstall old version/install new version. I still wonder why I
couldn't
> > install 9.02 on a clean system. Maybe ATI is still experimenting.
> >
> > Tom Lake
> >
> >
>
>

I uninstalled 9.01 then installed 9.02 with no installation problems. I
dumped my old settings, in case they were causing problems, possibley that
made the difference.