X850XT won't work with Vista RC1

[Cheex]

My X850XT won't work with Vista RC1.
I tried ATI's drivers and it doesn't work.

Everything would move frame by frame....SLOW !!

Anyone know how to solve this problem?

 

[macer1]

get some more ram. 1 gb would slow down XP under loads , what makes you think it would run a next gen OS .

this is os thats still working out all the kinks. its in a sence a beta in late stages.


these are the recomended specs for vista when its for public sale.

* 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor1.
* 1 GB of system memory.
* Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)2, Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.
* 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
* DVD-ROM Drive3.
* Audio output capability.
* Internet access capability.

 

[Zorg]

get some more ram. 1 gb would slow down XP under loads , what makes you think it would run a next gen OS .

this is os thats still working out all the kinks. its in a sence a beta in late stages.


these are the recomended specs for vista when its for public sale.

* 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor1.
* 1 GB of system memory.
* Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)2, Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.
* 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
* DVD-ROM Drive3.
* Audio output capability.
* Internet access capability.

macer1, I have been reading this forum for years and many times I have almost registered out of frustration. You have have been able to push me over the line. I have a 2.4c northwood oc to 2.7 gig 900mhz FSB, 512meg of kingston PC3200 value ram, and a matrox G400 32meg agp 4x POS video card. I can run Vista with no problem. Granted Vista sure would like more ram and a better video card and for that matter a better processor but it has absolutely, and I say absolutely, nothing to do with the OPs problem. And yet you act as if you are an engineer and insist that his problem is ram related. Well your wrong. Please, if you don't know for sure, then make suggestions not condescending statements with a blurb of the MS requirements as your source. You only embarass yourself while screwing the person asking for help at the same time.

 

[mitch074]

it is probably an Ati display driver glitch. Either see if there isn't a newer version available on the website, or try Vista's built-in driver.

 

[Guest]

Why the heck are you people running vista? And why are you complaining?

 

[Morton]

Is it an AGP card?


a quote from http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34270 :
"The ATI Vista says to get it all running smoothly I will need to buy a card that supports a PCI Express bus type that would offer greater bandwidth at higher frequencies over AGP or PCI bus types. Maybe ATI know something we don’t because skimming through the Vista literature, no mention is made of needing PCI express support."

 

[dduummyy]

i cant wait till google comes out with a operating sysem 8O

 

[macer1]

meet the recomended specs. i dont see many ppl complaining about playing oblivion with a 6600gt . " I dont get it i meet the MIN specs and it looks horid "

 

[Zorg]

Is it an AGP card?


a quote from http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34270 :
"The ATI Vista says to get it all running smoothly I will need to buy a card that supports a PCI Express bus type that would offer greater bandwidth at higher frequencies over AGP or PCI bus types. Maybe ATI know something we don’t because skimming through the Vista literature, no mention is made of needing PCI express support."

Morton, Look at the specs in my post above. Matrox G400 AGP 4X 32meg.
The Enquirer is talking about Vista Aero Glass. That is the GPU hog. Vista will evaluate the hardware before it installs and will not invoke the Aero scheme if the hardware can't handle it. By the way I installed Vista Ultimate Edition it just isn't running Aero Glass. Based on my video card Vista will pretty much run on any video card worth more than $20.00.

Zorg

 

[Zorg]

What are you talking about?

 

[croc]

get some more ram. 1 gb would slow down XP under loads , what makes you think it would run a next gen OS .

this is os thats still working out all the kinks. its in a sence a beta in late stages.


these are the recomended specs for vista when its for public sale.

* 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor1.
* 1 GB of system memory.
* Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)2, Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.
* 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
* DVD-ROM Drive3.
* Audio output capability.
* Internet access capability.

Huh??? 1GB RAM will slow down XP? At what, pray tell.

Minimum specs for Vista are an 800 MHZ processor, 512 MB ram and, yes, a GPU capable of direct x 9.

Please don't post if you have no knowledge about which you are posting.

 

[asdasd123123]

How long have you waited until you press reset?

ATi GART can take several minutes to enable at times. I mean 5 minutes or more, not just seconds.

Take cup of coffe and leave the system, maybe it's just not autoconfiged yet.

 

[mitch074]

What I find hilarious about Aero Glass is that it requires very recent hardware to launch.

I tried running XGL on a 1999 Asus V3400 TNT: 3D desktop, cubed virtual workspaces, filtered wobbly windows... It worked. At a snail's pace, but t worked. From what I tired, I could use XGL full speed on anything Geforce2-class, or AIGLX on a Radeon 7500.

Aero Glass needs 40 times more powerful hardware to just run - like a slideshow.

 

[aaronkt]

I don't know that this will help but ill just throw it out there. I am running a p4 3.0 lga775 with 1 gig of ram and the xt850 as well. I am not having any problems with it at all. I did find however that the driver interface is different with Vista I might suggest reinstalling the driver. I was really suprised that i was able to run Vista with no problems. I think i did read that someone suggested that yours might be AGP? Mine is PCI-e maybe that is it?

 

[bigbadjohnnyb]

I had Vista 5482 running on my AGP X800 AIW card, and Aero ran just fine. Intel 805D clocked to 3.2 and 2GB of memory.

And I agree 100% with Zorg. I can't stand it when these 15-year old punks spending their daddy's money preach about "oh dude, you only have 16GB of RAM? Are you nuts? You NEED 32GB".

C'mon. Sure in a Eutopian world, everyone would have the absolute latest hardware to throw at any resource hog. In the real world... good enough is... well, good enough!

1GB will surely run just fine unless he's doing some gaming on Vista. Even then, with RC1 I bet it would be ok... obviously 2GB helps at that point

As for the original posters problem - I would suspect a driver with some kind of motherboard resource or the ATI driver itself. Anything listed in device manager with a "?" ??

 

[macer1]

get some more ram. 1 gb would slow down XP under loads , what makes you think it would run a next gen OS .

this is os thats still working out all the kinks. its in a sence a beta in late stages.


these are the recomended specs for vista when its for public sale.

* 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor1.
* 1 GB of system memory.
* Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)2, Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.
* 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
* DVD-ROM Drive3.
* Audio output capability.
* Internet access capability.

Huh??? 1GB RAM will slow down XP? At what, pray tell.

Minimum specs for Vista are an 800 MHZ processor, 512 MB ram and, yes, a GPU capable of direct x 9.

Please don't post if you have no knowledge about which you are posting.




Please READ before you respond. I said under loads 1 gb of memoery would slow down XP. Meaning when your running Photoshop on a 90MB picture and your adding 7 filters to the picture 1GB of memory will be a bottle neck, 2 GB would relieve that bottleneck. or for you gamers, in BF2 if you have 1 GB of memory you will see some start of game lag. 2GB pf memory will help that, if you dont believe check the forums here and see the ppl who say bf2 should be run under 2 GB.

The thing people dont understand is this is a NEW OS. this isnt some micky mouse OS that Micro$oft slapped together, its all new code.


this is windows 98 MIN SPECS

Windows 98
PC with a 486DX 66 megahertz (MHz) or faster processor
16 megabytes (MB) of memory (24 MB recommended)
140MB to 355MB megabytes (MB) of available hard disk space
VGA or higher resolution (16-bit or 24-bit colour SVGA recommended)
One 3.5-inch high-density floppy disk drive
Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

windows 2000

Min Processor Type
Intel Pentium - 133 MHz
Min RAM Size
64 MB
Min Hard Drive Space
2 GB
Peripheral / Interface Devices
Mouse or compatible device

windows XP Pro



* Min hard drive space
* 1.5 GB

* Min processor type
* Intel Pentium 233 MHz

* Min RAM size
* 64 MB

* Peripheral / Interface devices
* CD-ROM, SVGA monitor, Mouse or compatible device

windows XP x64

System Requirements

* Min Hard Drive Space: 1.5 GB
* Min Processor Type: Intel x86-64
* Min RAM Size: 256 MB

so after looking at that evolution PLEASE explain to me why this OS wont need more memory. 2 GB sould be the norm for vista not 1 gb.

 

[illicitsc]

it isn't a ram problem, get it through your head. i run vista rc1 with 1gb memory and a x800xt. no lag what so ever with aero.

To the OP: Have you tried the new Vista drivers by ati?

 

[kaotao]

get some more ram. 1 gb would slow down XP under loads , what makes you think it would run a next gen OS .

this is os thats still working out all the kinks. its in a sence a beta in late stages.


these are the recomended specs for vista when its for public sale.

* 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor1.
* 1 GB of system memory.
* Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)2, Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.
* 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
* DVD-ROM Drive3.
* Audio output capability.
* Internet access capability.

Huh??? 1GB RAM will slow down XP? At what, pray tell.

Minimum specs for Vista are an 800 MHZ processor, 512 MB ram and, yes, a GPU capable of direct x 9.

Please don't post if you have no knowledge about which you are posting.




Please READ before you respond. I said under loads 1 gb of memoery would slow down XP. Meaning when your running Photoshop on a 90MB picture and your adding 7 filters to the picture 1GB of memory will be a bottle neck, 2 GB would relieve that bottleneck. or for you gamers, in BF2 if you have 1 GB of memory you will see some start of game lag. 2GB pf memory will help that, if you dont believe check the forums here and see the ppl who say bf2 should be run under 2 GB.

The thing people dont understand is this is a NEW OS. this isnt some micky mouse OS that Micro$oft slapped together, its all new code.


this is windows 98 MIN SPECS

Windows 98
PC with a 486DX 66 megahertz (MHz) or faster processor
16 megabytes (MB) of memory (24 MB recommended)
140MB to 355MB megabytes (MB) of available hard disk space
VGA or higher resolution (16-bit or 24-bit colour SVGA recommended)
One 3.5-inch high-density floppy disk drive
Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

windows 2000

Min Processor Type
Intel Pentium - 133 MHz
Min RAM Size
64 MB
Min Hard Drive Space
2 GB
Peripheral / Interface Devices
Mouse or compatible device

windows XP Pro



* Min hard drive space
* 1.5 GB

* Min processor type
* Intel Pentium 233 MHz

* Min RAM size
* 64 MB

* Peripheral / Interface devices
* CD-ROM, SVGA monitor, Mouse or compatible device

windows XP x64

System Requirements

* Min Hard Drive Space: 1.5 GB
* Min Processor Type: Intel x86-64
* Min RAM Size: 256 MB

so after looking at that evolution PLEASE explain to me why this OS wont need more memory. 2 GB sould be the norm for vista not 1 gb.

Huh? :roll:

 

[michaelahess]

I gotta agree, I'm running it on a machine with 512MB ram, athlon xp 2600, and a radeon 9700 pro. Smooth as silk and plays all but oblivion and doom3/quake4 perfectly at 1280x1024, and they run great at 1024x768. Sure 1GB ram would make it better, but this is my test of a "slower" machine to see how it works.

 

[croc]

I've had 6 hrs sleep in the last 3 days, and am too tired to argue. Needless to say, I and a bunch of others did read and understand what it was that you were posting, and almost to a person they found what you were posting to belong in the category of BS. I assume that you are currently running RC1? I am... So ah heck off.

OP, please check ATI's site and try the latest. I believe it was illicitsc that suggested that, among others.

OT, has anyone managed to get RC1 x64 working? If so, what cpu / MB combination...

 

[DomBenson]

I run the X800GT and have not had any problems with the ATI Beta drivers for Beta2 or RC1. The XP x64 drivers didn't perform too well though.
As for RAM 1GB performed flawlessly, although a lot was in use under low-ish system loads (on Beta2, RC1 seems better).
I am running RC1 x64, although it took a bit of persuading (memory management, it didn't like 3GB at all, fine with 1 or 2 though). Beta2 didn't have this problem. At first I thought it might just be the WinPE install agent, but I tried removing to install then replacing and it failed to boot into anything other than safe mode. Not exactly a major issue (!) but hopefully MS witll fix it in due course, as otherwise my old memory is somewhat wasted.
I run an X2-3800 (S939) on the MSI K8N Diamond (NF4 SLI).

 

[jelly1228]

The x800xl, xt, and xtpe cores are in both agp and pci-e there was a problem with beta2 where you had to install windows in vga mode and then install the beta drivers from ati. But with RC1 I dont think that is a problem any more. I have an ati x800xt "agp" and it installed fine for me. Try uninstalling you drivers for your gpu and install atis drivers. You can also look on the vista dvd for read me text files and/or release notes. Im sure theres somthing in there!

P.S. RC1 is still a beta so there are going to be problems!