Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

ATI Radeon 9700pro compatible with Windows 98?

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Windows 98
  • Compatibility
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 26, 2002 9:02:53 PM

Hey all,

My first post. I got a radeon9700pro for Christmas and am trying to install it. I have windows 98, and on the box it says its compatible with XP, ME and 2000. Am I out of luck?

Secondly the first step in the installation is to install the latest AGP driver. I am searching the AMD site (my chipset AMD Athlon T-bird 1.33 gz) and am having no luck. Obviously I'm new at this, so any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.

More about : ati radeon 9700pro compatible windows

December 26, 2002 10:35:18 PM

try it out. win me is not that far away from 98. btw, how much ram mem you got anyway?if you got 128 meg or less, then you should definitely get more ram and upgrade to xp since xp is a lot more efficient at using more ram. having less than 128 meg ram and using 9700 pro in your system even if it does run is kinda pointless. having more than 128 meg of ram and using 98 is also pointless since 98 can't use all that ram efficiently (if at all) compare to xp. athlon 1.33 can still use 9700 to some effectiveness in gaming though it will be your cpu that will be the limiting factor a lot of time.


Anyway, my recommendation in short is that you should be running xp and have at least 512 meg ram given your spec. ram is not expensive nowaday so anything less than 512 is not doing justice. and if you do have 512, you should use xp since 98 can't handle all that ram anyway.
December 27, 2002 1:11:18 AM

Yeah, I got 512DDR on this system. I got the system up and running and just tried out Morrowind. It runs much more smoothly than with my old card. XP is next on my shopping list. Thanks for the reply!
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Milamber on 12/26/02 10:12 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
December 27, 2002 4:18:46 AM

get the latest driver from ATI's website, but even with the one on the CD it run good under 98 (I'm using it and not a glitch).

If there is no need I wouldn't change from 98SE to XP, even if people try to tell you it's better, if 98SE does everything fine for you then just stick with it.

<b><font color=blue>Press 1 if you want to be on hold, 2 for disconnect, 3 for a representative who will put you on hold before disconnecting.</font color=blue></b>
a b U Graphics card
December 27, 2002 4:45:27 AM

It should work better with 98SE than with ME, using the ME driver, due to ME being a screwed up OS in the first place.

Now, some people scream about XP...Let me tell you something. I'm using it now because I have to; I thought I'd give it a try, I installed it, used it for a few weeks, it crashed, and now the partitions are so screwed that the only way I'd get 98SE to load would be to repartition the drive! Oh, and I spent around 14 hours trying to get XP back up before giving up and formatting that partition. Had it been a 98SE install, I could have simply done an install over and been done with it.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
December 27, 2002 5:16:23 AM

yes, things might be working fine, and there might be exceptions but much more likely than not, xp manages memory a lot better than 98. and it is more stable too. if you have lots of mem and a fast computer, running 98 is a waste. you be hard pressed to try to argue against this
a b U Graphics card
December 27, 2002 5:51:05 AM

I'm just stating that XP failures are much greater in scale and much more likely to be unfixable.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
December 27, 2002 4:07:19 PM

I run a P4 2.0@2.4 and 512 Mb of RIMM and 98SE (minimum install), zero errors, no blue screens, no memory problems. What's your point? Just because some of you got nothing better to do than try to run your computer non-stop for 8 months we should all use the same OS that might be able to do that even though we don't need our system running even for 6 hours non-stop? Why bother? Normal people barely have their computers on for 4 hours or less a day (let's not count the addicted who can't live without using it most of the time, like me) so big deal.

"if you have lots of mem and a fast computer, running 98 is a waste. you be hard pressed to try to argue against this"

Because you say so? Lots of mem, 512 Mb is a lot for most and even too much for some because e-mail, MS messenger/ICQ/IRC and surfing does not need a hell of a lot. Don't count encoders, image editors, 3D designers, they're not the average and highest ammount of users. Just to buy and use the latest junk (and lots of it) so you can say you got it is nothing but the average "who's daddy better, or who's penis larger" school kids argument.

I myself used XP a couple of times because why not, just had to see what's the hype is about. It did nothing for me better than 98SE, except the errors and unbootable computer after less than a month (3 times) even though all my hardware XP compatible. Also using up way too much drive space because it install way too much junk I have no use the first place (feel like buying an OEM with all the preloaded junk). Sure people say because it also come with lots of drivers, but drivers are out of date faster than you can blink so the drivers in the OS are pretty useless space waste for most (I know enough people who still run everything with off the factory CD drivers because they don't need more).

When sitting on IRC (most of the time, kind of live there) I laugh when people try to show off with their setups using scripts that show OS ram/usage cpu/usage and other stuff. They buy 2 gigs of ram and every time they show off it show 300 Mb use or less, what a waste, but they're proud and try to buy even more (never going to understand that).

Anyway, use whatever you want, I use whatever I want. I use whatever satisfy my needs and you could never ever talk me into following others just because it should be like that in your heads, I'm not a lemming and have a harder head than you could ever imagine (meaning I don't follow people and I barely ever change my mind on something (don't care what problems others have, long as I don't have any I'm sticking with whatever I'm happy with)).

p.s. if you want your OS to be up for 8 months, maybe you should invest in an APC Back-UPS. Because you can have the latest OS and toys it will go down once you loose power. :wink:

---Writing a book again eh? :lol:  ---

<b><font color=blue>Press 1 if you want to be on hold, 2 for disconnect, 3 for a representative who will put you on hold before disconnecting.</font color=blue></b>
December 29, 2002 9:14:21 PM

Yo, I give your anwer a hearty HURUMMPHH and a HUZZAR! I've been using the Win98SE since it came out and haven't till now seen a need to change, however, my ATI 9700 PRO gives me a "SYSTEM FAIL CPU TEST" (on ASUS P4S333 MB w/SIS645 cs) voice warning and won't boot or even post (works fine with GeForce2 Pro 64 meg). :^(
So, I am eyeing getting the "Cure" and buying XP.
Can anyone tell me for sure that the XP will fix the problem ???
Thanks, Take-Out

"We killed OUR Hitler" - attributed to Paul McCartney (If so, then well done, sir)
December 30, 2002 4:27:32 AM

I don't know, I did a format and a fresh instal of OS/drivers/my usual toys and everything running fine.

I feel for you guys who have problems when getting new hardware, but it doesn't have to be OS problem when something goes crap with the new toy. most of the time it isn't anyway, I used to crash like crazy after an upgrade (cpu and mobo didn't like it even though the site said "new bios support the new cpu"), then just sold the whole thing and started over buying everything matching. since then it's all fun and games

<b><font color=blue>Press 1 if you want to be on hold, 2 for disconnect, 3 for a representative who will put you on hold before disconnecting.</font color=blue></b>
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2002 5:00:57 AM

You know what made me make the mistake of going to eXPee in the first place? A driver issue in a game. The eXPee driver didn't have that issue. Now I'm thinking I should've waited for my new video card before playing the game, instead of messing with eXPee.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
December 30, 2002 11:34:09 AM

Quote:
Secondly the first step in the installation is to install the latest AGP driver. I am searching the AMD site (my chipset AMD Athlon T-bird 1.33 gz) and am having no luck. Obviously I'm new at this, so any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.

The T-bird is a processor, not a chipset, there isn´t any drivers for it. The motherboard´s manual should say what chipset it uses, then you can just go to the manufacturers web-site and download the latest drivers.

Quote:
since xp is a lot more efficient at using more ram

<b>Translation:</b> It´s a memory-hog.

Quote:
if you got 128 meg or less, then you should definitely get more ram and upgrade to xp

So tell me, are you simply stupid or are you inexperienced? It´s the other way around. I pity the fools who get tricked into buying a pre-built brand-name system with XP and 128MB. The bottom-line is: XP requires more memory the Windows 98.

<font color=red>I´m starting to feel like a real computer consultant.</font color=red>
!