ATI Radeon 9200se Vista Compatible Drivers? ANYWHERE?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mark
  • Start date Start date
M

Mark

ATI has made some (SOME) vista compatible drivers, but it appears that it is
only for 9500 and up.

Sure, Vista installs a default driver for the card, but that doesn't help
for games that require OpenGL.

Well, what happens if someone has a 9200SE 128MB?

SOL? I don't think that is fair.

If anyone knows how to work around this please contact me.

(e-mail address removed)
 
Vista requires that the graphics card have DX9 support and some other
functionality which the the 91xx and 92xx ATI cards do not have in order to
support the advanced graphic functions
in Vista Premium and Vista Ultimate.
 
It's not just DirectX 9 that is required. Pixel Shader 2 is also required.
The 9250 has Pixel shader 1.
 
The Catalyst drivers for Windows XP contained 9x and shader 2 support for
91x x and 92xx cards within the driver itself. ATI has apparantly decided
not fund the effort to add this support also for their Vista drives since
the cards cannot qualify for the Vista Logo program without these features
being on the cards themselves.
 
Look on eBay for an ATI Radeon 9550 - Vista drivers are available for it.
That is the cheapest way of getting all the Vista effects working.

--
Peter
Toronto, Canada
XP Pro SP2 x 2 + Vista RC2
P4 D865GBFL HT @ 3.0ghz 2.0gb DDR 700gb HD
ATI Radeon 9550 Graphics
Creative Soundblaster Audigy 4 Audio
 
HOW FRUSTRATING!!!

I currently have the RC1 on my machine. When I got the computer with XP it
only had a integrated 64mb video card. I wanted to explore the Vista graphics
features as I work in IT and need to know Vista before it is rolled out to
our customers.

I find the Radeon 9250 and notice it has 256Mb Ram and Directx9. I thought
this was what Vista required. I install it and Windows Vista cannot find the
drivers. I go online and find that ATI are not supporting Vista drivers for
this video card. I only bought it Thursday.

I am now going to return the card for the updated 9550 card. The funny thing
is, is that it is only £4 more.

Vista is starting to be a pain as far as hardware is concerned. I thought I
was buying a resonable, good value graphics card. Obviously not. I feel sorry
for the people that have a graphics card which seems up to the job but does
not work with Vista.

I will let you all know how I get on with the new one.

Luke
 
It's not just DirectX 9 that is required. Pixel Shader 2 is also required.
The 9250 has Pixel shader 1.
Click to expand...
OK -- sort of goes to a point I was making in another thread. Folks
going to Vista as an upgrade on hardware purchased a year or so ago and
wanting to take full advantage of gaming (or other high end stuff) are
going to find that purchasing new hardware to go with the $200+ OS
upgrade makes a lot of sense.
 
OK -- and those cards are sub $50 cards, so it makes sense I suppose.

The thing is, while I'm running Vista on one test box 939 motherboard
(with an X2 3800), the newer AM2 motherboards, which support PCI-X16
are the configuration I expect to use for Vista deployments -- and
apparently I need to research further as to the right video card -- I
was hoping for most set ups the X850 would be a good match, but it
looks like I may need to explore further up the cost/food chain.

I have both small business clients (even the x550 should be fine for
them) and home users as clients -- for them, x1300 might make more
sense.

One thing though, I don't see that I'll be pushing Vista on users with
AMD 754 or even AMD 939 systems currently running XP -- if they want
it, I will query them as to what they are looking for first.
 
That is the thing here -- the 9600 Radeons were well over $100 here at
one point, they are now $60 -- so they are a decent choice.
 
Exactly. I feel that if you have a PC no more than a year old (and it
was a mid to high end), you should be able to upgrade to Vista.
Otherwise, you'll need to upgrade your PC first.

Excellent point.
 
Exactly. I feel that if you have a PC no more than a year old (and it
was a mid to high end), you should be able to upgrade to Vista.
Otherwise, you'll need to upgrade your PC first.
Click to expand...
Right, my first test box (with 64 bit RC1) was a 939MB which supports
dual channel DDR RAM (up to 4G total), but with PCI x16. So it is
pretty much ready for Vista 32 (and runs Vista 64 just fine). That
motherboard was available more than a year ago.

In the AMD world, the 939 based motherboards are sort of the crossover
point -- early ones don't provide dual memory channel, and none of them
support DDR2, early ones are AGP 4x/8x, later ones support PCI-X16
including SLI. Folks have those and want to do Vista, with a bit of
tweaking (adding RAM, better video card) they should be happy.

Folks with AM2 based boards are in even better shape.

But folks with 754 boards -- slower process, no dual channel RAM, often
2G max memory and mostly AGP (though some of them do have PCI x16).
Well, Windows XP is probably a better fit.

I suspect the same thing applies in the Intel side of the world as
well.

The important thing is to respect those who ask first before shelling
out money for Vista and find out what they use Windows for, what sort
of hardware and applications they are running and then find out why
they want Vista.

The whole Vista is God, Vista Sucks dialectic seems rather foolish.
 
I have the ATI Radeon 9600XT (?on the letters) and it runs fine under
VISTA but I've no idea at present if I'm using Aero or anything fancy.
 
I have the ATI Radeon 9600XT (?on the letters) and it runs fine under
VISTA but I've no idea at present if I'm using Aero or anything fancy.
Click to expand...

Right, most of the business computers I deployed last year that had AGP
slots got the 9250SE. About the fourth quarter, those business systems
I deployed got motherboards with PCI-X16 slots and Radeon X550 or X850
cards.
 
I built my PC in May 2005. It's a Shuttle NForce 2 based bare bones PC
which I put in an Athlon XP 3000+, 1GB RAM + ATI Radeon AIW 9700 Pro
(bought 2nd hand for £50 in May 2005).

This runs Vista Ultimate perfectly fine for me. Only hardware upgrade
was an ageing Umax scanner which didn't work in Vista. Now have a much
nicer, smaller one which also supports scanning of my old negatives.
Oh, and I spent £20 on a 2GB flash drive for ReadyBoost.

The spec I went for in 2005 wasn't top of the range. It was pretty good
- but not the 64bit etc which was on the market at the time.

Saying that more than a year old needs a hardware upgrade first, or that
if it's less than a year old you need mid to high end hardware, that's
probably a bit strict.

David
 
BSchnur said:
Right, my first test box (with 64 bit RC1) was a 939MB which supports
dual channel DDR RAM (up to 4G total), but with PCI x16. So it is
pretty much ready for Vista 32 (and runs Vista 64 just fine). That
motherboard was available more than a year ago.

In the AMD world, the 939 based motherboards are sort of the crossover
point -- early ones don't provide dual memory channel, and none of them
support DDR2, early ones are AGP 4x/8x, later ones support PCI-X16
including SLI. Folks have those and want to do Vista, with a bit of
tweaking (adding RAM, better video card) they should be happy.

Folks with AM2 based boards are in even better shape.

But folks with 754 boards -- slower process, no dual channel RAM, often
2G max memory and mostly AGP (though some of them do have PCI x16).
Well, Windows XP is probably a better fit.
Click to expand...

I have an Athlon XP 3000+ running via Socket A (which is older than
socket 754) nForce 2 Shuttle board. I have dual channel RAM (2x512MB
installed) using 8xAGP with a Radeon 9700 Pro and I get excellent
performance in my machine. Certainly better than I did in XP.

D
 
Peter said:
Look on eBay for an ATI Radeon 9550 - Vista drivers are available for it.
That is the cheapest way of getting all the Vista effects working.
Click to expand...

I bought a Radeon 9700 Pro All in Wonder in May 2005 for £50 from eBay.
Excellent card, brilliant performance in HL2 I found, and also now,
nearly 2 years later, is fully Vista compatible. Brilliant - probably
one of the better £50 I spend on PC components!

David
 
Back
Top