ATI says the 'catalyst 3.8 monitor damage' scare is bogus

  • Thread starter Thread starter rms
  • Start date Start date
R

rms

http://www.hardocp.com news item, and elsewhere.

The 3.8 drivers causing monitor damage scare is probably some Nvidia
mis-information counter-espionage campaign effort.

We need more Yellow Alerts from Ashcroft's office to take our minds off
videocard terrorism.

rms
 
Ha ha cool damage my 14 inch monitor i dont care it will give me a reason to
get a 19 inch flat screen
 
Brad said:
Ha ha cool damage my 14 inch monitor i dont care it will give me a reason to
get a 19 inch flat screen
Click to expand...


14"? Sounds like reason enough to get a 19"!

- Daniel
 
rms said:
http://www.hardocp.com news item, and elsewhere.

The 3.8 drivers causing monitor damage scare is probably some Nvidia
mis-information counter-espionage campaign effort.

We need more Yellow Alerts from Ashcroft's office to take our minds off
videocard terrorism.

rms
Click to expand...

Then I would like to see ATI tell us why they think there are so far 183
cases of reported monitor damage since installing CAT3.8 drivers.
 
http://www.hardocp.com news item, and elsewhere.

The 3.8 drivers causing monitor damage scare is probably some Nvidia
mis-information counter-espionage campaign effort.
Click to expand...

You know, I was starting to wonder if it was something like that. I
don't think I ever saw anyone who actually had a monitor that was
killed by 3.8. It was always, "I know this guy who knows this one guy
who it happened to."


Crash7
remove x's from address to email
 
Horace Halfbottom said:
Then I would like to see ATI tell us why they think there are so far 183
cases of reported monitor damage since installing CAT3.8 drivers.
Click to expand...

Reported to whom? According to ATI there have been no such cases reported
to them.
 
I would suspect that the only way a video driver could ruin a monitor is if
the refresh rate was too high. Since that is a changeable setting then it
comes under the heading of operator error not video driver design problem.
 
Greg said:
I would suspect that the only way a video driver could ruin a monitor is
if the refresh rate was too high. Since that is a changeable setting
then it comes under the heading of operator error not video driver design
problem.
Click to expand...

But not, if has been alleged, the driver ignores the user setting, and
ignores the monitor driver settings and sets it higher than is capable.

Ben
 
Gonzo said:
Reported to whom? According to ATI there have been no such cases reported
to them.
Click to expand...

ATI flatly denies that their drivers cause card overheating
or blown monitors. They say they haven't had a single report to their own
support people or from any of their more than 100 OEMs. These conspiracy
theories are concentrated in a few hardware forums, where suspicion is now
focusing on plants by Nvidia fanboys.

Nobody in this newsgroup, which has a worldwide reach, has reported any such
problem or knows anyone who has. Let's not feed mass hysteria or aid the
spread of unsupported trash-talk.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/33492.html

http://www.rage3d.com/#1066668794
 
How would you know that? You an ATI insider? Nope, you're just a pussy
fanboi from way back.
Click to expand...

No, he's a guy who actually reads the links that have been posted. ATI
has issued a press release discussing this matter in which they make the
statement he reports.
 
WTF do you think the optimal or adapter defaults are for? If one sets
to optimal and the correct monitor .inf file is installed then there
is no way the vid drivers should ever go over the capabilities of the
monitor. But hey, I've seen some malformed games even set my monitor
out of scan range because the stupid dicks that programmed the game
overrode the .inf files refresh rates.
Click to expand...

So where, exactly, does one set these "optimal or adapter defaults"
using the ATI drivers?
 
Skid said:
ATI flatly denies that their drivers cause card overheating
or blown monitors. They say they haven't had a single report to their own
support people or from any of their more than 100 OEMs. These conspiracy
theories are concentrated in a few hardware forums, where suspicion is now
focusing on plants by Nvidia fanboys.

Nobody in this newsgroup, which has a worldwide reach, has reported any such
problem or knows anyone who has. Let's not feed mass hysteria or aid the
spread of unsupported trash-talk.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's what I thought. Some dumbass set his refresh rate too high &
blew his monitor and now some clown put up a web page with this conspiracy
problem...yadayadayada.

Figures.
 
ATI flatly denies that their drivers cause card overheating
or blown monitors. They say they haven't had a single report to their own
support people or from any of their more than 100 OEMs. These conspiracy
theories are concentrated in a few hardware forums, where suspicion is now
focusing on plants by Nvidia fanboys.

Nobody in this newsgroup, which has a worldwide reach, has reported any such
problem or knows anyone who has. Let's not feed mass hysteria or aid the
spread of unsupported trash-talk.
Click to expand...
Still, it is possible for a video driver to trash a monitor. Way back in
the bad old OS/2 days, I had an S3-based video card mated with an IBM
6317 monitor. There was some problem with the drivers that caused it to
overdrive the monitor for brief periods during mode switches. Each time
it happened, some amount of damage (excessive wear/tear) would occur to
the circuitry. The eventual result was total failure of the monitor. I
went through 7 of them (thank goodness it was under warranty and IBM was
really great about replacing them). Eventually someone got suspicious
that 7 blown monitors by one customer wasn't just some cosmic
coincidence and that there must be some underlying problem causing it.
They dug in and discovered the driver problem.
 
Reported to whom? According to ATI there have been no such cases reported
to them.
Click to expand...

How would you know that? You an ATI insider? Nope, you're just a pussy
fanboi from way back.
 
Yeah that's what I thought. Some dumbass set his refresh rate too high &
blew his monitor and now some clown put up a web page with this conspiracy
problem...yadayadayada.

Figures.
Click to expand...

No dipshit, the .inf file ATI is using set the timing way to high. You
never use the optimal or adapter defaults? Vid drivers are supposed to
read the monitor .inf file but it looks like ATI drivers don't. Do
some research dork.
 
I would suspect that the only way a video driver could ruin a monitor is if
the refresh rate was too high. Since that is a changeable setting then it
comes under the heading of operator error not video driver design problem.
Click to expand...

WTF do you think the optimal or adapter defaults are for? If one sets
to optimal and the correct monitor .inf file is installed then there
is no way the vid drivers should ever go over the capabilities of the
monitor. But hey, I've seen some malformed games even set my monitor
out of scan range because the stupid dicks that programmed the game
overrode the .inf files refresh rates.
 
But not, if has been alleged, the driver ignores the user setting, and
ignores the monitor driver settings and sets it higher than is capable.

Ben
Click to expand...

Ding, ding ding, we finally have someone who knows more about this
than the peanut gallery above.
 
No dipshit, the .inf file ATI is using set the timing way to high. You
never use the optimal or adapter defaults? Vid drivers are supposed to
read the monitor .inf file but it looks like ATI drivers don't. Do
some research dork.
Click to expand...

Here's your research, dork. Perhaps you should do some of your own,
rather than puke out what you've heard from others.

From ATI:


"...There have been many posts in the forums discussing this issue, it
seems it is a common theory, picked up from one place and keep being
circulated. One such theory suggests the following: “Instead of reading
the refresh rates from the PRIMARY display INF files, it is reading the
SECONDARY display INF refresh rates.”

In XP and 2K, we don’t have access to monitor INF information in our
driver component that manages display capability. We have never used
this monitor information for any purpose. We rely on EDID data or user
override information to determine monitor capability. Even though the OS
may use the monitor information to expose high refresh rate based on
monitor INF content, the driver always restricts the actual refresh rate
going to the monitor based on EDID or the user override. In essence, the
user may be able to select from OS controlled monitor page (in advanced
property pages) a high refresh rate but internally driver will restrict
the refresh rate going to the monitor based on EDID information or user
override information. If user set the override information incorrectly
then incompatible signals would be sent to the monitor. In 9x, we can
access monitor INF information but due to issues with how OS maps the
INF to a monitor, we had disabled reading the monitor INF via registry.
Unless someone deliberately changes the registry setting for this in 9x,
they would not run into any monitor INF related issues..."
 
Back
Top