Problem with Radeon 9500 and Vista

[Lil' Abner]

I was redirected here from alt.comp.hardware

I have an Diamond ATI Radeon 9500 graphics card installed on a computer
with a Biostar P4M800-M7A motherboard with a Pentium D 3.2Ghz Dual Core
processor. I am have 2Gb of ram. I am presently using a Dell 19" CRT
monitor but have also tried it with a Gateway 19" CRT monitor. I bought the
card to be Vista compatible.

It works fine for me in Windows XP. I installed Vista on another partiton
and dual boot the two operating systems. I did not install the Catalyst
Control Center in XP and had no problem getting my desired settings. My
preferred screen resolution is 1152 X 864. However in Vista, the highest
resolution I can get to work properly is 1024 X 768. I installed the
Catalyst Control Center in Vista to see if I could improve the situation.
1152 X 864 is not even an option in the Control Center, although the
default Windows "slider" will let you set it at that. But it is too narrow
and can't be stretched out horizonally to fill the screen. The same applies
to 1280 X 960 which I could live with. I have tried various refresh rates
with all of these but they do not solve the problem. 1280 X 1024 works but
it does not have the 4:3 aspect ratio desired.

What I can't understand is why it works properly in XP but not in Vista. I
downloaded the Vista drivers from the ATI site.

Are there possibly some different drivers I could obtain that would solve
my problem?

 

[Lil' Abner]

I was redirected here from alt.comp.hardware

I have an Diamond ATI Radeon 9500 graphics card installed on a
computer with a Biostar P4M800-M7A motherboard with a Pentium D 3.2Ghz
Dual Core processor. I am have 2Gb of ram. I am presently using a Dell
19" CRT monitor but have also tried it with a Gateway 19" CRT monitor.
I bought the card to be Vista compatible.

It works fine for me in Windows XP. I installed Vista on another
partiton and dual boot the two operating systems. I did not install
the Catalyst Control Center in XP and had no problem getting my
desired settings. My preferred screen resolution is 1152 X 864.
However in Vista, the highest resolution I can get to work properly is
1024 X 768. I installed the Catalyst Control Center in Vista to see if
I could improve the situation. 1152 X 864 is not even an option in the
Control Center, although the default Windows "slider" will let you set
it at that. But it is too narrow and can't be stretched out
horizonally to fill the screen. The same applies to 1280 X 960 which I
could live with. I have tried various refresh rates with all of these
but they do not solve the problem. 1280 X 1024 works but it does not
have the 4:3 aspect ratio desired.

What I can't understand is why it works properly in XP but not in
Vista. I downloaded the Vista drivers from the ATI site.

Are there possibly some different drivers I could obtain that would
solve my problem?

Ooops... subject line should have been 9550 instead of 9500.

 

[larry]

Ooops... subject line should have been 9550 instead of 9500.

I think my 9550 had a similar problem in Vista a while ago but I just got
frustrated with it and quit. Last week I triedVista again with the newest
drivers and the performance was much better than before, my windows
experience index tripled but I didn't try any resolution other than 1024 x
768 and I finally got my tv wonder 650 to work kinda.
Anyway I know I didn't answer your question but you're not alone and if I
get brave enough to try again I will check it out.

 

[R. C. White]

Hi, Abner.

Why?

The built-in drivers in Vista worked fine with my ATI AIW 9600 Pro. They
should work with the 9550, too.

Early in the Vista beta, we had to download ATI drivers, but long before
Vista "went Gold" the native drivers were working. By December, I was
running the RTM version of Vista Ultimate (both x64 and x86) and the 9600
"just worked" with no attention from me. Then I replaced my motherboard and
had to switch from AGP to PCI-express, so I bought the X1600 Pro - the
non-AIW version this time. Again, it "just worked" with the built-in Vista
drivers.

But the TV tuner part of the AIW never worked with Vista x86 or x64, or with
WinXP x64. The MMC drivers for 64-bit were always promised "in the next
release", but I never heard any promises of MMC drivers for Vista. And then
ATI announced there would be no more AIW. And then AMD bought ATI. And I'm
now trying to get acceptable TV reception from the non-ATI tuner cards in my
new rig, using the Media Center that is included in Vista Ultimate.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(Retired. No longer licensed to practice public accounting.)
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Currently running Vista Ultimate x64)

 

[Lil' Abner]

Hi, Abner.


Why?

Because although the windows drivers installed alright, I still couldn't
get the 1152X864 resolution I wanted.

The built-in drivers in Vista worked fine with my ATI AIW 9600 Pro.
They should work with the 9550, too.

Early in the Vista beta, we had to download ATI drivers, but long
before Vista "went Gold" the native drivers were working. By
December, I was running the RTM version of Vista Ultimate (both x64
and x86) and the 9600 "just worked" with no attention from me. Then I
replaced my motherboard and had to switch from AGP to PCI-express, so
I bought the X1600 Pro - the non-AIW version this time. Again, it
"just worked" with the built-in Vista drivers.

But the TV tuner part of the AIW never worked with Vista x86 or x64,
or with WinXP x64. The MMC drivers for 64-bit were always promised
"in the next release", but I never heard any promises of MMC drivers
for Vista. And then ATI announced there would be no more AIW. And
then AMD bought ATI. And I'm now trying to get acceptable TV
reception from the non-ATI tuner cards in my new rig, using the Media
Center that is included in Vista Ultimate.

I had much less of a video card when I was running Beta and didn't have
the resolution problems. That was a different motherboard though running
a P4 2.8 Ghz processor. The card only scored a 1.0 but it worked. This
one scores 3.3.

Is there anyone else in here that is running 1152X864, and if so, what
viceo card are you using? I'm ready to dump this card if that's what it's
going to take.

 

[R. C. White]

Hi, Abner.

Because although the windows drivers installed alright, I still couldn't
get the 1152X864 resolution I wanted.

Ah!

When I go to the Adapter tab in Display Properties and click List All
Modes..., the long list includes 6 choices for 1152x864: 32-bit, 16-bit and
256 Colors, for 75 and 70 Hertz each. My monitor is a 17" LCD from
Wal*Mart; the brand name is Balance, from China. I'm running Vista Ultimate
x64 on an AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+; before December it was an Athlon 64 3200+.
This mobo/CPU/video combo gets a WEI of 4.6 for Graphics and 4.6 overall. I
always run at 1280x1024 at 75 Hertz.

Since I'm neither videophile nor expert, there's not much else I can tell
you.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(Retired. No longer licensed to practice public accounting.)
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Currently running Vista Ultimate x64)

 

[Lil' Abner]

Hi, Abner.


Ah!

When I go to the Adapter tab in Display Properties and click List All
Modes..., the long list includes 6 choices for 1152x864: 32-bit,
16-bit and 256 Colors, for 75 and 70 Hertz each. My monitor is a 17"
LCD from Wal*Mart; the brand name is Balance, from China. I'm running
Vista Ultimate x64 on an AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+; before December it
was an Athlon 64 3200+. This mobo/CPU/video combo gets a WEI of 4.6
for Graphics and 4.6 overall. I always run at 1280x1024 at 75 Hertz.

Yeah, that one works for me, it's not standard 4:3 ration. 1280X960 is, but
that's another one that won't work for me.
I tried all the 1152X864 ones at all different refresh rates. No luck.

 

[Ian O]

Ooops... subject line should have been 9550 instead of 9500.

Is this not to do with the how Vista sees the monitor, the monitor's
..inf file, rather than a specific ATI driver issue? Anyone?

--



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000734-3, 19/04/2007
Tested on: 20/04/2007 13:59:05
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

 

[Lil' Abner]

I was redirected here from alt.comp.hardware

I have an Diamond ATI Radeon 9500 graphics card installed on a
computer with a Biostar P4M800-M7A motherboard with a Pentium D 3.2Ghz
Dual Core processor. I am have 2Gb of ram. I am presently using a Dell
19" CRT monitor but have also tried it with a Gateway 19" CRT monitor.
I bought the card to be Vista compatible.

It works fine for me in Windows XP. I installed Vista on another
partiton and dual boot the two operating systems. I did not install
the Catalyst Control Center in XP and had no problem getting my
desired settings. My preferred screen resolution is 1152 X 864.
However in Vista, the highest resolution I can get to work properly is
1024 X 768. I installed the Catalyst Control Center in Vista to see if
I could improve the situation. 1152 X 864 is not even an option in the
Control Center, although the default Windows "slider" will let you set
it at that. But it is too narrow and can't be stretched out
horizonally to fill the screen. The same applies to 1280 X 960 which I
could live with. I have tried various refresh rates with all of these
but they do not solve the problem. 1280 X 1024 works but it does not
have the 4:3 aspect ratio desired.

What I can't understand is why it works properly in XP but not in
Vista. I downloaded the Vista drivers from the ATI site.

Are there possibly some different drivers I could obtain that would
solve my problem?

While further researching this, I ran into this same thread (that I
started) is some forum.. just like I'd posted it there in the first
place. However I don't have "permission to post" in there...

Oh well. Anyway, what I've finally done is to adjust my monitor to make
the 1152X864 work. It was so far out that I didn't think it would work. I
figured that I'd have to adjust it back for XP, but it was just fine in
XP too, and when I came back to Vista, it was still OK. Go figure.

So I guess you could say I've got it "fixed". Thanks to all who
contributed.