Rant I'm sure it's been said before but.....

V

venom077

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 1, 2005
Messages
72
So, here I am at 3AM EST and I want to switch from my crappy onboard graphics (because I sold my old card) to a shiny new 5550. An easy transition you say. MY ASS.
First off I've been working on computers for 20 years and I know the headaches they can cause, as a matter of fact I've run into this exact same issuse before it just shouldn't happen, anywho so i install the new card and it wont produce a display so I rehook the onboard back up and uninstall catalyst. Still no dice. Back to onboard and 800x600 and the new catalyst's are downloaded and ready to install. Try to install the drivers and NO!! We run into a problem and the drivers won't install, and here's the crux of the problem, Catalyst wont install because a conflict with Mfc80.dll from VISUAL STUDIO 2005!!!!
There's the thing. I'm installing drivers in 2010 and I'm running into a problem with a dynamic link librairy from 5 years ago. I have to manually seek out the dll and use Dr Delete to get rid of it so I can install the new drivers.
Now don't get me wrong, I've always loved and used windows and hell it even makes me money(I run a repair buisness out of my home) BUT these are the things that makes "joe user" thing that these things are just immpossible and thats what windows needs to work on. After almost 20 years plug and play still isn't plug and play. This needs to change.
Just a personal diatribe but go ahead and through in your 2 cents
I'm really just trying to convey that in this day and age with a software company as good as MS things like that should be automatically fixed and not just linked to a useless knowledge base article.If they want people to see windows boxes more like apple or linux boxes then things like that should'nt happen. Granted compatabillity is always an issue with any OS even the vaunted Apple. I just think you hear less about it because apple includes most apps you'll ever need with the OS (hey did'nt MS get sued for that and looked at by the justice department) Anyway I just wanted to see if anyone else thought MS should implement that type of system so that things just work.
 
I think you should get a Mac. I hear they just work. ;)

I completely understand your frustrations. I was having a similar problem a few days ago, but with a soundcard.
 
now you see this is why i switched to geforce. Okay not really..but I did actually switch to geforce
 
I just had the same experience a couple weeks ago and made an interesting discovery just yesterday with lots of AMDKMDAG in the event viewer. A simple registry hack stopped it. This thing with several varieties of C++ that and .NET this seems almost amateurish. If I thought nVidia was coming out with a budget DX11 card soon I might have stayed with them. On the flip side, I look at all this as just another learning experience.
 
I have experienced thisfrustration as well, which is why I now always completely uninstall drivers (including a ccleaner run) before I pull the graphics card.
 
MavsX said:
now you see this is why i switched to geforce. Okay not really..but I did actually switch to geforce
Click to expand...

Hey wait....ATI has been working on improving their drivers for over a decade now..or so it seems.
 
I tend to find these kinds of problems creep into an OS after a long time without reformatting. How old is the install?
 
Standpoint said:
I tend to find these kinds of problems creep into an OS after a long time without reformatting. How old is the install?
Click to expand...

I'm the same way. Whenever I do a major rebuild or change video card brands I do a clean install.
 
450 said:
I think you should get a Mac. I hear they just work. ;)
Click to expand...


Anti-trolls: worse than the trolls themselves.

Anyway, OP, I completely understand your frustration. Many times have I had problems with going from onboard to a dedicated GPU.
 
Azhar said:
You realize you're bashing Microsoft for an ATI software problem, do you? Joe user doesn't swap video cards anyways.

Anyways, check this site - look at the third post by DJInside.
Click to expand...

Agreed.


OP I can see why you would be frustrated, but you can't say it's Windows or Microsoft's fault for some one else not coding their drivers very well.
 
I've never heard of anyone making the gpu installation process so damn complex.

You plug the GPU in and supply it with power if it requires it

You boot to Windows

You run the driver installer

You reboot

It's that easy. If there are anymore steps necessary than that, there's something else wrong with your computer.
 
bigdogchris said:
It's that easy. If there are anymore steps necessary than that, there's something else wrong with your computer.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking the something else is haveing VISUAL STUDIO 2005 on there. Joe user isn't trying to use VS and most VS users I know aren't trying to stick to that old version.
 
MaxBurn said:
I'm thinking the something else is haveing VISUAL STUDIO 2005 on there. Joe user isn't trying to use VS and most VS users I know aren't trying to stick to that old version.
Click to expand...

Bingo. His whole stupid rant was negated right there.

Joe User is not going to be swapping out video cards and even if he does he wont have VS2005.

He just happens to be in the .1% affected by this, if i where in charge at ATI i wouldn't pay someone to screw with this either.
 
MaxBurn said:
I'm thinking the something else is haveing VISUAL STUDIO 2005 on there. Joe user isn't trying to use VS and most VS users I know aren't trying to stick to that old version.
Click to expand...


I think that dll is required for things written in visual studio. I don't think it means they have it installed, and if he did then it's his own damn fault for not know how to a computer a works.
 
OK morons here's how it works. The problem does not stem from haveing VS 2005 installed because I don't. As a matter of fact I have 2010 installed and it works just fine. Contrary to Verge's opinion I know far more about how a computer works than he ever will (he strikes me as one of those teenage ass's that can't build a PC without lights in it). Anywho, if you knew your ass from a hole in the ground the conflict does'nt arise from having VS installed but the fact that the catalyst installer was written in 2005 and the old .NET framework and windows won't allow the upgradeing of the MFC80.dll through nothing but their own services witch won't allow catalyst to install the new version on it's own. I'm not particulally blameing any one software vendor just demonstrating that it should'nt be an issue.

PS - and if you don't think "joe user" does'nt try to upgrade his video card and usually f@$k it up royally then you don't work in the PC repair buisness
 
venom077 said:
PS - and if you don't think "joe user" does'nt try to upgrade his video card and usually f@$k it up royally then you don't work in the PC repair buisness
Click to expand...

Amen. Seeing people hack the PCI slots to accept a PCI-E video card always cracks me up.

More often than not, it's usually a case of PSU burning itself out trying to power the new graphic card, but sometimes you happen to meet that gem of a person that really likes the DYI route. :D
 
Deluded said:
Amen. Seeing people hack the PCI slots to accept a PCI-E video card always cracks me up.

More often than not, it's usually a case of PSU burning itself out trying to power the new graphic card, but sometimes you happen to meet that gem of a person that really likes the DYI route. :D
Click to expand...

Dude that's hilarious I've actually seen that. I'm even old enough to remember people asking why PCI cards don't fit in ISA slots.
 
PS - and if you don't think "joe user" does'nt try to upgrade his video card and usually f@$k it up royally then you don't work in the PC repair buisness
Click to expand...

Yeah i have and the amount of people that try are at best 1%. I have seen it plenty of times but its hardly a common occurrence and usually just boils down to power supply issues.
 
Years ago I had a dope bring me his machine where he fried the motherboard because he tried to install memory while it was on. True story, I shit you not. Stupid stuff like that supplied me with work but man it got old.
 
venom077 said:
OK morons here's how it works...
Click to expand...

Not necessary. Just saying.

venom077 said:
OK morons here's how it works. The problem does not stem from haveing VS 2005 installed because I don't. As a matter of fact I have 2010 installed and it works just fine. Contrary to Verge's opinion I know far more about how a computer works than he ever will (he strikes me as one of those teenage ass's that can't build a PC without lights in it). Anywho, if you knew your ass from a hole in the ground the conflict does'nt arise from having VS installed but the fact that the catalyst installer was written in 2005 and the old .NET framework and windows won't allow the upgradeing of the MFC80.dll through nothing but their own services witch won't allow catalyst to install the new version on it's own. I'm not particulally blameing any one software vendor just demonstrating that it should'nt be an issue.

PS - and if you don't think "joe user" does'nt try to upgrade his video card and usually f@$k it up royally then you don't work in the PC repair buisness
Click to expand...

Again, how is this Microsoft's fault for ATi's programming? Last I checked, MS did not write the CCC suit.

When you are as big as MS is it damn hard to completely, 100% cover everyone, and everything.
 
Proxy said:
Not necessary. Just saying.



Again, how is this Microsoft's fault for ATi's programming? Last I checked, MS did not write the CCC suit.

When you are as big as MS is it damn hard to completely, 100% cover everyone, and everything.
Click to expand...

This is 90% of why Vista was trashed by the mainstream press/computer users. Other companies writing shit drivers/installers.
 
zaxour said:
This is 90% of why Vista was trashed by the mainstream press/computer users. Other companies writing shit drivers/installers.
Click to expand...

Too true. I always hated how people always rammed MS for Vista, not realizing it was 3rd party companies not supporting it. Granted, there were a few things MS could have done better with Vista. They finally did get those things right and it's called W7. ;) I <3 W7.
 
MaxBurn said:
I'm thinking the something else is having VISUAL STUDIO 2005 on there. Joe user isn't trying to use VS and most VS users I know aren't trying to stick to that old version.
Click to expand...

Some applications install things like VS for you. Most probably don't even know what it is and that it got installed. In any case, you then you end up with incompatibilities. Read this known issue.
 
Proxy said:
Too true. I always hated how people always rammed MS for Vista, not realizing it was 3rd party companies not supporting it. Granted, there were a few things MS could have done better with Vista. They finally did get those things right and it's called W7. ;) I <3 W7.
Click to expand...

Actually, Windows 7 didn't really fix it, companies had time to write proper drivers for Vista and most of them worked with Windows 7 anyway (during the beta) :p
 
zaxour said:
This is 90% of why Vista was trashed by the mainstream press/computer users. Other companies writing shit drivers/installers.
Click to expand...

XP x64 too.

It's a valid rant, I especially don't like how they require .NET. IMO drivers should be self contained.
 
MaxBurn said:
XP x64 too.

It's a valid rant, I especially don't like how they require .NET. IMO drivers should be self contained.
Click to expand...

XP x64 was more hampered by the half ass support microsoft gave it.
 
Seems to me the problems here really seem to stem from a third-party installer. Perhaps Microsoft could consider expanding upon MSI's development toolkit so as to make it the only platform capable of installing hardware drivers and associated driver software in the next version of Windows. It would then be quite trivial to expand the driver certification protocol so as to include the actual installer.

Microsoft has a particular incentive to keep software developers "on the leash", so the speak. Negative experiences with software reflects poorly on Windows itself, so if that can be negated in some way, that's going to be a benefit to Windows users.
 
venom077 said:
OK morons here's how it works.
Click to expand...
Unnecessary, especially when some people are actually trying to help you.
venom077 said:
Contrary to Verge's opinion I know far more about how a computer works than he ever will
Click to expand...
Again, unnecessary, especially when you go on to tell us you work in the PC repair business. My experience with those types of people is that far greater than half of them don't have a clue at what they are doing, making more "at home work" for us IT professionals and management to do after we get home from our day jobs. See, I can make ASSumptions and throw around titles too. The point? They mean nothing here, so don't bash people you don't know.

Now, on to something useful. I've had odd issues with ATI's installers in the past, especially when swapping from another non-ATI card. Regardless of the issue, I've been able to extract the drivers and manually install them. Then, if you still need the CCC or any of the helper apps, you can rerun the setup and install as you normally would.
 
Disposed said:
Why should it be the OS job to manage the DLLs you install to it? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Because that's one of the responsibilities of an OS. The operating system necessarily has to keep track of and load DLLs into memory as required, and bind it with the executing program. This is how DLLs work.
 
jimmyb said:
Because that's one of the responsibilities of an OS. The operating system necessarily has to keep track of and load DLLs into memory as required, and bind it with the executing program. This is how DLLs work.
Click to expand...

Really?

HMODULE hMod = LoadLibrary("myawesomelibrary.dll");

So, at this point, the code follows a well specified path order for loading the DLL. What tracking and loading are you talking about, since that LoadLibrary call is executed from within the program?
 
Tawnos said:
Really?
Click to expand...
Yes really. The fact that you can manually specify a path to a load DLL is not exclusive with my claim that modern operating systems take on the responsibility of managing dynamically linked libraries.

Tawnos said:
What tracking[...]
Click to expand...
DLLs are usually registered with the OS. Most programs (that I've seen) do not specify the the path to the DLL (which strikes me as poor coding anyway), but even so, it is ultimately up to the OS as to what DLL is going to get loaded even if the search order is well defined. Apparently in the case of .NET shared libraries Windows has something called Global Assembly Cache, which is very much an OS controlled DLL repository.

I can't say I've every seen anyone explicitly load a DLL (and presumably link) per your example, but then I'm not a software developer. In any case, it is still OS managed.

Additionally, the OS needs to remember which libraries are already loaded in memory, so that they can be shared across processes.

Tawnos said:
[...]loading[...]
Click to expand...
The executable code in the DLL must be loaded into memory at run-time if it not already there. Function calls must then be mapped to the appropriate addresses, depending on the implementation of shared libraries. I would think at some point the TLB needs to be updated such that there is a mapping from from the process's virtual address space to where the DLL actually resides in physical memory - but I don't really know the details here.

Tawnos said:
[...]since that LoadLibrary call is executed from within the program
Click to expand...
LoadLibrary is still a system call - putting it squarely within the OS's domain..
 
Last edited:
Okay so to set things straight the frustration and rum caused the morons comment. Did'nt mean to offend anyone here but I just happen to live near a technical school where most graduates woul'nt know a socket 370 from a slot 1.

AND... I don't need help I've fixed the problem this time and many of times. The point was that MS should allow the updating of outdated dll files automatically instead of pointing you to an article to do it yourself. I understand that from there point of view it's a security issue but from a trusted company like AMD\ATI it SHOULD NOT be a problem. That was the initial argument. Once again sorry if I offended any kids out there. Well not really but still...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top