Vista Forceware 101.41 BETA (SLI for 6/7/8)

tesfaye

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 17, 2003
Messages
3,421
I can't believe anyone would say this, the drivers are in beta for the most part they work but theres some bugs to iron out, Nvidia have 2 choices, make the drivers available, and please those who would like to get additional functionality early and also dont mind submitting bugs to help.
So you accept half ass drivers for your $XXX video card? What is this additional functionality? There is nothing additional being added here. The functionality exists on the cards and nVidia is taking their sweet ass time PROPERLY implementing the functionality in the drivers. This stuff should be available out of the box, these driver releases should be minor game compatibility patches. Of course there will be bugs but come on there are cards that shipped with two gpus (7950) that only have one working (No SLI support). Granted that has been fixed but to what exent? How well are those cards running now? But forget that for a moment, cards that shipped with big ol' Vista logos on the box did not have acceptable drivers at Vista launch. That my friend is a problem. Nvidia posted WHQL drivers that still couldn't properly resume from hibernation or stand by.

It's not as though we have to pay to download the drivers...Just simply restrain yourself from downloading them at all.
You're joking right? I guess you like to spend money on hardware and not get full bug free driver support for it until the next model or hardware revision of your card is available? If the boxes had warning labels on them that let us know that the cards would not be fully supported then yeah, there wouldn't be much to bitch about. This isn't the case, here we have hardware being touted as essential for Vista, blazing performance yada yada yada. Can't be very essential when the drivers cause you to lose work coming out of standby and gaming is hit or miss, let's not forget the legions of nVidia followers that are experiencing driver reset errors across the whole range of nVidia models starting from the 6xxx series.

Tell me, whats the difference between Nvidia NOT releasing beta drivers, and them relasing beta drivers, but you refraining from downloading them?
None, you are still stuck with less than functional hardware and in either case it's unacceptable.


What scandle? if it's so easy, get your own company together and produce next gen video cards.
You knew what he was trying to say.

This is just a guess, but i'd hazard a guess that on Vista that CPU is a bottleneck is most games, hence moving from 1 card to 2 cards might not always give benefits. Remember that Vista is more CPU heavy than XP is.
Vista isn't some special case in that regard. What makes you think the CPU becomes the bottleneck in Vista when running SLI? Vista seems to run games just as good if not better than XP in certain situations when running ATI hardware and it's pretty darn close with nVidia when it's working so where is this CPU bottleneck/performance issue?

I don't mean to come off as harsh but it bugs me when I read posts that have a tone of acceptance of the way driver development is handled by certain technology companies.

I still need to put two sticks of ram into my computer and see if that driver error comes back. My buddy that is havng the issue with the same hardware config as mine could not get away from it once it started and he had gone through several reinstalls of Vista.
 

clayton006

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
1,084
Well I started dual booting over the weekend with XP and Vista.
I loaded the newest Vista Beta drivers and found that WoW now plays properly (doesn't crash to the desktop), but I haven't tried Quake 4 yet.

I think I'm going to keep dual booting for a while and see what happens. Did anyone notice something about PureVideo on the driver notes? Does this mean that there is support for it now?
 

b00gjuice

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
80
And another bug; with the 101.41 drivers, Vista Ultimate dreamscene crashes the slingbox player software.
 

Symon14

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Messages
335
Well, after these drivers came out I had hoped I would be able to move to Vista... I think I'll give it a while longer.
 

Frosteh

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 30, 2004
Messages
3,664
So you accept half ass drivers for your $XXX video card?

I accept that new OS's take a while to support, this has always been the case, ever since Microsoft built windows and removed the ability for games to directly access the hardware. Vista is no exception.

What is this additional functionality? There is nothing additional being added here.

I'm talking about the additional functionality the beta drivers provide compared to the last set of official drivers - full list is here:

http://us.download.nvidia.com/Windows/101.41/101.41_ForceWare_Release_Notes.pdf

The functionality exists on the cards and nVidia is taking their sweet ass time PROPERLY implementing the functionality in the drivers. This stuff should be available out of the box, these driver releases should be minor game compatibility patches. Of course there will be bugs but come on there are cards that shipped with two gpus (7950) that only have one working (No SLI support). Granted that has been fixed but to what exent? How well are those cards running now? But forget that for a moment, cards that shipped with big ol' Vista logos on the box did not have acceptable drivers at Vista launch. That my friend is a problem. Nvidia posted WHQL drivers that still couldn't properly resume from hibernation or stand by.

You're waffeling now, this has nothing to do with beta drivers, if you have an issue with the drivers on vista in general then you need to switch back to XP while the drivers mature.

You're joking right? I guess you like to spend money on hardware and not get full bug free driver support for it until the next model or hardware revision of your card is available?

I'm not stupid enough to buy a card that doesn't come with support for the OS's I want to run, I always investigate these things before I spend a lot of money on hardware, it only seems like a sensible thing to do. Marketing slang is BS, get used to it, are you one of those people that see's "10x softer than other brands of soap" written on the side of a product and buy it because you think it's true?

None, you are still stuck with less than functional hardware and in either case it's unacceptable.

Exactly, none, thats my point...

My comments were aimed at the fact that someone was complaining about Nvidia releasing beta drivers, if there's no difference with the above then why complain about it, why not simply restrain yourself from downloading beta drivers.

My argument wasn't anything to do with the quality of the drivers, it was that someone was saying they shouldn't release beta drivers to the public, which is totaly and utterly ridiculous, only positive things can come from releasing beta drivers (except for having to listen to whiners who mistake them for official releases)


Vista isn't some special case in that regard. What makes you think the CPU becomes the bottleneck in Vista when running SLI? Vista seems to run games just as good if not better than XP in certain situations when running ATI hardware and it's pretty darn close with nVidia when it's working so where is this CPU bottleneck/performance issue?

Vista uses more CPU time and more RAM than Vista, games require a certain amount of CPU power to keep the frame rate up, your bottleneck in a game might be the CPU or it might be the Video card. Since Vista requires more CPU cycles (like all newer windows OS's) it means that if you have a CPU limited frame rate in a game in XP then your frame rate is going to go down if you switch to Vista, this has NOTHING to do with the video card or the Video card drivers, if the bottleneck is the CPU then improving the performance of the video card drivers will not result in a frame rate increase.

People with slower CPU's (those with CPU limited frame rates) when they move from XP to Vista will see a drop in game performance, even if the video card drivers are equally as eficient, whenever I see someone complaining about large performance drops from XP to Vista the first thing I do is check what CPU and video card they have, if the video card is pretty decent but its an old CPU (especially a slow AMD X2) then that usualy suggest that person needs a new CPU, complaning about drivers at that stage, whether drivers are less or more efficient is irrelevant to that person.

I don't mean to come off as harsh but it bugs me when I read posts that have a tone of acceptance of the way driver development is handled by certain technology companies.

I've been around windows since Win3.1 all the way through 95, 98, 2000, XP and Vista, not once has an OS had a release to the public where drivers have been at what most people would consider an "acceptable quality" from day 1.

Vista is worse because the whole driver model was changed, it wasn't so bad between NT, and 2000 and XP because the driver model didn't change a whole lot, with Vista it's been re-written from the ground up, and all the drivers need to be as well.

I don't have low expectations, I have realistic expectations, I've been in computing for a while now and know what to expect based on previous experience. And despite what the ATI fanb0ys are touting, the ATI drivers aren't a whole lot better, and they're not fighting with public DX10 level drivers or brand new architecture either.
 

Hvatum

Gawd
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
882
So you accept half ass drivers for your $XXX video card? What is this additional functionality? There is nothing additional being added here. The functionality exists on the cards and nVidia is taking their sweet ass time PROPERLY implementing the functionality in the drivers. This stuff should be available out of the box, these driver releases should be minor game compatibility patches. Of course there will be bugs but come on there are cards that shipped with two gpus (7950) that only have one working (No SLI support). Granted that has been fixed but to what exent? How well are those cards running now? But forget that for a moment, cards that shipped with big ol' Vista logos on the box did not have acceptable drivers at Vista launch. That my friend is a problem. Nvidia posted WHQL drivers that still couldn't properly resume from hibernation or stand by. .

You're misunderstanding what Frosteh was saying. Of course Nvidia's drivers should be better, but that's beside his point. What's relevant here is that Nvidia is not "exploiting" their customers as the original poster said. You have no obligation to download these beta drivers or submit bug reports for them. It seems to be a growing problem that the average computer user does not understand the meaning of the word beta, as is demonstrated by the number of people comming to this thread complaining that the beta drivers are not production quality.

Now, if you're having instability and problems with Nvidia's production WHQL drivers then you're right to complain given that they advertised full compatibility. But complaining about problems with beta drivers just makes you look pretty clueless.

Personally I blame the problems with drivers (X-Fi, Nvidia) moreso on Microsoft. If they hadn't developed proprietary APIs such as Directsound or DirectX then companies would only have one API to support. Creative is even developing ALchemy just to give people Directsound support in Vista, because Microsoft arbitrarily dropped support for it in Vista. Surprise surprise, now Microsoft is porting XACT to Vista.:eek:

Then we have DirectX, which Aero uses, thus creating a total mess when it comes to supporting OpenGL in Vista (Nvidia/ATI need to do some clever programming to allow simultaneous hardware access for both APIs(!) just so Aero will keep running). If Microsoft had just remained in the OpenGL ARB back in the 90s then Vista would be much more like OSX, with only one Graphics API, and it would take a fraction of the resources to support it. I don't want to even begin thinking about how much this whole debacle is costing the end-user in terms of increased driver development costs. I wouldn't be surprised if it adds $5 to the cost of every video card.

Just look at it this way, for both Linux and OSX Nvidia constistently releases high quality drivers. Even with the advent of the "Linux Version" (Xorg) of Aero Nvidia released fully compatible well performing drivers within a month. And this was produced/maintained by a driver development team a fraction of the size of their Windows team.
 

The Cobra

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
2,976
I have been having problems with HL2 Episode 1. The rest of HL2 works liek a charm.

ANyone else having this problem?

Thanks

WIndows Vista Ultimate (32bit version)
 

ITSTHINKING

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Messages
1,260
Wow who's the one trying to pick apart every sentence? I actualy agree with Frosteh on most of what he said, but it seems like they waited way to long to start working on their vista drivers.
 

Bop

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 1, 2003
Messages
3,245
The Windows Experience Index keeps crashing with these drivers on my 8800GTX.
 

darkjedi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
266
HL2-Lost Coast works fantastic for me... even says "Using 64bit mode"

HL2-Ep1 and Dark Messiah crash after only a few minutes of playing with HL2.exe or MM.exe errors. tried all compatibility modes and runing as admin... no change.

<sigh>

WoW works great, All the 3DMarks 01-06 run great (even a bit faster), Windows Experience update crashes.

As I stated earlier, my PC will now Sleep and wake up properly... yay
 

jhtevans

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
374
I dual boot xp and vista ultimate on different partitions...
8800gts 320mb

Vista DreamScene won't load with these latest drivers
Vista still isn't recognizing all 320mb on the card (control panels indicate "256mb dedicated video memory")
Vista performance in WoW is still sub-par compared to XP pro performance
Texas Hold'em untested at this time :-p

It amazes me that with 2gigs of ram, I rarely have more than 50-60mb of free physical memory while just running Vista - no additional programs, just the OS - I guess it's great that all my memory is finally being utilized, but I can't even imagine how Vista sucks up 2gigs of memory

Does anyone know how I can get Vista to STOP sharing system memory with my video card?
 

WarMace

Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
963
Then we have DirectX, which Aero uses, thus creating a total mess when it comes to supporting OpenGL in Vista (Nvidia/ATI need to do some clever programming to allow simultaneous hardware access for both APIs(!) just so Aero will keep running).


Wow. I never thought of it that way. Does disabling Aero then fix OpenGL games i wonder...
 

calebb

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 26, 2000
Messages
8,718
It amazes me that with 2gigs of ram, I rarely have more than 50-60mb of free physical memory while just running Vista - no additional programs, just the OS - I guess it's great that all my memory is finally being utilized, but I can't even imagine how Vista sucks up 2gigs of memory

Does anyone know how I can get Vista to STOP sharing system memory with my video card?


Unused RAM is wasted RAM.


http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_05c.asp

Windows SuperFetch

Windows Vista uses a new version of SuperFetch that causes frequently-accessed applications to start up more quickly than is possible on Windows XP. SuperFetch works behind the scenes, examining how you use your PC over time. Then, it prioritizes the caching of applications in RAM based on your usage patterns. SuperFetch also ensures that your applications are given higher priority than background tasks, so the system is always responsive, even if you're stepped away for a while and have just returned.

<snip>

It's not possible to configure Windows SuperFetch in any way, to my knowledge. It just sits in the background ensuring that your system is always running optimally.
 

Sovereign

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
3,098
...*reads flamethread*

This is why I don't buy new OSes for my game rig until AFTER the majority of the complaining subsides; I know it won't be perfect and I'm disappointed in nVidia, but this is good cause to sit back and wait for a while.
 

calebb

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 26, 2000
Messages
8,718
Can you just go into services and disable superfetch and simply reboot?

Why? Might as well uninstall Vista... IMO, superfetch is the biggest reason to upgrade to Vista. Photoshop CS3, Visual Studio 2005... they load faster than I can click. (i.e., I push the mouse button down, the app is open and ready to be used before I lift my finger back up).

And this is on pretty old hardware too... Dell Pentium 4...

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/performance.mspx
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
2,134

Good lord, how I hate Microsoft RAM caching. I have been responsible for both Exchange and SQL servers, where the default settings were for the database engine to use all free RAM for data cache. Supposedly the algorithms were all very smart and adaptive, but as transactions slowly used up the available RAM to the limit that Microsoft deemed sufficient (generally 5-10 MB free regardless of total RAM), system responsiveness plummeted. No matter how good they thought their memory management was, the lag from freeing up cache memory to process network traffic, disk access, etc. was noticeable and unacceptable on a network with about 100 users. Once I dug deep enough in knowledgebases to find out how to put a hard limit on the RAM cache, the problems magically disappeared.

On the SQL server, I had to contend with a database manager that thought I was an ignorant fool and that everything should be done The Microsoft Way. After six months of troubleshooting the "mysterious slowdowns" by analyzing network packet traffic, upgrading to gigabit ethernet, paying an expensive network consultant to analyze the problem (he had us add ARP table entries to reduce client/server name resolution overhead), doubling the RAM on the server, and even spending $8000 to buy an all-new server, he finally "discovered" that the RAM cache was the problem and recommended we try setting a hard limit. All of the problems magically went away, and he got all the credit. How did he steal the credit, and how did a DB manager stonewall a server admin in the first place? Well, my friends, he was the CIO's son...

All that to say, if Vista has similar crap built in and there's no way to limit or disable it, they better be using a much better scheme or it's going to suck a lot. A LOT!
 

MrFace

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 23, 2003
Messages
2,716
Beta, huh? So now NVIDIA can't even afford to hire some real beta testers, they have to exploit their customers? Wonderful. :rolleyes: I'm ashamed to say that I used NVIDIA products successfully for over ten years.

This whole scandal is sickening. ATI and NVIDIA are like the Democrats and Republicans right now, both are so horrible I don't want to support either, and they both suck equally badly. NVIDIA has hardware and no drivers, ATI has drivers and no hardware. I wonder how XGI parts perform?

Because Nvidia can SIMPLY test every single hardware config in house right
 

CptFalcon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
2,012
the battlefield series is simply unbearable playing with my 7950gx2 on vista. sli support is now enabled and both cores are being used but i keep getting major stuttering even though my framerates are relatively high. i mostly blame vista at this point. nvidia's latest beta drivers are worlds ahead of the previous wqhl drivers for vista but its still unacceptable to me at this point to play any games on vista. back to xp for a while.

Of course you have to blame Vista! Let's all the blame the people who made the freaking Operating System and not the people who actually make the fuckin' graphics drivers!

Oh, and on the news today Microsoft doesn't produce graphics drivers or sound drivers or any kind of drivers at all! who'd 'ave though it!?

Why must you all blame the people who have nothing to do with the graphics drivers at all?! It's a simple concept and you morons don't even realize it! :mad:
 

CptFalcon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
2,012
Good lord, how I hate Microsoft RAM caching. I have been responsible for both Exchange and SQL servers, where the default settings were for the database engine to use all free RAM for data cache. Supposedly the algorithms were all very smart and adaptive, but as transactions slowly used up the available RAM to the limit that Microsoft deemed sufficient (generally 5-10 MB free regardless of total RAM), system responsiveness plummeted. No matter how good they thought their memory management was, the lag from freeing up cache memory to process network traffic, disk access, etc. was noticeable and unacceptable on a network with about 100 users. Once I dug deep enough in knowledgebases to find out how to put a hard limit on the RAM cache, the problems magically disappeared.

On the SQL server, I had to contend with a database manager that thought I was an ignorant fool and that everything should be done The Microsoft Way. After six months of troubleshooting the "mysterious slowdowns" by analyzing network packet traffic, upgrading to gigabit ethernet, paying an expensive network consultant to analyze the problem (he had us add ARP table entries to reduce client/server name resolution overhead), doubling the RAM on the server, and even spending $8000 to buy an all-new server, he finally "discovered" that the RAM cache was the problem and recommended we try setting a hard limit. All of the problems magically went away, and he got all the credit. How did he steal the credit, and how did a DB manager stonewall a server admin in the first place? Well, my friends, he was the CIO's son...

All that to say, if Vista has similar crap built in and there's no way to limit or disable it, they better be using a much better scheme or it's going to suck a lot. A LOT!

And now you know about a quota?
 

amromousa

Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
614
look at how nix manages ram. he's right, unused ram is wasted (since you're still paging to the disk to load code/data into memory prior to execution).
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
2,134
And now you know about a quota?

Limit, quota, to-may-to, to-mah-to...:)

Yeah, but the point to take away is that MS in their infinite wisdom set the defaults to use all available RAM in the belief that caching all that data would speed performance up dramatically. But all the gains from data caching were wiped out many times over by them not leaving enough free RAM for all the other necessary system activities. Not only was this the default, but MS actively discouraged admins from changing it.

A single-user desktop may not face the same issues, but past experience makes me very leery of SuperFetch unless it is truly super. I find it a hopeful sign that it seems to leave 50-60 megs free instead of 5-10--that should be enough breathing room for most situations.
 

CptFalcon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
2,012
Limit, quota, to-may-to, to-mah-to...:)

Yeah, but the point to take away is that MS in their infinite wisdom set the defaults to use all available RAM in the belief that caching all that data would speed performance up dramatically. But all the gains from data caching were wiped out many times over by them not leaving enough free RAM for all the other necessary system activities. Not only was this the default, but MS actively discouraged admins from changing it.

A single-user desktop may not face the same issues, but past experience makes me very leery of SuperFetch unless it is truly super. I find it a hopeful sign that it seems to leave 50-60 megs free instead of 5-10--that should be enough breathing room for most situations.

Still though, you set it and now you know in the future.
 

calebb

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 26, 2000
Messages
8,718
All that to say, if Vista has similar crap built in and there's no way to limit or disable it, they better be using a much better scheme or it's going to suck a lot. A LOT!

Yes, they are using a much better scheme.


A single-user desktop may not face the same issues, but past experience makes me very leery of SuperFetch unless it is truly super. I find it a hopeful sign that it seems to leave 50-60 megs free instead of 5-10--that should be enough breathing room for most situations.

Yes, it is truly super.



I've setup Vista on several hundred systems now. Laptops, desktops, everything from P3's to 2xdual core xeon workstations. Superfetch drastically improves performance on every machine I've upgraded.

On my primary home system, I mentioned that Photoshop CS3, VS2005, etc load instantly. Well, I go and load up BF2142 (which I load much less frequently than other apps) and Superfetch quickly releases the memory and BF2142 loads without a glitch.

In fact, once Vista drivers are a little more mature, we will see performance increases in Vista due to Aero! Yes, you read that correctly... http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_aero_glass_performance/
WinXP vs WinXP with Fading Windows / XP theme turned on: 5&#37; performance penalty.
Vista vs Vista with Aero enabled: 0% performance penalty. (Aero gracefully steps aside and DWM.exe memory is quickly paged to disk)


Yes, and it had that nice "Ah-ha!" feeling to it at the time, so there is that. But will Vista let me set a quota?

Edit: Sorry to you and all others for going so far OT.

Personally, I've never seen Superfetch use more than 75% of available memory. But I've also never used Vista on a system with less than 1GB memory.... and even then, I observed NO performance penalty for having your memory in use.

Again I will stress that unused memory is wasted memory. (Previous experience with poor memory management algorithms does not change this fact)
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
2,134
Yes, they are using a much better scheme.




Yes, it is truly super.



I've setup Vista on several hundred systems now. Laptops, desktops, everything from P3's to 2xdual core xeon workstations. Superfetch drastically improves performance on every machine I've upgraded.

On my primary home system, I mentioned that Photoshop CS3, VS2005, etc load instantly. Well, I go and load up BF2142 (which I load much less frequently than other apps) and Superfetch quickly releases the memory and BF2142 loads without a glitch.

In fact, once Vista drivers are a little more mature, we will see performance increases in Vista due to Aero! Yes, you read that correctly... http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_aero_glass_performance/
WinXP vs WinXP with Fading Windows / XP theme turned on: 5% performance penalty.
Vista vs Vista with Aero enabled: 0% performance penalty. (Aero gracefully steps aside and DWM.exe memory is quickly paged to disk)




Personally, I've never seen Superfetch use more than 75% of available memory. But I've also never used Vista on a system with less than 1GB memory.... and even then, I observed NO performance penalty for having your memory in use.

Again I will stress that unused memory is wasted memory. (Previous experience with poor memory management algorithms does not change this fact)

Thanks for the reassuring words from experience, Calebb. Hearing the words "RAM caching" was kinda like a vietnam vet hearing a car backfire--made me want to duck and cover from all the post-traumatic stress!:)
 

calebb

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 26, 2000
Messages
8,718
Thanks for the reassuring words from experience, Calebb. Hearing the words "RAM caching" was kinda like a vietnam vet hearing a car backfire--made me want to duck and cover from all the post-traumatic stress!:)

Understandable - it sounds like you had a pretty traumatic experience with RAM caching in the past :D
 

tesfaye

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 17, 2003
Messages
3,421
You're misunderstanding what Frosteh was saying...
Ok, I stand corrected.

It seems to be a growing problem that the average computer user does not understand the meaning of the word beta, as is demonstrated by the number of people comming to this thread complaining that the beta drivers are not production quality.
Yes, I agree that people do expect a little too much from beta drivers(software in general).

Now, if you're having instability and problems with Nvidia's production WHQL drivers then you're right to complain given that they advertised full compatibility. But complaining about problems with beta drivers just makes you look pretty clueless.
Agreed. 100.65 had plenty of issues and was not able to perform critical tasks without error. The beta ironically is more stable than the WHQL.

So far so good, these 101.41's are running pretty well. I changed my ram to Crucual Ballistix 1000MHz Cas 5 sticks and so far so good at default settings. I went through a few 3DMark06 runs without errors. I gotta try some games now.
 

sam0t

Gawd
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Messages
824
FFS the flat panel scaling does NOT work :mad:

Its nice that Nvidia says so in their release notes when in fact it does not work. Just spent couple hours at customers place trying get 50" Pioneer Plasma TV to work with 8800GTS and Vista Home Premium 64bit. The Optoma projector worked flawlessly with these beta drivers but the plasma screen refused to scale correctly :(
 

jtzako

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
299
I tried the 101.x driver and had repeated "driver failed and restarted" errors. I get this from time to time in any driver I used, but this one was very bad. I reverted back to 100.65 and so far its been "ok."

Is there any way to test if a hardware issue could be causing this? I run things BurninTest and MemTest and get no errors on anything, yet I get occasional crashes in games.. sometimes resulting in the driver recovery error (but not always)
 

dborden

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
276
These drivers work for shit for vista on a 7950gx2....... causes media playback when in multi gpu mode to be studdering and out of sync. switch to multi monitor and all is well.. also no games play.
 

operaman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
1,180
Long story short fellas the arguments in this thread are counterproductive and really don't matter. We all know this is a new operating system and both Nvidia and Microsoft want to get it right. They don't make more money if people are ticked off. Give it some more time and I am sure the kinks will continue to get worked out.

If anything perhaps people could send Nvidia and/or MS the info from the drivers so that we can get some certified drivers soon. :D
 

ITSTHINKING

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Messages
1,260
Long story short fellas the arguments in this thread are counterproductive and really don't matter. We all know this is a new operating system and both Nvidia and Microsoft want to get it right. They don't make more money if people are ticked off. Give it some more time and I am sure the kinks will continue to get worked out.

If anything perhaps people could send Nvidia and/or MS the info from the drivers so that we can get some certified drivers soon. :D

Word, exactly what I was thinking
 

CptFalcon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
2,012
Long story short fellas the arguments in this thread are counterproductive and really don't matter. We all know this is a new operating system and both Nvidia and Microsoft want to get it right. They don't make more money if people are ticked off. Give it some more time and I am sure the kinks will continue to get worked out.

If anything perhaps people could send Nvidia and/or MS the info from the drivers so that we can get some certified drivers soon. :D

And let's stop blaming MS for stuff that is out of the company's jurisdiction like graphics drivers. Does MS pay a few tech's to create GFX drivers? No. Then how come we blame MS and not Nvidia? It stops here. NOW! :(
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
2,134
And let's stop blaming MS for stuff that is out of the company's jurisdiction like graphics drivers. Does MS pay a few tech's to create GFX drivers? No. Then how come we blame MS and not Nvidia? It stops here. NOW! :(

Forum members demanding that everyone else conform to their expectations stops here. NOW!

Oh, wait...
 

pookguy88

Gawd
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
682
does Aero turn off in games if you have dual monitors? cause i still see my desktop + gadgets on my 2nd monitor when I play games that only use the main monitor.
 
Top