Radeon 9250 Vista drivers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since the Omega drivers are based on ATI's Catalyst drivers, they will not be any more compatible than ATI's.
 
Your reasons for drivers are totally unnecessary.They have no effect on
your Internet type.Their for makeing your graphics look their best.
Don't mess around for 3rd party drivers.Go to the people who made the 9250.
Heres a tip: Uninstall the Catalyst Control Panel and just download and install
the basic drivers.I did as i didn't need the Catalyst features.
They tell you this right here,
http://ati.amd.com/support/driver.html
 
Who are you asking ?

Tha General said:
Which radeon are you using, the Diamond Version?

Is it me ? If it helps Mopar,here it is.
ATI RADEON X 1650 PRO
512 MB MOddr2 PCI EXPRESS,boxed version.
Cerified for Windows Vista.
I have XP Home.
 
No, mine is the Power Color version, and zipperman, I was just saying that those would take FOREVER to download, and I would prefer something in the range of 20 megs, instead of 150!

Mailpup, the one I was pointing to was 6.5, and supported the 9250, BUT was for XP, so I wondered if I could possibly use them on Vista.
 
OK

Final comment,
Didn't you get a driver cd with it.
By for now.Your determined to experimenting.:(
I don't.:wave:
 
Mailpup, the one I was pointing to was 6.5, and supported the 9250, BUT was for XP, so I wondered if I could possibly use them on Vista.
I doubt it. You can try it but as you know ATI stopped supporting the 9250 back in 2006 well before Vista came out. Now that Vista is out, the 9250 is even less supported, if there is such a thing. So it's doubtful that the graphics driver for XP would work under Vista. The same thing should apply to the Omega drivers.

I kind of think the 9250 joins the list of hardware items that just no longer work properly under Vista.
 
Yay, this makes my life so much easier! ;)

Oh well, someone is going to give me a 6200, which I am pretty sure Vista supports...
 
Just curious, but the PC you're talking about is different from the PC in your System specs. Is this a spare PC of yours? Is there a reason you are using Vista on what seems to be a fairly low spec machine? Mind you, I'm not criticizing your choice of OS because, frankly, it's your prerogative.
 
Yes, it is different, but it is actually the second listed in my Profile (which for some reason doesn't show in the System Specs).

My reasons for needing Vista are kind of stupid, but good enough that I want it. I play games over hamachi with friends (yes, even with dial up, we just handicap the other person) and we have found that Vista seems to have a better time playing network with and without hamachi. He has Vista on a machine worse than the one I have listed in my system specs and it runs fine. (everything turned off, though)

I have other small reasons that are just personal preferance, of course.

I have actually gotten the 6200, which I found was actually an AGP card (even better than the PCI, which is what I thought it was), and runs CS:S at 30 fps on high, with everything such as AA off, but HDR full! I am so happy, as before I was having to keep it on Low/some Medium....

But...

I have run into a much larger problem I didn't even think about. I don't know if you seen it or not, but I recently made a thread on how to get Sata to an IDE motherboard, simply because of my HDD being so tiny (20 gigs), and I noticed when I was testing my Vista Ultimate ;P disk out, it required 11gigs, while I only have about 4 free.....

So on to getting a larger hard drive.
 
I remember that thread but I hadn't visited it for some time. I just left a new post there, however.
 
Not quite

mailpup said:
Just curious, but the PC you're talking about is different from the PC in your System specs. Is this a spare PC of yours? Is there a reason you are using Vista on what seems to be a fairly low spec machine? Mind you, I'm not criticizing your choice of OS because, frankly, it's your prerogative.
Edit you system specs unless your on a different PC.
:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back