ATI's New Driver download page

davidnsibs · Mar 9, 2005, 09:37 AM

i think perhaps i should say that although i voted for "Is a total disaster id like the old one back please" i think the wording is far stronger than how i actually feel. I preferred the old one but it was time for a change, i just think they should split support and drivers/downloads so that it doesnt feel so bloated

cocoliso · Mar 9, 2005, 07:03 PM

this whole product registration really sucks. Besides most of the things only display well on IE come on ATI!!!! IE???!! only??!!! give me a break

oh i forgot about the lame page time out..

hostilemonk · Mar 10, 2005, 12:23 AM

This breaks every damn rule of a good web page - its bloody useless

- been her for some time and i still A) dont know if what i want is here,

b) if it is cant find it,

c) have got completely annoyed with the clutter and useless bits of trivia and information

- Just because it can be done doesn't mean you should do it. KISS seems not to have been even considered here! could be my first and last vist -!!!!

BWX · Mar 10, 2005, 09:30 AM

Now the page won't even open :-/

crapman777 · Mar 10, 2005, 10:47 AM

What on earth are you people talking about. Perhaps you should use firefox instead of Internet Crapexplorer. Pages loaded as quick as they have before and the options are clear and concise. As with anything new, you have to give it a chance and some time. Change is as good as a holiday, so maybe when the next driver set comes out, ati might improve the layout. Personally though, there isnt anything wrong with it.

BWX · Mar 10, 2005, 12:52 PM

What are you talking about? The page is slow as hell rigt now.

Kiwegapa · Mar 10, 2005, 07:23 PM

Maybe it's just me. The 'new' look reminds me of how the ATI site looked back in 1998. I don't mind how it is now, but the previous method was better looking and easier to navigate without being dumbed down.

crapman777 · Mar 11, 2005, 01:38 AM

7 seconds it took for my page to load. I think the main issue is how the page actually looks and functions. I have had issue where the left menu has all the branches open, looks messy, i think it may be a problem with Firefox. Otherwise , its easy to navigate. Ati, nvidia, via and creative all used that stupid menu system where you click an option then the next menu loads then you click again and another menu loads, its bloody irritating. At least this way you follow some simple links, and you get to the driver or download.

ronnn · Mar 11, 2005, 02:56 AM

Found the drivers I wanted easy enough, but don't exactly love it.

Gizmo[5h1t3] · Mar 11, 2005, 10:10 AM

its not exactly rocket science tho is it?
a total idiot could navigate throught it, it just takes a little time to read and understand.

Lyphen · Mar 11, 2005, 12:22 PM

Absolutely horrible.

BWX · Mar 11, 2005, 03:39 PM

It seems like they have changed it since this poll started.. Maybe not...

Arikel · Mar 11, 2005, 07:23 PM

It really wasn't a huge problem for me, but I do prefer the old one.

Matt · Mar 12, 2005, 08:54 PM

Theirs always been problems with the old site to find Beta drivers and faq's etc. But the driver page was quick and easy. What Card, OS , and your alway. Now it took me a few mins to work out what the hell i was doing.

I was after a Cat uninstaller. What if a newbie saw this:

Utility software is available for the following configurations:

God knows what their going to think and it takes 4 clicks to get where you want.

Old one back please.

kelston · Mar 14, 2005, 01:14 AM

The tree system is pointless. I don't dislike trees in general since Windows Explorer is in tree format and that works well. It's the fact that the tree has 6 extra options that I didn't want in the first place.

You click the "Drivers & Software" tab. Why do you need Manuals, Product Info, Solve a Problem, How to Use, Contact Info, Warranty? There's a Customer Care tab there for a reason. I clicked Drivers & Software to get Drivers & Software, not Customer Care.

Yes, it's the same amount of clicks to get to the drivers you want (at least on XP). What was wrong with the old way? The new way requires you to load 2 extra pages that you didn't need to load the old way. The new way, when focusing only on drivers/software alone, gave you the exact same text that the old way gave you. The only difference is that it is all on separate pages.

How does it make it "better" or "more clearly" labelled? It's the same amount of text you had the old way. It didn't describe any of your choices any more than the old way.

And the guy who flamed Internet Explorer, I think you have issues with reading or comprehension. The reason people on FireFox complained is because, THE TREE WAS FULLY EXPANDED. They didn't say omg FireFox sux!

The new way also has the actual driver page more annoying since the left and right side menus make the driver page width-limited. The driver page also requires more scrolling since they decided to add in some release notes at the bottom.

A waste of time to navigate. Yes, the drivers are there on the front page. Too bad the release notes aren't on the front page so you have to use the menu system to get to it anyway.

Goodbye to direct linking to the correct driver page. With all the page loading madness, maybe the webmaster is being paid per page/word rather than on a salary.

You could just use the pages to get to the driver page and not use the tree system at all but then you can't get to Previously Released Drivers because that link is no longer on the driver page.

Sure, if you have broadband the page loading isn't too bad. But why load the pages if you didn't need them in the first place? You don't buy a wallmounting kit to attach to your big screen TV just because you could. You don't attach 4 keyboards to a single user computer just because you could. So why make people load pages that provide no additional information just because they could load extra pages?

Vampyromaniac · Mar 14, 2005, 01:37 AM

reminds me of a cheap no-name Taiwan type site

BWX · Mar 14, 2005, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelston

So why make people load pages that provide no additional information just because they could load extra pages?

Exactly the same problem I have with CCC.

.st · Mar 14, 2005, 06:07 PM

Well, the other day I went to download the catalyst drivers and I saw it, and it made me damn near want to go out and buy an nVidia card; however I waded through it and got what I was looking for.

Today, I was completley unable to find the drivers I needed for my TV Wonder VE; until I launched the site in IE and found that the tree navigation was suppose to be a real tree navigation. This started to get on my nerves, because the first thing I install on any fresh install is Firefox; and the site's already poor support for it has completely disabled me from getting all the drivers I need; since it literally wasn't showing me all the info I needed to download the TV Wonder drivers in Firefox.

First, they get their asses handed back to them with SLI and PCI Express, now they're changing a perfectly good driver download section into a slop of poorly designed crap that isn't even compatible with Firefox. nVidia makes better demos, it's easier to find things on their site, and it appears that nowadays, nVidia's making better chips... If ATI doesn't do something, I'm going to drop em. The bulk of the people who use the drivers section of the site aren't IE5 users on windows 98 downloading a driver because they lost their driver CD; it's people like us - who format practically every other week and download the latest drivers the days they become avalible... they should cater the site to us; because things like ease of use make me stay with a company.

I'm new to this place; I just saw how poorly designed it was and googled up oppinons to see if I were the only one. I'm glad i'm not the only guy who's frustrated.

Prime2515102 · Mar 15, 2005, 12:45 AM

Not compatible with Firefox? Oh... <checks page with IE> No wonder I didn't like it. Having the entire tree expanded by default (and non-collapsable) is what i didn't like the most. It didn't even occur to me that it was a Firefox incompatibility.

Very sloppy looking. They definitely need to fix that. If it was fixed, I probably would have voted in its favor.

Prime

Taveau · Mar 17, 2005, 10:08 AM

I can't find the right fix for my troubled printer.

It doesn't work without this v1.14322 .net Framework HP

Hp own software with the printer doesn't work, I had to buy another disc of t he printer.
Now that is not working.
Any help?
Thanks.

This web site is a red hot Trip!

Taveau

thomasabarnes · Mar 17, 2005, 11:40 AM

Hi and welcome to DriverHeaven!

This is a thread for ATI's new driver download page. Maybe you can try to post your questions in the computer componets section of the forum. Someone may be able to help you there.

Saint_K · Mar 18, 2005, 05:26 AM

I dont understand why there are so many votes against... I mean the old system was ok and it worked, but this system imo has a much nicer look and more easy to navigate in...

kelston · Mar 18, 2005, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint_K

I dont understand why there are so many votes against... I mean the old system was ok and it worked, but this system imo has a much nicer look and more easy to navigate in...

Loading extra pages isn't my definition of "easier to navigate in". Having the download page when you actually get to them display in what appears to be a narrow column that is only given 1/3 of the screen width isn't my definition of "much nicer look".

Having no direct link to older driver revisions on the driver download page also does not fall in easier navigation. And for all the FireFox users, having the entire tree menu expanded and unable to be closed probably doesn't attain that coveted nicer look description.

It probably would be easier to navigate if you were comparing it to say, open ocean without a compass in the middle of a hurricane. And it probably looks nicer than say a guy that fell off a motorcycle travelling 150mph. Maybe we just need to put it in a different, ridiculous context to actually think it is better.

crlorentzen · Mar 18, 2005, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint_K

I dont understand why there are so many votes against... I mean the old system was ok and it worked, but this system imo has a much nicer look and more easy to navigate in...

If you had read the entire thread you would have gotten the reasons...specifically my post with the look of the page in Firefox. http://www.driverheaven.net/showpost...4&postcount=20

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelston

Loading extra pages isn't my definition of "easier to navigate in". Having the download page when you actually get to them display in what appears to be a narrow column that is only given 1/3 of the screen width isn't my definition of "much nicer look".

Having no direct link to older driver revisions on the driver download page also does not fall in easier navigation. And for all the FireFox users, having the entire tree menu expanded and unable to be closed probably doesn't attain that coveted nicer look description.

It probably would be easier to navigate if you were comparing it to say, open ocean without a compass in the middle of a hurricane. And it probably looks nicer than say a guy that fell off a motorcycle travelling 150mph. Maybe we just need to put it in a different, ridiculous context to actually think it is better.

Thank You kelston

Mr.Floppy · Mar 21, 2005, 08:22 AM

Ok, it was

confusing

to me on the first time i got there and it still confuses me sometimes.
But what im most up to is that it is 90% totally confusing to people not used to driver updates, like _many_ oem pc owners eg.
I found the old site def. more clearly and everything was way more easy to find, as u just had to do three clicks and *tada*.

[color=teal]Il'd suggest the old style as starting page for driver downloads and the results page then to be displayed with the tree-look expandable menu. Just a thought so, but i think a good solution for all.[/color]

Sandok · Mar 21, 2005, 08:51 AM

I don't see any difference between the old and new... No major tree thingy or anything. I just go under drivers. Windows XP, radeon and voilà! What was soo tough?