Vampyromaniac

reminds me of a cheap no-name Taiwan type site

__________________

BWX

Exactly the same problem I have with CCC.

__________________
rig

.st

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

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

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

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.

__________________
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
May a song always touch you in a positive way.
Sonar 6 Producer Edition, Win XP Home Edition (SP2), Audigy 2 ZS Platinum Pro, 250 GB HDD 7200 rpm, 80 GB HDD 7200 rpm, Lite-On DVDRW LH 18A1P
My Music Production: Top 40, Contemporary Christian, Pop/Rock, Decent Rap, Inspirationals, and Children Songs

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...

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.

crlorentzen

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

Thank You kelston

__________________

Mr.Floppy

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*.

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.

__________________
dont try this at home! - my (current) rig

Sandok

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?

crapman777

I am intrigued. Of the people that are not pleased with the page loading times and layout, do they have adsl or better?
I mean i use firefox, yes the tree thing is annoying but the page loads in less than a few seconds. IE is by far a worse and slower browser but thats for another post...

kelston

I have ADSL, 6.0/768, it loaded faster the old way.

However, it's more about efficiency. When you put on a shirt in the morning, do you put on 7 other shirts you know you won't wear before putting on the shirt you will wear simply because you could? Probably not. So why do you want to do it when downloading drivers? Why would you want to load extra pages just because your connection can when you could load just one page?

crapman777

Your complainging about two extra pages that load in less than two seconds?

I honestly think that ATI are just steering clear of nvidia (?) maybe. I mean both pages had the same setup, but even on nvidias website you still have to choose all the options then click which download you want and then a popup comes up asking you to agree/disagree with their terms.

ATI still have a relatively simplistic setup compared to many other companies. All they can do is try improve it i guess.

kelston

Two extra pages amounts to two extra pages of text the supply no additional information to the end user. All it did was force a user to load two extra pages that supplies the same amount of information a old method of a single page solution would work.

If you had a 2 mile bridge to cross the lake already built, do you instead choose to close it to all drivers and build a 15 mile stretch of road to go around the lake calling it an "improvement"?

Web design, especially for something that is about allowing a customer to easily access support, is for efficiency. Streamlining. Just because it takes 2 seconds to load each of the 2 pages doesn't mean it's good. It means it takes 4 seconds more than an end user would have needed to take with the old method. Why scrap the old method if it was working, it was faster, and provided the same amount of information?

Are you simply arguing to argue considering you haven't yet listed a single valid point?