Omega 3.5 driver release planned?

Magneto · Jun 30, 2003, 11:48 AM

Just wondering if Omega is planning to release a modified set of 3.5 drivers?

Mag...

~~craig588~~ · Jun 30, 2003, 11:58 AM

tek · Jun 30, 2003, 12:52 PM

LOL guy, how many threads of the same question can be made?

And yeah, hopefully, if Omega isnt annoyed with all these damn questions....

Magneto · Jun 30, 2003, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tek
LOL guy, how many threads of the same question can be made?

And yeah, hopefully, if Omega isnt annoyed with all these damn questions....

I had been busy over the last several weeks. I only noticed that ATI had released the Cat 3.5 drivers today. I did not even know they were planned for release so soon. I went to the Omega site, did not see an Omega version release, came to this forum, didn't see anything about them on the first page, didn't take the time to scroll through other pages looking (my fault), and then posted a simple question.

Omega, if my question annoys you, I apologize. Please excuse my eagerness. I should have taken the time to scroll through the forum pages looking for the information before writing a new post. I will look forward to trying your new drivers when they are ready.

craig588.. thanks for your reply. It supplied the answer I was looking for. Appreciate it...

Tek.. did my post bother you so much that you felt the need to reply to it with your sarcasm? If so, in the future, you can avoid this frustration and anxiety by simply avoiding the irritating posts such as this one. Or if you get to feeling better, perhaps you can reply with an informative answer next time. I hear it's good therapy for the chronic "I-wanna-be-a-moderator" syndrome.

Mag...

digitalwanderer · Jun 30, 2003, 05:42 PM

i just want the 9700->9800 patch for 98....

Uncle Marty · Jun 30, 2003, 07:16 PM

Why not just upgrade to XP like the rest of the world?

digitalwanderer · Jun 30, 2003, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Uncle Marty
Why not just upgrade to XP like the rest of the world?

Well, do you mean besides it sucking at all? Aside from that, no real reason.

Chaos · Jun 30, 2003, 10:34 PM

Digi I can't believe that you would think that XP Pro sucked....... You have more than enough of a system to handle it now..... and thanks to ATi, the video to enjoy it to the maxxx....

Digi your DSL speed will also increase in XP, with the right registry tweaks, so all that pr0n can download even faster....

~~craig588~~ · Jun 30, 2003, 10:43 PM

I did very extensive testing between winXP and win2K, and win2K was very consistantly faster than XP in almost every test.
I did internet bandwidth tests, game benchmarks, loading time tests, and hard drive speed tests.
I tried running them both tweaked and untweaked to see if one of the OSes was more or less tweaked to start out with and if one could be tweaked to be faster than ther other could be.
Windows2K was also stabler than XP.

WinXP=owned by win2k

cOoLeRgUy · Jun 30, 2003, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by craig588
WinXP=owned by win2k

win2k=owned by win2k3

Magneto · Jul 1, 2003, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by craig588
I did very extensive testing between winXP and win2K, and win2K was very consistantly faster than XP in almost every test.
I did internet bandwidth tests, game benchmarks, loading time tests, and hard drive speed tests.
I tried running them both tweaked and untweaked to see if one of the OSes was more or less tweaked to start out with and if one could be tweaked to be faster than ther other could be.
Windows2K was also stabler than XP.

WinXP=owned by win2k

I had heard that Win2k was a better platform for games, compared to WinXP. I have never had the pleasure of running Win2k. I can say that Win98SE is better for gaming than WinXP pro (on the same hardware), as I've tested both operating systems on several computers, and Win98SE gives me much smoother performance in all of them.

I had tried tweaking WinXP pro in every way that I could find. I had it stripped down, turned off everything that wasn't absolutely needed, trying to get it to run games better, but nothing I did seemed to make much difference. XP seems to need more resources, even with all the "extras" turned off. Perhaps it really needs more RAM than 512 meg to have enough extra for intensive games.

Mag...

tek · Jul 1, 2003, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cOoLeRgUy
win2k=owned by win2k3

4 Sho x 86 to the 18th power.

cOoLeRgUy · Jul 1, 2003, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magneto
I had heard that Win2k was a better platform for games, compared to WinXP. I have never had the pleasure of running Win2k. I can say that Win98SE is better for gaming than WinXP pro (on the same hardware), as I've tested both operating systems on several computers, and Win98SE gives me much smoother performance in all of them.

I had tried tweaking WinXP pro in every way that I could find. I had it stripped down, turned off everything that wasn't absolutely needed, trying to get it to run games better, but nothing I did seemed to make much difference. XP seems to need more resources, even with all the "extras" turned off. Perhaps it really needs more RAM than 512 meg to have enough extra for intensive games.

Mag...

a server OS, a workstation OS and a home computer OS are different so it's like comparing apples and oranges. Each has its own benefit and flaw. I think what XP is trying to do is incorporate both in one so it's "balanced", both NT code kernel (crash less) but win98 is going toward the gaming specialty but tends to crash more. Although we are going a bit off topic, I'll shut up now and leave some links here about investigations between each OS. I have some more but im really lazy. (j/k.. I think these two links sum it up.) Like others, you have different results, win 98 is faster than winxp and win2000 on the same hardware you are testing it on, others reported win xp the fastest, as well as win2000. There are several results, especially at microsoft's website comparing win2k3 to win2k and other stuff.

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3655&page=1
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.ph...T&f=77&t=80672

digitalwanderer · Jul 1, 2003, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magneto
I had heard that Win2k was a better platform for games, compared to WinXP. I have never had the pleasure of running Win2k. I can say that Win98SE is better for gaming than WinXP pro (on the same hardware), as I've tested both operating systems on several computers, and Win98SE gives me much smoother performance in all of them.

I had tried tweaking WinXP pro in every way that I could find. I had it stripped down, turned off everything that wasn't absolutely needed, trying to get it to run games better, but nothing I did seemed to make much difference. XP seems to need more resources, even with all the "extras" turned off. Perhaps it really needs more RAM than 512 meg to have enough extra for intensive games.

Mag...

You sir are a man of knowledge, taste, and distinction.

I've had the exact same experiences myself with XP/98se.

Chaos · Jul 1, 2003, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by digitalwanderer
You sir are a man of knowledge, taste, and distinction.

I've had the exact same experiences myself with XP/98se.

OH NO, not another reason for Digi to stay in the dark.....