BMG_Cya=-

When this CCC came out, with all the .NET talk, I made a
comment to a buddy of mine which I thought was a joke
at the time.

I said...
"You watch man, they will make it so you can download other
gamer's custom profiles...everybody will get some kinda virus
that kills their card...ATI goes bankrupt...and now faces a
group consumer lawsuit..."

Now, I read over at Rage, and interview with Terry Makedon,
and he mentions the future inclusion of downloading custom
profiles from .NET.

He also went on to say that it will be safe, etc. etc.

I dunno man...

I haven't tried it yet, as installing a new CP just doesn't
interest me in the slightest, if it doesn't do anything to
make the graphics that matter better.
(i.e. Game...and app graphics)

Also, don't like having to be hooked up to Microsoft, while
I make a simple adjustment to my card. Seems really
ridiculous to me.

And who gives a flying f**k about a custom CP skin?
Green...Red with yellow polka dots...? Jeez...*Yawn*

Even though the driver teams and CCC teams are seperate,
they could get the CCC team members back over in the
driver dept., or use the payroll for better coders.

No?

If this CCC thing becomes mandatory and gets really
annoying, I will either look for 3rd party drivers that
get around the .NET requirement, or simply buy
another brand of card that doesn't require it.

Not a flame...just a fact.

swatX

the only thing i want to see in CCC are more features like openGL settings and dx settings seperately .

__________________
thx stick for the sig

Silent Buddha

Heh, sorry for something off topic here.

I don't know why, but that little paragraph for some reason reminded me of a time back in 93-94 when a lot of people were complaining about how MS was going to "force" people to use Windows 95, and how if they had to do that they would switch stick to DOS or switch to OS/2 for gaming.

Same thing happened among quite a few message boards when MS was gearing up for direct 3d.

Anyway, it is the same old story repeated over and over and over again.

There will always be some people who abhor and hate the future and think it is evil incarnate.

There will always be some people who will embrace the future.

And there are those that just don't care.

Heck, I still have some friends who think programming in anything other than FORTRAN is stupid. Personally, I think they are crazy, but whatever floats their boat.

Either way, at least for the time being it appears that .NET is going to be the application interface of the future for MS products similar to how DirectX was the gaming interface for games in Windows OSes. True, it may not be needed extensively now, but it'll be here soon enough, and ATI is only doing what any smart company would do. They are getting to grips with .NET in preparation for the time when .NET will BE Windows for all intents and purposes.

Of course, until .NET is required for everything, I don't see ATI suddenly dropping the old CP. For now, the CCC is just an alternative control interface. Just like some 3rd party driver repackages might have their own control interface. Hell, Radlinker is just another alternative control interface.

I can't see how you can villify ATI for preparing for the future and NOT forcing you to participate. You can use the new CCC or the old CP. It's up to you. ATI hasn't at any point said, "Use the CCC or else no ATI drivers for you." Hell, you don't even have to use either the CCC or the CP to use the ATI drivers. You can get virtually the same functionality just by installing Radlinker without the CCC or CP.

I just can't help scratching my head at all the people ranting about how the CCC is evil, bad, will toast your computer and eat your first born baby.

As far as I see, it has 1) No negative impact on gaming, 2) no negative impact on application running, 3) no negative impact on application startup, 4) no negative impact on game starting, 5) doesn't open any security holes in and of itself (even with .NET)...blah, blah, blah... NOTE - that the client server .NET model that the CCC uses only uses network traffic within the local system to communicate between the two modules. As has been stated numerous times in the past by both ATI and other users, there is NO...let us repeat that...NO outbound network traffic with the current CCC. I imagine there will be with a future CCC that can update your drivers, but until then...

So what if it has "apparent" memory bloat (although most all of that memory is still available to any application that would need it) if it doesn't affect Windows performance? It isn't like it's going to cause more HD thrashing even with only 512 megs of mem. By the time windows will need to start using the HD for more memory, it will have reclaimed almost all of it from the CCC anyways. Well, assuming you don't routinely run everything on your computer with the CCC open to the preview pane. I mean hell, if you didn't have the CCC, you might start thrashing the HD maybe 2 seconds later as anything that would cause you to need the HD page file will far outstrip how much memory the CCC would probably use after it releases the memory back to windows.

Regards,
Silent Buddha

PS - off to fill out another bug report with ATI in hopes I'll be able to use a driver newer than 4.7...

Mr cairo

same issue here .... i like new stuff but the new control panel leaves me cold

__________________
homepage

Maniak

And because you do not use it, no application is supposed to use it either ?

And apparently you quite easily found it in the event log. So what ? You wanted to 'tweak' your system extensively; finding out which tweaks break which application comes with the package.

It's like tweaking a game, later finding that a tweak breaks some functionality and having to find out which one it is. You want to tweak the innards of your system even if it's useless, you go on disabling undocumented and unsupported settings (where on the MS site is it written that you can disable the server service without any side effect ?), pay the price.

Besides, disabling everything is pointless. At least set the services to manual. That way they can be started by most applications when they need 'em (most, not all).

Your extensive knowledge should cover that right ? Or just what is it you want ? Leaving default services as they were at the beginning, losing some kB along the way (automatic), not running services that you deem useless but being able to run the occasional application that uses them (manual), or deciding for everyone which services are useless, breaking applications that need them, then laying the blame on the developers for not supporting your tinkering (disabled) ?

Disabling services is a pretty stupid tweak to do in the first place. The only case when it makes sense is when you know what the service is doing and by which applications it's used. Can you say that for the Server service ? If yes, jump to the end of the post, I've got a question for you.

Yeah right. In fact, all applications should ship with a 1000 pages manual listing everything that 'tweakers' may be able to break by messing with settings they don't understand. In fact, all applications should be completely user-proof. No matter what a user does to his system, they should still be able to run. The user is always right after all. If he decides something doesn't need to be used, any app that disagrees must be badly made.

Also, nobody cares

You're obviously immune to this. Bad case of constipation maybe ? You go on shouting at everything, someone tries to answer politely and you start barking at him... You really should take a break. All this tweaking is getting on your nerves.

Again, you don't, what if an application does ? The developers have to do it again just to go along with your perfect configuration ?

I'd rather have the OS itself not allow basic users to go disabling everything (ie no administrator privilege by default). But then again, 'tweakers' such as yourself would still find a way to break something. "Gosh this thing is using up 50kB of memory, and probably tons of CPU cycles, and I don't see why it would be used. Let's disable it."

So set them on Manual.

Talking to yourself there ?

Of course. It can't be.

One case is enough to break a reasoning. Should ATI apologize to you for being the first one breaking yours ? Or should we find other pseudo client/server apps to add to the case ?

Add it to the number of unsafe tweaks that have the potential to break something later down the line, even if you don't see it before. Especially if you don't know what it can be used for.

Oh by the way, since you seem to know the Server service doesn't need to run on your computer, can you explain exactly how it works, what it does, and basically why it should not be running ? In other words why does your tweak makes sense ? Is it because it's called 'server' and yours is a workstation (probably more like gamestation) ?

Also, sorry if you don't like the tone of this arrogant condescending post. You obviously don't care for yours, why would others ?

HawK

And nobody, other than in a secure private network, should have runnin this service!!
well that sums up your knowledge, or maybe you'r a hacker who'd like people to keep runnin this and other vulnerable services???

Gizmo[5h1t3]

and the point of all this bickering is?????
wheres all this going guys....dont really see any need for any of this here.
some people choose to tweak..others dont...why not just leave it at that?

...........getting back to the new driver set..............

seems by the poll so far...the ones who dont like it are in the minority.
true...they need a little bit of setting up it seems to work properly on some systems, and not on others....but in my case.....they DO seem to improve things.

just cant get my head around the fact that EVERY time theres a new set released....all people seem to do is whinge about them.
be thankful ANYONE bothers to help at all...bearing in mind all the stick u lot throw at them. Criticizm is supposed to be in a constructive vein...to help make future releases better for the end user...not just blatant slagging off, saying how theyre crap etc....and "i wish i hadnt installed them" etc..........

cmon guys...give it a rest...and lets get back to how it should be.

/me sits here now waiting for the guns to start firing.....lol

__________________

glynor

Thank you Gizmo

WaltC

You answered so effectively that there's no reason for me to do so. Heh... People sure get charged up when their pet notions of "how things are supposed to work" get challenged, don't they?

The whole "I'm suspicious of services I don't understand so I'll disable them" mentality has been particularly of interest to me since 2001 when I first installed XP--went to a "tweaking site" and found this long list of XP services which the author declared I "didn't need" and that in his estimation were nothing but "memory hogs," etc., (as if M$ had written in the services description: "We added this service to XP simply to needlessly consume your system ram and this service has no other function"...)

Anyway, after following this "tweaker's" advice as to the memory-hog services I could safely disable back in '01, upon reboot I was "pleasantly" surprised to see that I had a machine that was now taking *5 minutes plus to boot to the desktop*--oh, joy! His "tweaking" advice increased my boot times by more than 500%, resulted in an extremely slow desktop when it did finally boot, and some other, additional negatives which I barely recall. What I remember clearly though is that after that experience I took all future "memory hog" advice as to XP services with a giant grain of salt, and found it much more profitable to simply go with a bit more physical ram instead. I run with a few services disabled today, but they are the ones I absolutely know I do not need for my present environment. That's probably why I never had any trouble with the CCC...(unlike some other unfortunates reporting in this thread.)

Another jewel of "tweaking" that I recall is when some bright penny decided that the "system cache" memory management configuration option in XP was a "performance tweak" over the default "program cache" settings XP sets up for normal desktop, workstation environments of the type used by people who mostly play 3d games and browse the Internet. I never fell for that one, fortunately, but I read reams of reports written by unfortunates who did and in the process created tons of trouble for themselves--and never understood why this "performance tweak" hosed their systems. Of course, the "system cache" setting is a memory management profile for *dedicated servers* and is absolutely not a "performance tweak" for normal desktops. But it seems that whenever some folks discover that the OS has an optional setting of any kind it automatically becomes a "tweak," whether it is or it isn't.

Some tweakers apparently have the following beliefs:

*Services not clearly understood by them personally have no purpose in the OS apart from hogging memory, and M$ turns them on in the default configuration of XP simply to slow things down, hog memory, and stimulate the sales of ram.

*Other default configurations within XP are set (like memory management settings, for instance) because the goal of M$ is to have the OS by default run as inefficiently and slowly as possible, so that real potential of the OS is hidden from everyone except the dedicated tweaker.

Basically, these folks believe that it's all a conspiracy by M$ to deprive them of the true joy of using the OS, the settings for which M$ has hidden and obscured in the OS as it ships simply because M$ wants people to suffer while running its OS's.

So now flash forward to the CCC and a tweaker's system well and truly tweaked--and it's yet another conspiracy. This time, it's ATi who wants people to suffer and so deliberately puts out a crappy, buggy CCC that runs horribly. Does the "tweaker" ever consider that maybe his "tweaks" (which aren't really tweaks at all) have something to do with it? Nope--not on your life--as he's convinced his tweaks benefit him without exception--so if the CCC runs poorly it's because the CCC stinks--certainly not his "tweaks" which not only don't stink but more or less walk on water, too....

Certainly there are good tweaks, to be sure. I define a "good tweak" though as "anything which helps but doesn't break anything else"....which considerably narrows the list of the tweaks I use these days.

Then there's the last bugaboo about .net--it "accesses the local network" which seems "fishy" to some, and causes them to believe that .net is kind of a "back door" which makes them vulnerable to unknown threats coming in from the Internet. Ah, if these people would simply avail themselves of a good firewall then they wouldn't have to worry about things like that, would they? But, then, that would take away part of the "fun" these folks have in "tweaking" their systems (which often means just switching options or disabling services without any knowledge of the consequences), and Lord knows that tweaking the OS is a whole lot more important than being able to fully utilize its functionality, isn't it?....

Maniak

Because... ?

I don't see how this relates to the quote, nor where you find this vulnerability thingy. Funny though that you claim that this vulnerable service is only useful for a secure network. If it's so vulnerable, wouldn't it be a danger ?

Anyway, that's not the point.

None

Yup, nothing's wrong with tweaking, as long as one takes responsibility for it. Blaming everything and everyone because of what one tweaks isn't helping. That's all there is to it

Disabling services and bitching that since something doesn't work like that, this something is crap, is stupid. Especially when many people have a tendency to simply repeat elsewhere what they read on forums such as this one

Back to the CCC. So it needs the Server service to run. Big deal. If the service is disabled, it doesn't work and there's an entry regarding this in the event log. What's surprising with that ? It's a system error caused by a system configuration change, it goes in the system error log. Boy, that must mean the CCC is crap, sure.

Feedback time:
The CCC is not perfect, that's for sure too. Still some lack of responsiveness from time to time, the interface sometimes needs to be launched a second time to start, I really miss the DVI options mentioned in my first post, and I still don't see the point of the pages with preview. Oh, and the need to scroll inside some screens to go through all the settings is annoying too.

That's about all the gripes I have with the CCC. Other than that, it's easy to install, easy to run, easy to use except for some interface issues like above, and I like being able to change the profile with two clicks using the systray icon.

On the driver side, no problem whatsoever, as usual

(by the way, I do tweak my systems too, including the services, so it's far from being a vanilla OS. I'm just not fanatical/hysterical about it )

PS: WaltC, I completely agree with your analysis

Gizmo[5h1t3]

good comments there....im quite sure as the releases progress...things will get ironed out.
CPU usage being an essential one in some ppls cases.

feedback such as this is the only way developers are going to progress......they need end user input to improve.

__________________

BWX

Because you choose only to "answer" yourself and regurgitate the same long winded babbling over and over with different wording (if we are lucky). --Totally ignoring the actual responses to your previous regurgitation.
"M$ knows what is best for us" *yawn*

"Maniak" climbs out of his hole, obviously reads one post, and wants to start arguing- his post doesn't deserve the time it takes to respond.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself
If you are going to respond, respond to the points, not the "general idea of tweaking"

Zardon

Hey guys come on, be nice. Maniak and WaltC have expressed their opinions well within the forum rules and have done so in a quite constructive manner, no need to be rude.

It appears there are two divides regarding .net and CCC which is bound to cause some confliction as either side seems unwilling to accept the others viewpoints but I think its best if everyone keeps the personal insults to themselves.

HawK

every one is entitled to express his opinion yes.
Well I wasen't planning on answering again about it in this thread, but i do feel I have been left on the short end, so here I go again.. as a final comment
No, but MS delivers a Windows for all, anyone who doesn't know how these services work,
or doesn't want to tweak doesn't have to, and get's a windows that works for everyone..
Does that mean noone should or could tweak the services to his own need?? And is this person then paranoia about MS?, or a stupid tweaker that doesn't know what he is doing, as you seems to be convinced he is ??
you seem to conveniently forget that most of these services where already in W2000, so it wasent these services came out of the blue, and you having a boot-up of 5 min's is in my opinion either greatly exaggerated or you did not read it to well..
yes and this being the start of this whole "bickering" about tweaking services, I have nothing against the CCC other than I do not need a registry interface so big and showy, but in the link I gave, I showed one does not need all those services, and the CCC runs perfectly with a tweaked service system, but since you are not interested in this, you wished not to read or understand what I meant.
basicly that's all you said, so no need to answer about nothing, but as an advice I'd suggest you do some reading about these subjects, you might learn something...

swatX

There is much simpler answers to all this

if you dont like CCC just go back to old CP
if you do like it then just stay with CCC

its simple as that. if for some reason you found bugs just make a constructive post about the bug or just post it in ATI feedback program.

if you dont want .NET but want CCC too bad caz .NET is the future and people have to get used to the fact that .NET will used in other programs as well. now ATI next nvidia.

__________________
thx stick for the sig

Maniak

Nah, you didn't read well enough (or I didn't make myself clear, which would not be a first ).

My point is simple : tweaking is neat, but when you tweak, you take responsibility for it. If something breaks because of a tweak, either immediately or later, it's your tweak that's the cause. Not the developers of the broken application, not even MS. One case I see where you can put the blame on someone else is when you can justify that your tweak either shouldn't have any effect, or should be made by default. I didn't see that in BWX's posts.

As I said, my own systems are tweaked, including the services. So don't think I'm criticizing the tweaking process itself, far from it. Just the way some people blame others because they think their tweaks are perfect (yes, I'm aiming exclusively at BWX )

Now, what said swatX is really just what needs to be said. If the CCC doesn't work with your tweaks and you can't convince yourself to part with it, don't use the CCC. Don't whine that it shouldn't need this and that because you know better. Or go work with the guys at ATI and convince them to develop something that's exactly like you want. Same goes for .NET. You don't want it, don't install the CCC. Don't start shouting "IT'S A MEMORY HOG" to try to justify your point.

That's childish, wrong and it doesn't help one bit.

So no, my point is really not about how tweaking is bad, and I don't disagree with you either on the rest. It's really just about the behaviour of BWX in this case.


PS: I had an answer for BWX ready, but one post is already too much for this subject. And unless he manages to follow his own advice and "respond to the points", it's really no use

BMG_Cya=-

In response to Buhdda...That's quite a response. Especially considering it's totally
irrelevant to what I said.

Let me paint ya a different picture here bud.

I don't like Microsoft knowing my business, and/or having to be
hooked up to them while I make a personal adjustment to my
privately owned piece of machinery. Also, in the context of
adjusting the settings on a graphics card, we have so far, up
to now, seen it is just not necessary. (i.e. Catalyst 4.5...4.6 etc.)

Has nothing to do with "being afraid of the future"...ROFLMAO...

Nothing spiritual or emotional about my stance on this pahdnah.
So next time, you might put away the incense, stop the chanting,
or whatever you were thinking when you made that erroneous
assessment.

If this .NET thing becomes a necessity for every graphics card
control panel, made by any company in the world, and there
is no possible workaround, then yeah, I suppose I'll have to
work with it.

However...

If it is exclusively an ATI stance and requirement, and it
continues to be the problem it is now, or at least
seemingly becoming, I will simply go with another company's
product.

Really, it's that simple.

There are no hidden meanings or drama in that, or any other
statements I made.

Okay...you have a good day...and take it easy.

Mocca

This states precisely what I mean aswell.
And to the guy stating ".net is the future and there's really nothing we can do about it" - do you work for Microsoft or in any way get paid by Microsoft? I shall personally decide what the future for my rig is, and tbh, the lesser MS stuff on my pc the better.
Some people might say something totally stupid like "why don't u switch over to linux or mac if bla bla..." - Well, quite simple - I can't play my games there. If gaming/software companies made some more games in ogl and ported more stuff I'm a goner from Windows. The fact is, that the programmes I need and games I play are only made for windows/in D3D.

Just because I drive a Ford doesn't mean it's my dreamcar or I like to drive it.

__________________
AMD64 3800+ Dualcore
Asus A8N-E Nforce4 Ultra Chipset
2048MB Kingston HyperX Dualchan pc3200 Ram
Asus 7800GTX PCI-E 16x Graphicscard

BWX

Your job to worry about my "behavior"? -it sounds to me like you just want to argue..

Please, quote me where I blame someone (blame someone about what by the way?), and say "my tweaks are perfect"....

The only thing I did was express my views about the control panel, then post a finding about a service that it requires and how I found that the CCC NEEDS it, and then defend myself against baseless attacks.

Read the entire post and strive to comprehend. You must be imagining things.

__________________
One Big Ass Mistake America

MindlessOath

well its not going to NOT use .net so get off the subject. please fill your feedback out at the ati feedback form, which btw theirs a link in my sig for.

i storngly suggest if u want to display more complaints and want help, to do a format, cause we cannot help you otherwise because of the tweeks you may or may not have enabled.

end of all your bickering and arguing (not u in particular, but to those of u arguing back and forth - takes two to tango, dont make zardon pissed).

__________________
ATI Radeon X800XT PE <---- **LOOK UPDATED!!**
AMD Athlon 2Ghz, nforce2, 512mb ddr3500
LINKS U SHOULD KNOW!!!!
DriverCleaner - use every time u install new drivers!
ATI driver feedback - to report driver problems
Tacticalcenter - my Gaming website and forums
ATI 3rd party Optimized Driver Compairison

Datagg

Anyone who wants to argue go find a room on irc. This is a civilized board here were we discuss valuable information. Please take your bickering and arguing somewhere else please.

__________________
---
i7-920 @3.8
CORSAIR XMS3 6GB(3 x 2GB)
2 4870 X2's CrossFireX
VelociRaptor
Asus P6T Deluxe
Thermaltake toughpower 1200
Vista 64 Ultimate

BWX

This is my last post in this thread so don't worry- any and all responses to this post I refer you or anyone else back to re-read this post.
Also this is not arguing, I am defending myself against attacks in a civilized way.

A) First of all I never asked for any help and do not need it.

B) I don't need your permission to express my thoughts or complaints about anything here.

C) Obviously this is a touchy subject and people have different views, but don't forget I attacked no one in my original posts.

D) A format has nothing to do with turning on the server service, I already said 15 times that is what I found out what needed to be done to get it to work properly... I posted my findings back in the thread so other people could see that was part of the solution.

Most of the complaints I had about the CCC didn't have anything to do with the fact that the CCC wasn't working properly at the time- the only thing that didn't work was those 2 windows and the info that was supposed to be there anyway.
The fact that I found out (*on my own by the way) that the server service needed to be turned on doesn't change anything.

WaltC, Maniak, and anybody else that wants to attack me for expressing my opinions (or complaints) about the CCC fail to understand all of the above. WaltC started this mess by attacking me, and "my tweaks" - which have nothing to do with the complaints I have about the CCC, which by the way he didn't have a response to. lets not forget that.

In the posts since then I was just defending myself, which I shouldn't have had to do in the first place. Please disagree all you want, that's fine- all I'm saying is that can be done without throwing around insults like WaltC did... that was uncalled for and yes I absolutely posted what I thought about it.

Ok I'm done, I didn't even want to post this, but I hope that clears it up for you.

__________________
One Big Ass Mistake America

Zardon

Guys we have a great membership here and the quality of debate is generally of a very high standard in the ATI forums, what some of you have to realise is we dont all have to agree on everything to get along. Personally ive enjoyed reading most of the posting in the CCC thread and I know ATI have gained some useful information from sections of the thread.

I think if everyone can take a deep breath go crack open a beer and come back in a little while and get back to discussing the drivers it would be best for everyone, remember ATI read these threads so get your points across in a manner they will want to read, not skip.

Thanks !

StuBee

Well i installed them the first day they came out and kept getting the good old blue screening of death (hadn't seen one for a while forgot how great they were ) when i went into the advanced display settings

Had no time to sort it then, but had time to look into it tonight, and thanks to the sticky in the forums discovered it was cos i had radlinker installed, so unstalled it, unstalled all the ati gubbins, driver cleaned it, rebooted, re-installed, opened me display options, then click on advanced to see all the new fancy tabs.... only to see the one tab for the CCC i miss my old tabs

Anyhoo went into the CCC, and now i ain't got an overdrive option

elp!

__________________
Gaming:- 3.4EE P4, AW8-MAX, Crossfired X1900XT's, Maxtor 80Gb SATA, Samsung 80Gb SATA, SB Audigy 4, NEC DVD RW ND-2500A, 2Gb PC3700, Votrex 500w.

Media:- SK83G shuttle, 3100 Sempron, X800 AIW, Maxtor 80Gb, 512meg PC3200.

Storage - 2.2 Core Duo, 2Gb, quite a few GB storage X86 Solaris.

Lappy:- 2.2Ghz, 4Gb Macbook.

petri1

well i have tryed to use the new catalyst center twice the first and the one with 4.9 and it is not working properly freezes and generally creates problems so i am now using the regular catalyst i may wait until the CCC is working better so i can use it without hang ups and stuff mainly when i wanna alter settings for AF AA i can change from optimal performance to optimal IQ but when i press apply it hangs up totally.

so i am sorry it isn´t just working for me

__________________
[COLOR=#232d35]
[COLOR=Red]Intel Core 2 Quad 9450@2,66GHZ

PowerColor Ati Radeon HD4870 512mb

Gigabyte GaE-X38

4GB Kingston Hyper X
[/COLOR]



[/COLOR]

JRosenfeld

Since installing CCC a new set of events is logged in Event Viewer, called ACEEventslog. So far these have all been information events according to the icon, but does anyone know what they mean, or where I might find info? Some of the descriptions don't seem to be just informational, but suggest either bugs in the code or somethng odd with the install. Or do they refer to things I don't have set up, like multiple monitor, TV out, Performance setting tab (not installed for pro I understand)?

Previous ATI drivers and control panels were uninstalled before installing the 4.9 set. Both Cat4.9 drivers and CCC appear to be functioning properly. I have the system tray icon switched off.

Examples:

Source AceeventLogSource
Category None
EventID 0

Description
[Domain]: cli.exe
[Type]: Exception
[Assembly]: Cli.Aspect.DisplaysManager.Graphics.Dashboard.
version=1.0.1698.23973.
Culture=neutral.
PublicKey token=90ba9c70f846762e
[NameSpace]:ATI.ACE.CLI.Aspect.DisplaysManager.Graphics.Dashb oard.DeskArrCtrl
[Method]: PopulateUI
[Message]: Exception: Cannot access a disposed object named "DeskarrCtrl"
Object name: "DeskArrCtrl"

[Domain]: Runtime.Component
[Type] Error
[Assembly] CLI.Componenht.Runtime
Version=1.0/1698.24167
Culture=neutral.
PublicKey token=90ba9c70f846762e
[NameSpace]: ATICLI.Component.Runtime.Runtime
[Method]: ctor
[Message]: No languages defined

and several others of a similar vein.
System details:
Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB; P4 3.0GHz, Intel 875p; 512MB RAM; Dell 1800P Ultra sharp TFT LCD
XP home SP2 .Net framework 1.1 and SP1.

KYPREO

Very interesting results using 4.9.

My 3DMark03 GPU score is down slightly (from 2446 in Catalyst v4.8 to 2436 without overclocking), however my CPU score just went through the roof (from 401 in Catalyst v4.9 to 465). This is without tweaking anything else whatsoever, and with the same amount of memory usage etc. I have used four or five different driver sets and my CPU score in 3DMark has

Doom 3 is pretty much the same however. No noticeable difference with timedemo - actual gameplay might be a bit less jumpy but it could just be placebo effect.

Two thumbs up.

My system is an Asus notebook, Athlon XP-M 2800, 512mb ram, Radeon 9600Pro with 64mb ram (344/179).

Datagg

3 days thus far, put to the tests of Doom3, cs beta source etc and I give the CCC and 4.9 set a huge thumbs up.

__________________
---
i7-920 @3.8
CORSAIR XMS3 6GB(3 x 2GB)
2 4870 X2's CrossFireX
VelociRaptor
Asus P6T Deluxe
Thermaltake toughpower 1200
Vista 64 Ultimate

MindlessOath

just want to remind people AGAIN! theirs a link in my sig for ATI feedback form to report anything - problems, and suggestions/features, etc.... tho i wouldnt use it to be annoying. this is the NUMBER ONE source for ATI getting your feedback. not these forums, tho these are idea, who knows if the dev's review threads at all.

__________________
ATI Radeon X800XT PE <---- **LOOK UPDATED!!**
AMD Athlon 2Ghz, nforce2, 512mb ddr3500
LINKS U SHOULD KNOW!!!!
DriverCleaner - use every time u install new drivers!
ATI driver feedback - to report driver problems
Tacticalcenter - my Gaming website and forums
ATI 3rd party Optimized Driver Compairison

Danhill

I gave them a nine, rock solid realese as always. Great work ATI.

__________________
MOBO: [color=white]ASUS A8N-SLI Premium[/color] CPU: AMD 64 3200+ (Venice) @ 2,50 Ghz MEM: 2 x 512 DDR 466, VGA: 2 x 6600 GT in SLI, HDD1: WD Raptor HDD2: Maxtor Diamond Plus 9, Case: Antec Plus View 1080, PSU: ThermalTake PurePower 500W, MX 1000, Dell 2001 FP, Aud. 2 SZ