Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.general.discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance (More info?)

Hi all, hopefully posting this to several groups isn't a problem. My parents
have an old dell from maybe 6 years ago, and their display recently started
getting vertical lines through it, so I assumed that the video card had
gone. I got a new one and threw it in (a better card than the one they had,
went from 16MB to 32), and I cannot get the OS to recognize it. It's an agp
card in an agp slot.

When I downloaded the driver for the card (ATI 128 Rage pro), I install them
no problem, but then it gives me an error wherein it states the "driver does
not support the display adapter." Irritating for sure. I then tried a bunch
of other video cards of varying types and MB, and it's always the same;
Windows refuses outright to see that there is a card there, so it only
allows me 16 colors and 600x480 screen res. I have NO idea why this is, and
any help or insight here would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release Date: 14/02/2005

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance (More info?)

bottom-posted

"Shane" wrote:

> Hi all, hopefully posting this to several groups isn't a problem. My parents
> have an old dell from maybe 6 years ago, and their display recently started
> getting vertical lines through it, so I assumed that the video card had
> gone. I got a new one and threw it in (a better card than the one they had,
> went from 16MB to 32), and I cannot get the OS to recognize it. It's an agp
> card in an agp slot.
>
> When I downloaded the driver for the card (ATI 128 Rage pro), I install them
> no problem, but then it gives me an error wherein it states the "driver does
> not support the display adapter." Irritating for sure. I then tried a bunch
> of other video cards of varying types and MB, and it's always the same;
> Windows refuses outright to see that there is a card there, so it only
> allows me 16 colors and 600x480 screen res. I have NO idea why this is, and
> any help or insight here would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release Date: 14/02/2005
>
>
> Shane do you realize that your antivirus is way out of date. It say 14 February 2005 and we are now on 10 April 2005. You may first want to update this and make sure you don't have any trojan, spyware, or virus issues and then take care of the video card problem. Have a good night.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.general.discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance (More info?)

Is their prior video card an onboard (built into the motherboard) adapter?
If so did you disable it prior to adding the new card?

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
* In fond memory ... Alex, you shall be sorely missed
* http://www.aumha.org/alex.htm



"Shane" <bison36@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qU46e.4740$Mj.35853@news1.mts.net...
> Hi all, hopefully posting this to several groups isn't a problem. My
> parents have an old dell from maybe 6 years ago, and their display
> recently started getting vertical lines through it, so I assumed that the
> video card had gone. I got a new one and threw it in (a better card than
> the one they had, went from 16MB to 32), and I cannot get the OS to
> recognize it. It's an agp card in an agp slot.
>
> When I downloaded the driver for the card (ATI 128 Rage pro), I install
> them no problem, but then it gives me an error wherein it states the
> "driver does not support the display adapter." Irritating for sure. I then
> tried a bunch of other video cards of varying types and MB, and it's
> always the same; Windows refuses outright to see that there is a card
> there, so it only allows me 16 colors and 600x480 screen res. I have NO
> idea why this is, and any help or insight here would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release Date: 14/02/2005
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.general.discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance (More info?)

If this system hasn't used an AGP card before then you may have to enable or
adjust AGP settings in BIOS setup.

"Shane" <bison36@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qU46e.4740$Mj.35853@news1.mts.net...
> Hi all, hopefully posting this to several groups isn't a problem. My
> parents have an old dell from maybe 6 years ago, and their display
> recently started getting vertical lines through it, so I assumed that the
> video card had gone. I got a new one and threw it in (a better card than
> the one they had, went from 16MB to 32), and I cannot get the OS to
> recognize it. It's an agp card in an agp slot.
>
> When I downloaded the driver for the card (ATI 128 Rage pro), I install
> them no problem, but then it gives me an error wherein it states the
> "driver does not support the display adapter." Irritating for sure. I then
> tried a bunch of other video cards of varying types and MB, and it's
> always the same; Windows refuses outright to see that there is a card
> there, so it only allows me 16 colors and 600x480 screen res. I have NO
> idea why this is, and any help or insight here would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release Date: 14/02/2005
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.general.discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance (More info?)

In news:qU46e.4740$Mj.35853@news1.mts.net,
Shane <bison36@yahoo.com> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

> Hi all, hopefully posting this to several groups isn't a problem. My
> parents have an old dell from maybe 6 years ago, and their display
> recently started getting vertical lines through it, so I assumed that
> the video card had gone. I got a new one and threw it in (a better
> card than the one they had, went from 16MB to 32), and I cannot get
> the OS to recognize it. It's an agp card in an agp slot.
>
> When I downloaded the driver for the card (ATI 128 Rage pro), I
> install them no problem, but then it gives me an error wherein it
> states the "driver does not support the display adapter." Irritating
> for sure. I then tried a bunch of other video cards of varying types
> and MB, and it's always the same; Windows refuses outright to see
> that there is a card there, so it only allows me 16 colors and
> 600x480 screen res. I have NO idea why this is, and any help or
> insight here would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks!

Well, everyone else has added their thoughts. You state 32 MB VRAM. Yet the
card is 128...

Couple of thoughts on this. Does the AGP slot support the 6x or 8x card that
you have? If not then there may be jumpers on the card to slow it down. I
could be way off base and I'm not too sure of the math but I *think* you
need (need??? subject to being wrong on this one but I thought I'd throw
this out there so that if I'm wrong I can learn too) at least 4x for that.
Your MOBO is quite old and may only be 2x which means that the most you
could probably support would be 32 MB VRAM??? I'm really not at all sure
about this as I'm not really into graphics all that much. In other words I
think that the 128 might refer to the VRAM (video RAM) and that your
motherboard simply may not support it. Many video cards have jumpers on them
(though you might be able to control this in a limited fashion through the
BIOS as has been clued to you already by Jeff) which will allow you to set
the speed back down to what the motherboard can handle.

Again, I might be completely off base with this one but I thought I'd thow
it out there as an idea for you to check. As for the monitor going all funny
it could have been something so easy as an update killing it (unlikely) or
the drivers having become corrupted (more likely.) It could even be
something as basic as the monitor has reached the end of it's useful life
span and is to be no more which is not unheard of though I've monitors which
have seemingly lasted forever here.

Galen
--
Signature changed for a moment of silence.
Rest well Alex and we'll see you on the other side.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.general.discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance (More info?)

Reply below....

"Galen" <galennews@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23cCbFNjPFHA.2136@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> In news:qU46e.4740$Mj.35853@news1.mts.net,
> Shane <bison36@yahoo.com> had this to say:
>
> My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
>
>> Hi all, hopefully posting this to several groups isn't a problem. My
>> parents have an old dell from maybe 6 years ago, and their display
>> recently started getting vertical lines through it, so I assumed that
>> the video card had gone. I got a new one and threw it in (a better
>> card than the one they had, went from 16MB to 32), and I cannot get
>> the OS to recognize it. It's an agp card in an agp slot.
>>
>> When I downloaded the driver for the card (ATI 128 Rage pro), I
>> install them no problem, but then it gives me an error wherein it
>> states the "driver does not support the display adapter." Irritating
>> for sure. I then tried a bunch of other video cards of varying types
>> and MB, and it's always the same; Windows refuses outright to see
>> that there is a card there, so it only allows me 16 colors and
>> 600x480 screen res. I have NO idea why this is, and any help or
>> insight here would be greatly appreciated.
>> Thanks!
>
> Well, everyone else has added their thoughts. You state 32 MB VRAM. Yet
> the card is 128...
>
> Couple of thoughts on this. Does the AGP slot support the 6x or 8x card
> that you have? If not then there may be jumpers on the card to slow it
> down. I could be way off base and I'm not too sure of the math but I
> *think* you need (need??? subject to being wrong on this one but I thought
> I'd throw this out there so that if I'm wrong I can learn too) at least 4x
> for that. Your MOBO is quite old and may only be 2x which means that the
> most you could probably support would be 32 MB VRAM??? I'm really not at
> all sure about this as I'm not really into graphics all that much. In
> other words I think that the 128 might refer to the VRAM (video RAM) and
> that your motherboard simply may not support it. Many video cards have
> jumpers on them (though you might be able to control this in a limited
> fashion through the BIOS as has been clued to you already by Jeff) which
> will allow you to set the speed back down to what the motherboard can
> handle.
>
> Again, I might be completely off base with this one but I thought I'd thow
> it out there as an idea for you to check. As for the monitor going all
> funny it could have been something so easy as an update killing it
> (unlikely) or the drivers having become corrupted (more likely.) It could
> even be something as basic as the monitor has reached the end of it's
> useful life span and is to be no more which is not unheard of though I've
> monitors which have seemingly lasted forever here.
>
> Galen
> --
> Signature changed for a moment of silence.
> Rest well Alex and we'll see you on the other side.

Thanks for all the help gents, the answers are much appreciated. However,
the funniest thing happened. I had resigned myself to going over and doing
either soem hardware work or reinstalling win98, but when I sat down, I
decided to just reboot a few times for the hell of it. On the third reboot,
everything was fine. Card was recognized, exactly as it should have gone in
the first place. Saved me some work anyway.

Galen, in response to your post: the card itself does have 32 MB of VRAM,
but the logo on the card says "powered by ATI 128 Rage PRO," which I thought
was a bit misleading also. I guess it was their then name for the graphics
engine, but is not an indicator (for this particular card anyway) of amount
of VRAM on the card itself. Anyway, the problem seems to have resolved
itself. When in doubt, reboot!

Thanks all.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.general.discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance (More info?)

In news:Bwl6e.4870$Mj.37180@news1.mts.net,
Shane <bison36@yahoo.com> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

<snip>
> Galen, in response to your post: the card itself does have 32 MB of
> VRAM, but the logo on the card says "powered by ATI 128 Rage PRO,"
> which I thought was a bit misleading also. I guess it was their then
> name for the graphics engine, but is not an indicator (for this
> particular card anyway) of amount of VRAM on the card itself. Anyway,
> the problem seems to have resolved itself. When in doubt, reboot!
>
> Thanks all.

Rebooting does do some interesting things at times. Maybe it was just having
a difficult time loading the drivers. I'm rather amused that the card would
say 128 in the title yet be only a 32 MB VRAM card. It's definately
misleading. I haven't purchased a new ATI in a very long time. I've been
sticking with nVidia for quite some time. Glad to hear that it worked for
you and that it's all good. I can't explain why it did that but I suspect it
was just being a problematic driver (or software) installation.

Galen
--
Signature changed for a moment of silence.
Rest well Alex and we'll see you on the other side.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance (More info?)

I really am happy with my ATI Radeon 9200 card with 8x AGP and 128 mbs of
video ram. <smile>

"Galen" wrote:

> In news:Bwl6e.4870$Mj.37180@news1.mts.net,
> Shane <bison36@yahoo.com> had this to say:
>
> My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
>
> <snip>
> > Galen, in response to your post: the card itself does have 32 MB of
> > VRAM, but the logo on the card says "powered by ATI 128 Rage PRO,"
> > which I thought was a bit misleading also. I guess it was their then
> > name for the graphics engine, but is not an indicator (for this
> > particular card anyway) of amount of VRAM on the card itself. Anyway,
> > the problem seems to have resolved itself. When in doubt, reboot!
> >
> > Thanks all.
>
> Rebooting does do some interesting things at times. Maybe it was just having
> a difficult time loading the drivers. I'm rather amused that the card would
> say 128 in the title yet be only a 32 MB VRAM card. It's definately
> misleading. I haven't purchased a new ATI in a very long time. I've been
> sticking with nVidia for quite some time. Glad to hear that it worked for
> you and that it's all good. I can't explain why it did that but I suspect it
> was just being a problematic driver (or software) installation.
>
> Galen
> --
> Signature changed for a moment of silence.
> Rest well Alex and we'll see you on the other side.
>
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance (More info?)

In news:822E0DD9-12DD-411C-8311-3A46CD054E0D@microsoft.com,
Dan <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

> I really am happy with my ATI Radeon 9200 card with 8x AGP and 128
> mbs of video ram. <smile>

It's not that I have anything against ATI, indeed they're fine. I've just
learned to like the GeForce series. I am not really a gamer either though.
Well, I do play games, but they're not graphics intensive and I don't do FPS
genre games. At best you'll find me spending hours amid an RPG or strategy
game. I think the last ATI that I bought was a Rage Pro 3 (or something
along those lines in the name) and it was actually quite decent. Heck, at
that time, it was pretty much the best on the market.

I guess, to me, it's the familiarity now that keeps me using GeForce cards.
Kind of like always putting the same types of tires on my car or always
buying the same brand of shoe.

Galen
--
Signature changed for a moment of silence.
Rest well Alex and we'll see you on the other side.

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance (More info?)

I understand. However, I got burned once when putting an Nvidia GeForce card
into my system even after properly and fully removing the 3dfx card. Next, I
had to use GoBack by Norton (then Roxio) to restore my settings. Third, I
tried to install an ATI card and had no problems. The fact that ATI is a
Canadian company is also good since my brother-in-law is Canadian and I think
Canadians are cool people. Finally, I think XBOX 2 may use an ATI card
instead of Nvidia graphics card and so if Microsoft supports ATI then the
tables may really be turned to ATI's favor since Microsoft does have a great
deal of power in the computer industry.

"Galen" wrote:

> In news:822E0DD9-12DD-411C-8311-3A46CD054E0D@microsoft.com,
> Dan <Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> had this to say:
>
> My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
>
> > I really am happy with my ATI Radeon 9200 card with 8x AGP and 128
> > mbs of video ram. <smile>
>
> It's not that I have anything against ATI, indeed they're fine. I've just
> learned to like the GeForce series. I am not really a gamer either though.
> Well, I do play games, but they're not graphics intensive and I don't do FPS
> genre games. At best you'll find me spending hours amid an RPG or strategy
> game. I think the last ATI that I bought was a Rage Pro 3 (or something
> along those lines in the name) and it was actually quite decent. Heck, at
> that time, it was pretty much the best on the market.
>
> I guess, to me, it's the familiarity now that keeps me using GeForce cards.
> Kind of like always putting the same types of tires on my car or always
> buying the same brand of shoe.
>
> Galen
> --
> Signature changed for a moment of silence.
> Rest well Alex and we'll see you on the other side.
>
>
>