Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account



Photo

ATI Radeon Driver for Windows 2000

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

#26
RonCam

RonCam

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 23 posts
  • Joined 26-October 08
blackwingcat, the edits to my post of 21 January 2012 - 11:32 AM are now complete. Let me know what else you need, to help me get the driver and my graphics card 'going' on Windows 2000!


How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#27
RonCam

RonCam

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 23 posts
  • Joined 26-October 08

Hi, RonCam
...
if your VGA is not stable, try to rollback 10.x driver.

Just noticed this suggestion.

By that, did you mean, "try to rollback to the 10.x driver" (from version 11.x) -- or do you mean "try to rollback 10.x driver to an earlier version"? I was interpreting this to mean the first choice. If the second, you are saying I should go to a 9.x driver.

Will a 9.x driver work with my card, and if so, which one do you recommend?

Details, please.

Edited by RonCam, 23 January 2012 - 09:00 AM.


#28
blackwingcat

blackwingcat

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 797 posts
  • Joined 31-May 08
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag
Hi.

Sorry,I made misconception. I thought that you use 11.x Driver.
The ati5k2k1.zip is alpha 10.1 driver.
HD5xxxx series are supported following drivers.

2010/6/8 Version 10.5(AGP+HDMI)
2010/6/19 Version 10.6a(AGP+HDMI)
2010/7/31 Version 10.7(AGP+HDMI)
2010/9/1 Version 10.8(AGP+HDMI)
2010/10/24 Version 10.10(AGP+HDMI)
2010/12/2 Version 10.11(AGP+HDMI)
2011/5/13 Version 11.1b(AGP+HDMI+Mobility) *
2011/5/13 Version 11.2a(AGP+HDMI+Mobility) *
2011/5/13 Version 11.3a(AGP+HDMI+Mobility) *
2011/5/13 Version 11.5c(AGP+HDMI+Mobility) *

*11.x series require KB829884.

But stable drivers are 10.x series.

The reason which I didn't descript HD5xxx is we found out some problem on HD5xxx High end model has many problem on Windows 2000.( You can see the discussion on the my blog's comments)

I also have HD5450 and it seems almost no problem, but any game crash on trying to play movie.
I think HD38xx or HD 46xx or HD47xx or HD48xx are Optimum for Windows 2000, on stability and performance.


Hi, RonCam
...
if your VGA is not stable, try to rollback 10.x driver.

Just noticed this suggestion.

By that, did you mean, "try to rollback to the 10.x driver" (from version 11.x) -- or do you mean "try to rollback 10.x driver to an earlier version"? I was interpreting this to mean the first choice. If the second, you are saying I should go to a 9.x driver.

Will a 9.x driver work with my card, and if so, which one do you recommend?

Details, please.


Edited by blackwingcat, 23 January 2012 - 06:12 PM.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
BlackWingCat =^^=
http://blog.livedoor.jp/blackwingcat/
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

#29
RonCam

RonCam

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 23 posts
  • Joined 26-October 08

...
When following your directions to install your modified driver, while in the Upgrade Device Driver Wizard, I am seeing an extra screen not mentioned, causing a problem:

Select the manufacturer and model of your hardware ...
followed by an empty box titled 'Models:'
Seems the user is supposed to select an entry shown inside this box and since a selection from an empty box is not possible, the 'Next' button is non-functional. So I can't get past this to complete the driver installation.

There is a 'Have Disk' button here, as well, but if I enter the same information as you previously told us to do, that is accepted, but it loops back to this same screen, from which there is no exit.

This part of my installation didn't go as expected, from following the directions. My work-around was to make Windows 2000 install its native (and 12-year old) ATI driver and then, before the reboot, change that to the BWC-modified driver.

I don't think I was supposed to see an empty "Models" box, because the installation then cannot proceed. In your experience, did this happen because I did something wrong, in the steps leading up to this?

My concern is that the work-around may have caused the driver to install incorrectly.

If you've never seen this before, then let me know that as well. Perhaps it will not repeat when I go to a higher driver in the 10.x series?

Thanks!

Edited by RonCam, 24 January 2012 - 10:01 AM.


#30
RonCam

RonCam

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 23 posts
  • Joined 26-October 08

The ati5k2k1.zip is alpha 10.1 driver.

HD5xxxx series are supported following drivers.

2010/6/8 Version 10.5(AGP+HDMI)
2010/6/19 Version 10.6a(AGP+HDMI)
2010/7/31 Version 10.7(AGP+HDMI)
2010/9/1 Version 10.8(AGP+HDMI)
2010/10/24 Version 10.10(AGP+HDMI)
2010/12/2 Version 10.11(AGP+HDMI)
...

But stable drivers are 10.x series.

Thanks, blackwingcat. I mistakenly selected an 'alpha' driver because I didn't know I could use the others. Now that is clear.

May I assume you suggesting my best choice is to start with the last driver in the version 10.x series, v10.11?

You have said that the earlier cards would have been a better choice for Windows 2000, but unfortunately I was not offered the choice of these, at the shop where I made my purchase. So, I will do the best I can with the one I have.

Let me know if you see anything wrong with what I have written above, and also let me know if you have any comments about the empty 'Models' box causing the driver installation to 'hang' (see the quoted post, just before this one).

If you've ever seen this happen before, then you must have devised some kind of work-around, to permit the installation to continue. I think whatever you did will have a better chance of working right, than what I came up with.

Edited by RonCam, 24 January 2012 - 10:02 AM.


#31
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,528 posts
  • Joined 27-November 10
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
RonCam,

I think you should just test all of these drivers, one by one (starting from the newest ones), to check which one works ;) If something goes wrong you can just boot into VGA mode and uninstall the faulty driver.

Edited by tomasz86, 24 January 2012 - 02:34 PM.

post-47483-1123010975.png


#32
RonCam

RonCam

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 23 posts
  • Joined 26-October 08

I think you should just test all of these drivers, one by one (starting from the newest ones...

Knowing of blackwingcat's special knowledge in this area, I was wondering if there was some reason the entire 10.x and 11.x series drivers had been listed, instead of just the highest in the 10.x series. I think I'll start with the highest in the 10.x series, since I saw something BWC wrote to the effect that going into the 11.x series is not recommended for my card.

On the other matter, I was wondering if anyone else had experienced the vacant "Model:" box that prevented me from taking the driver installation to a normal conclusion.

From the feedback I'm seeing, the likely answer is 'no' and my procedure was OK, and this anomaly was seen only because I incorrectly thought the alpha driver was the only choice for my card and Windows 2000. I suppose that's why it's called 'alpha' ...

The reason for the questions ... I thought I'd like to get 'all my ducks in a row' before going ahead, now for the third time, in the hope it will finally go to a satisfactory conclusion. Each time, I'm updating the partition's image, then completely cleaning out the old driver, including remaining Registry entries, then switching cards, etc. Then, when it fails, putting the image back so I can start from zero, again, on the next try. I don't want to 'mess up' the operating system installation, as can happen so easily with MS Windows, even though trying to keep it clean is a bit of a bother.

#33
blackwingcat

blackwingcat

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 797 posts
  • Joined 31-May 08
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag
Hi.

I think most stable driver is 10.5. or 10.7. But 10.11 may also be stable.

Because I don't know your VGA DEVICE ID, I can't tell you for sure...
I think you had better delete registry
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Enum\PCI\YourDevice
and delete target oem**.inf(look it with notepad) in %systemroot%\inf and reboot .

May I assume you suggesting my best choice is to start with the last driver in the version 10.x series, v10.11?

Let me know if you see anything wrong with what I have written above, and also let me know if you have any comments about the empty 'Models' box causing the driver installation to 'hang' (see the quoted post, just before this one).


+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
BlackWingCat =^^=
http://blog.livedoor.jp/blackwingcat/
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

#34
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,528 posts
  • Joined 27-November 10
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
By the way, blackwingcat, have you tried these drivers with PAE turned on? I can't get any of them (ver. 9/10/11) to work if I turn PAE on. The system is Win2k Advanced Server. With PAE switched off they work fine (ver 9/10, ver 11.x is unstable). I've got integrated Radeon 3000 HD.

post-47483-1123010975.png


#35
RonCam

RonCam

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 23 posts
  • Joined 26-October 08

I think most stable driver is 10.5. or 10.7. But 10.11 may also be stable.

Because I don't know your VGA DEVICE ID, I can't tell you for sure...

Hi blackwingcat,
Thanks for the continuing advice. Are these the correct numbers, that you're looking for, in this list?

  • Identification numbers for my VGA ASUS RADEON HD5450 Silent 512MB HDMI/DDR2PCIE2 card:
  • Vendor ID: 0x1002
  • Device ID: 0x68E1
If not -- please let me know where to look, and I will do it. .

You said you couldn't tell, for sure, without the VGA DEVICE ID, which driver gets your primary recommendation. Can you tell now?

After I know that, I will go ahead with your instructions to clean the Windows Registry, and install the driver, once again.

:) Thanks again!

Edited by RonCam, 26 January 2012 - 04:53 AM.


#36
blackwingcat

blackwingcat

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 797 posts
  • Joined 31-May 08
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag
Hi.

Okay.
Your Device Information was included from ATI 11.x driver, so Device manager showed blank dialogbox.

download ati1011w2k.zip and ati1107w2k.cab.
and copy ati1107w2k.cab's inf file to the folder which you extracted ati1011w2k.zip.
and change to the inf file's Driver version following.
DriverVer=10/26/2010, 8.791.0.0000
and try to use ati1011w2k.

Good luck.


I think most stable driver is 10.5. or 10.7. But 10.11 may also be stable.

Because I don't know your VGA DEVICE ID, I can't tell you for sure...

Hi blackwingcat,
Thanks for the continuing advice. Are these the correct numbers, that you're looking for, in this list?

  • Identification numbers for my VGA ASUS RADEON HD5450 Silent 512MB HDMI/DDR2PCIE2 card:
  • Vendor ID: 0x1002
  • Device ID: 0x68E1
If not -- please let me know where to look, and I will do it. .

You said you couldn't tell, for sure, without the VGA DEVICE ID, which driver gets your primary recommendation. Can you tell now?

After I know that, I will go ahead with your instructions to clean the Windows Registry, and install the driver, once again.

:) Thanks again!


Edited by blackwingcat, 26 January 2012 - 06:18 PM.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
BlackWingCat =^^=
http://blog.livedoor.jp/blackwingcat/
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

#37
RonCam

RonCam

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 23 posts
  • Joined 26-October 08

...
Your Device Information was included from ATI 11.x driver, so Device manager showed blank dialogbox.

download ati1011w2k.zip and ati1107w2k.cab.
and copy ati1107w2k.cab's inf file to the folder which you extracted ati1011w2k.zip.
and change to the inf file's Driver version following.
DriverVer=10/26/2010, 8.791.0.0000
and try to use ati1011w2k.

Good luck.

:thumbup Thanks so much for taking your time to get all this information! I would have never figured all that out by myself. Your knowledge and experience is a great asset to the Windows 2000 community!

I still have an OS image from before my own (multiple and unsuccessful) attempts to get the new card working in Windows 2000, so I will return to that.

Then, I will get rid of the remains of references to the old Radeon X300 card, as you advised, and also follow this procedure, just to make sure. This covers the Registry key deletion you mentioned, plus a bit more. Then, I'll follow the new directions and there should be no problems, but will post again if anything unexpected happens.

Your directions on how to populate the 'Models' box should let the installation run normally. I was suspicious that my home-made 'work-around' may have given me a defective driver installation. No worry about that, now.

:) Thanks for helping me to move to the new card, before the intermittent in the old X300 becomes permanent !!

#38
RonCam

RonCam

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 23 posts
  • Joined 26-October 08
Hi blackwing,
I think I should ask this, before I get into trouble ... :blushing:

... download ati1011w2k.zip and ati1107w2k.cab.
and copy ati1107w2k.cab's inf file to the folder which you extracted ati1011w2k.zip.


There are two .inf files in ati1107w2k.cab. May I assume you're only talking about copying the one named CX121826.inf -- and I should ignore the other (named AtihdXP3.inf)?

Once the correct .inf file is copied from the expanded ati1107w2k into the expanded ati1011w2k folder, I now have two .inf files there, both beginning with CX. I will change the DriverVer of the one I copied from ati1107w2k, correct?

But now this leaves the other file, CX107884.inf, that was originally in ati1011w2k (and was not edited, as was the other one that was brought into the folder). Was it your intention that this one should be deleted, or allowed to remain?

My concern is that if two CX*.inf files remain in the folder I'll be using for the installation, I don't want Windows to accidentally go after the wrong one. Or, for some reason I don't understand, would this be impossible, so I should not be concerned, and just leave both these files where they are?

... and change to the inf file's Driver version following.
DriverVer=10/26/2010, 8.791.0.0000
and try to use ati1011w2k.

This would (of course?) be the CX*.inf that I brought in, from the other folder, and not the one that was already there -- assuming I haven't deleted it, depending upon what you've said, above. Just double-checking here, to make sure, that I am not getting confused.

Good luck.

:) Thanks!

#39
blackwingcat

blackwingcat

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 797 posts
  • Joined 31-May 08
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag
Hi.

If you use original 11.7 inf file, then windows write registry installed your driver version 11.7.
so I tell you, change to "DriverVer=10/26/2010, 8.791.0.0000".
if change it you may delete 10.11's inf file.

Hi blackwing,
I think I should ask this, before I get into trouble ... :blushing:


... download ati1011w2k.zip and ati1107w2k.cab.
and copy ati1107w2k.cab's inf file to the folder which you extracted ati1011w2k.zip.


There are two .inf files in ati1107w2k.cab. May I assume you're only talking about copying the one named CX121826.inf -- and I should ignore the other (named AtihdXP3.inf)?

Once the correct .inf file is copied from the expanded ati1107w2k into the expanded ati1011w2k folder, I now have two .inf files there, both beginning with CX. I will change the DriverVer of the one I copied from ati1107w2k, correct?

But now this leaves the other file, CX107884.inf, that was originally in ati1011w2k (and was not edited, as was the other one that was brought into the folder). Was it your intention that this one should be deleted, or allowed to remain?

My concern is that if two CX*.inf files remain in the folder I'll be using for the installation, I don't want Windows to accidentally go after the wrong one. Or, for some reason I don't understand, would this be impossible, so I should not be concerned, and just leave both these files where they are?

... and change to the inf file's Driver version following.
DriverVer=10/26/2010, 8.791.0.0000
and try to use ati1011w2k.

This would (of course?) be the CX*.inf that I brought in, from the other folder, and not the one that was already there -- assuming I haven't deleted it, depending upon what you've said, above. Just double-checking here, to make sure, that I am not getting confused.

Good luck.

:) Thanks!


+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
BlackWingCat =^^=
http://blog.livedoor.jp/blackwingcat/
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

#40
RonCam

RonCam

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 23 posts
  • Joined 26-October 08
Hi blackwingcat,
Thanks for your patience! The last time I worked with the ATi drivers was some years ago when I installed Windows 2000, and by now I have completely forgotten what I did, and I know you have all these details fresh in your mind. So then, to summarize the only two questions that remained after reading your directions and then looking at the files:

[after you bring the other .inf into the folder and edit] it you may [then] delete 10.11's [original] inf file.

I trust my [edits] preserve the meaning of the original?

Thanks for this, and I did suspect having two CX*.inf files in one folder could be a problem. But, because you are the expert on this, I thought I would ask to make sure. Since their filenames are different, bringing the new one into the folder would not automatically overwrite the old. So then, the 'unedited' CX*.inf file should be deleted.

There are two .inf files in ati1107w2k.cab. May I assume you're only talking about copying the one named CX121826.inf -- and I should ignore the other (named AtihdXP3.inf)?

I think it is safe to assume, I should leave any and all Ati*.inf files as they are, not touch them, and all your instruction to copy and edit 'the.inf file' refers only to the CX*.inf file.

:) Thanks again, and unless you see something wrong with how I summarized your reply, then everything is clear and I can make the changes without error.

#41
RonCam

RonCam

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 23 posts
  • Joined 26-October 08
Thanks, blackwingcat, for your good work! I am writing this update from Windows 2000 Professional, using the ASUS EAH5450 SILENT. The periodic driver crashes (in both Windows 2000 and Windows 7) that were plaguing the old Sapphire Radeon ATi X300 are gone now, in both operating systems. And, yes, I had recapped the old board, with little or no improvement.

For other users following this thread, I would like to report that I loaded and am successfully running ati11-07w2k.

I tried ati1011w2k (edited) and got two missing file errors during installation, went ahead anyway, and wound up with a driver that crashed immediately during boot. On the second time, I found the first missing file in a folder one level down, and the other in a folder in the ati11-07w2k subdirectory (from the other version). I was able to direct the installer to these files so it accepted them (these were ati2mtag.sy_ and ativvamv.dl_) and then completed without error.

Now there was no crash upon booting the OS but when the Desktop loaded, it looked like this: Attached File  Desktop-edited ATi10-11.png   145.49KB   3 downloads

It was then that I turned to ati11-07w2k, which loaded without errors, allowed the OS to boot without a crash, and then produced a normal Desktop. I am curious as to how ati1011w2k might have been better, or would there have been some advantage I have yet to realize?

For others who are using blackwingcat's drivers without success (I saw a few posts in that category) it may not be the driver but a defective installation. It took a few tries until I figured out how to do it successfully.

Put the card in the slot and boot. Windows will make the card (marginally) functional with the default VGA driver. Open the Device Manager and you will see two entries with yellow exclamation points, or perhaps question marks. One will be for the video card, the other for the high-definition audio function on the card.

Go into the Properties of one of these and click the option to Change the driver. After a few self-obvious steps, will be taken to a wizard that allows you to browse to blackwingcat's files. If you are working with the video driver, you'll want to select the CX*.inf file, and install. Now one of the error indicators in the Device Manager will have disappeared. In this case, the one that remains will be for the HD Audio. Follow the same procedure, but this time select the ATi*.inf file, and install. Now both yellow error indicators in the Device Manager should be gone.

Not sure if for basic purposes the HD Audio is needed, but if you install it the next time you open the Device Manager, you don't have to remember why there are yellow question marks and exclamation points in the listing.

Let the system reboot and, at least with my second attempt, using the earlier version driver, Windows went directly to a normal Desktop.

With MS Windows there are often multiple ways of getting to the same point, but this is one way. With other variations, I would be hitting the 'Browse' button and nothing would happen, and the preset options were locked to G:\, G: and D: and could not be changed. With the method described, everything worked fine.

Edited by RonCam, 05 February 2012 - 05:13 PM.


#42
DJGM1974

DJGM1974
  • Member
  • 2 posts
  • Joined 11-December 10
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
I have to ask those of you still using Windows 2000 ... why use an obsolete OS that's no longer supported by anyone,
and no longer receives any security updates from Microsoft? If you're using an older machine that cannot handle a
modern OS like Windows 7, at the very least you should upgrade your PC to Windows XP, since it still has a little
over 2 years of security updates support before that too joins Windows 2000 as an officially obsolete OS.

Don't get me wrong here ... Windows 2000 was a fantastic OS in it's time, but the time to move on is long overdue.
Security updates ended over 18 months ago, so you are running an OS which is now dangerously insecure,
with perhaps literally hundreds of security vulnerabilities that will NEVER be patched. Connecting a PC to the
internet running such an obsolete OS is the tech equivalent of skinny dipping in the Florida Everglades!


#43
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,528 posts
  • Joined 27-November 10
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
Each person may have different reasons for using Windows 2000 :whistle:

1. In case of older hardware upgrading to XP doesn't make sense as there are only 2 years of support left and buying XP now wouldn't be a very clever choice. Theoretically you could buy Windows 7 Professional and downgrade it to XP but it's not cheap ($200).

2. As for security, most of XP's updates have already been ported to Win2k so the known security holes are fixed.

3. Many applications still support this system and many others work fine even though they are officially compatible only with Windows XP or higher. Additionally, many normally incompatible programs work too if you've got the unofficial kernel installed (WB or BWC), ex. Office 2007. For others you can use KDW. Of course not everything works so it all depends what you use your computer for. I don't see any problem with using Win2k as office/Internet machine.

4. Windows 2000 is the last M$ desktop operating system targeted specifically to professional/business users so it doesn't have any useless eye candy and other features for extreme beginners (WinXP's search dog comes to my mind... :lol:). Its interface is clear and simple, and also very light compared to newer Windows OSes, especially NT 6.x. Of course you could strip XP down to minimum and remove all unnecessary components but why do it if Win2k doesn't have them at all? I personally hate the extreme fattiness of Windows NT 6.x. I've got a system partition of 12 GB and still 8 GB is left free. RAM usage of my customised installation is also very low (50~60 MB after fresh installation). It wouldn't be possible with any newer Windows :no: Of course you may say that HDDs are bigger and cheaper then before, RAM is also cheaper, etc. but fast HDDs (at least something like WD Raptor) or SSDs are quite expensive and using only a few GB of them for OS is much better then 20~30 GB. RAM also has better usage then just being the "system memory".

post-47483-1123010975.png


#44
RonCam

RonCam

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 23 posts
  • Joined 26-October 08
:thumbup Compliments to tomasz86 whose suggestion at the Guru3D.com forum -- was the only one that worked. That thread begins with my reasons for wanting Windows 2000 Professional to continue working on my system.

You gave a very good reply to the post that changed the thread's Subject. Regarding the lack of updates, it's almost a relief not to worry whether or not anything will 'break' after each Patch Tuesday passes. That was traditionally my reminder to image the OS partition, before the 'updates' went in.

On my system, Windows 2000 has been protected, ever since its installation, by running -- anything and everything -- that touches the Internet sandboxed, and the most the antivirus has ever found in Windows 2000 have been occasional false positives in my older utilities. There has been no noticeable change in this behavior in this since the updates from Microsoft stopped ...

Even now, I am reluctant to run the Windows 7 installation in any other way, given how clean Windows 2000 is, and has remained, since installation. Otherwise, there is no resistance to attacks and vulnerabilities, during the discovery period before the antivirus updates and Windows patches are issued.

I should hope that a 'bare' Windows 7 installation, with nothing more than antivirus and a tight firewall, would have a bit more innate protection than a 'bare' Windows 2000 installation, with the same basic protection. After all, there should be, given the cost of a new operating system -- and the number of years of additional development, there should have been some improvement in the OS's innate security. However, in the real world, I wonder what order of magnitude this really is, provided sandboxing is being used on both systems.

So, the absence of new security patches for Windows 2000 is not so high on my list of worries. I think the greater problem over time is that new software, including (most) firewall and antivirus utilities, will not be tested on Windows 2000, leaving the debugging chore up to the user. 'Sandboxing' offers great protection, but at least in the way I use it, it won't replace all other security layers ... assuming one wants to connect to the Internet.

:blushing: I apologize to blackwingcat for contributing to pulling the thread he started, so far off topic. My problem has had so many posts, and has been resolved, so I hope anyone needing help with the BWC drivers would be starting a new thread, anyway ...

Edited by RonCam, 05 February 2012 - 01:43 PM.


#45
DJGM1974

DJGM1974
  • Member
  • 2 posts
  • Joined 11-December 10
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
Some sound arguments, and of course sandboxing any internet apps is always a good idea on an officially obsolete OS.

However, I would not be entirely comfortable installing unofficial updates that have been reversed engineered from official
updates designed for Windows XP, no matter how stable they might be. Has whoever backported XP updates for Win2K,
been given any authorisation from Microsoft to do this? I would guess MS might be turning a blind eye to this if they're
already aware of it, but nothing can stop them changing their minds and issuing cease and desist letters against it.

Ultimately, if MS hasn't authorised these unofficial updates for Windows 2000 from reverse engineered code, they have
every right to put a stop to them. It is proprietary code that they still retain full ownership over, even if it is providing an
unofficial security blanket for an OS they no longer officially support since July 2010.

Official updates may indeed, in a small number of cases, cause unexpected breakages to old versions of Windows
that are still supported such as XP, so I would have thought unofficial updates for an OS that's no longer officially
supported would carry an even greater risk of system breakage or instability.

Assuming Microsoft continue to turn a blind eye to the unofficial Win2K updates with reverese engineered XP updates
what happens in a little over 2 years from now when XP is no longer supported by Microsoft for any security updates?
How will those of you still running Win2K manage by then? Assuming some of you Win2K die-hards out there are
still against the idea of moving up to Win7 or even 8, are you going to migrate to Linux or Mac OS X?

Edited by DJGM1974, 05 February 2012 - 03:57 PM.


#46
blackwingcat

blackwingcat

    Friend of MSFN

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 797 posts
  • Joined 31-May 08
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag
Hi.
It is wrong.(and dangerous)
there are these two files in ati1011w2k.
You had only better to select the target folder "ati1011w2k\B107327".

I tried ati1011w2k (edited) and got two missing file errors during installation, went ahead anyway, and wound up with a driver that crashed immediately during boot. On the second time, I found the first missing file in a folder one level down, and the other in a folder in the ati11-07w2k subdirectory (from the other version). I was able to direct the installer to these files so it accepted them (these were ati2mtag.sy_ and ativvamv.dl_) and then completed without error.


Additional, HD Audio Driver perhaps requires KB888111.
You must install it. :)

Edited by blackwingcat, 07 February 2012 - 12:16 AM.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
BlackWingCat =^^=
http://blog.livedoor.jp/blackwingcat/
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

#47
RonCam

RonCam

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 23 posts
  • Joined 26-October 08
Hi blackwingcat,
Sorry, I do not understand. What is wrong and dangerous? What you quoted below?

It is wrong.(and dangerous)
...


I tried ati1011w2k (edited [according to BWC's directions]) and got two missing file errors during installation, went ahead anyway, and wound up with a driver that crashed immediately during boot. On the second time, I found the first missing file in a folder one level down, and the other in a folder in the ati11-07w2k subdirectory (from the other version). I was able to direct the installer to these files so it accepted them (these were ati2mtag.sy_ and ativvamv.dl_) and then completed without error.

...

Or, what immediately followed the section you quoted?

It was then that I turned to ati11-07w2k, which loaded without errors, allowed the OS to boot without a crash, and then produced a normal Desktop.

It is the second quote from the same post that describes how Windows 2000 is presently running with the new graphics card.

I only tried to install the ati1011w2k (edited) driver twice, and after noting the Desktop display (see image in original post) I thought it would be a good idea to go to a different and unmodified (by me) BWC driver, to see what would happen.

Incidentally, unlike the previous attempt, I was not presented with a blank 'Models' box during driver installation, so the earlier problem did not arise.

In other words: the ASUS EAH5450 SILENT graphics card is now installed, and is working equally well, whether I boot into Windows 2000 Professional or Windows 7 Professional.

In Windows 2000, all graphics functions are normal, just as with the X300 card, except that the periodic system crashes are gone. The GPU temperature for the EAH5450 in Windows 2000 does not exceed 51ºC, and is occasionally less.

Did you mean to say there could still be some problem in Windows 2000, that could cause 'damage'?

Edited by RonCam, 08 February 2012 - 05:46 AM.


#48
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,528 posts
  • Joined 27-November 10
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
RonCam, could you run a GPU benchmark (maybe 3DMark06?) under both systems and compare the results? I think it may be interesting :)

I'm not sure if '06 works in Win2k... If not then maybe '05 or '2003?

Edited by tomasz86, 08 February 2012 - 05:30 AM.

post-47483-1123010975.png


#49
RonCam

RonCam

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 23 posts
  • Joined 26-October 08

... could you run a GPU benchmark (maybe 3DMark06?) under both systems [Windows 2000 and Windows7 Professional] and compare the results?

Yes, will give that a try and edit to insert the results.

I think it will have to be 05 -- the system requirements for 06 are not disclosed in plain text -- the link for this instead takes you to a screen where you are asked to run a "Game-O-Meter" -- which fails to run.

#50
tomasz86

tomasz86

    www.windows2000.tk

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,528 posts
  • Joined 27-November 10
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
3DMark06 runs here but it may be because I'm using some XP's dlls instead of the 2K's ones. Running it on my computer is quite pointless though as I've only got integrated GeForce 7025 anyway ;)

post-47483-1123010975.png





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users