[RonCam]

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:  Desktop-edited ATi10-11.png (145.49K)
Number of downloads: 1

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.

This post has been edited by RonCam: 05 February 2012 - 05:13 PM

[DJGM1974]

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!

[tomasz86]

Each person may have different reasons for using Windows 2000

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... ). 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 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".

[RonCam]

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.

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 ...

This post has been edited by RonCam: 05 February 2012 - 01:43 PM

[DJGM1974]

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?

This post has been edited by DJGM1974: 05 February 2012 - 03:57 PM

[blackwingcat]

Hi.
It is wrong.(and dangerous)
there are these two files in ati1011w2k.
You had only better to select the target folder "ati1011w2k\B107327".

RonCam, on 04 February 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:

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.

This post has been edited by blackwingcat: 07 February 2012 - 12:16 AM

[RonCam]

Hi blackwingcat,
Sorry, I do not understand. What is wrong and dangerous? What you quoted below?

blackwingcat, on 07 February 2012 - 12:16 AM, said:

It is wrong.(and dangerous)
...

RonCam, on 04 February 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:

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?

Quote

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'?

This post has been edited by RonCam: 08 February 2012 - 05:46 AM

[tomasz86]

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?

This post has been edited by tomasz86: 08 February 2012 - 05:30 AM

[RonCam]

tomasz86, on 08 February 2012 - 05:28 AM, said:

... 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.

[tomasz86]

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

[blackwingcat]

Hi.

It was sound like when you used ATI Driver version 10.11, you could not found ati2mtag.sy_ and ativvamv.dl_ and you copy from 11.7 driver..

Is it miss understand for me ?
If it is so, you must use 10.11 folder's file, because these file exists in folder.

Additional.
If you have installed .Net 2.0SP2 in your PC
Please use the Calalist Control Center and change manually the GPU Fan Speed about 40%.
Then the GPU temperature will go down about 40 C degree.

RonCam, on 08 February 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Hi blackwingcat,
Sorry, I do not understand. What is wrong and dangerous? What you quoted below?

blackwingcat, on 07 February 2012 - 12:16 AM, said:

It is wrong.(and dangerous)
...

RonCam, on 04 February 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:

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?

Quote

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'?

[blackwingcat]

I bought 3DMark06 before.
And run on my PC.

Here is the article.

tomasz86, on 08 February 2012 - 05:28 AM, said:

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?

[RonCam]

RonCam, on 08 February 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

tomasz86, on 08 February 2012 - 05:28 AM, said:

... could you run a GPU benchmark ...

Yes, will give that a try ... .

I think I should try to understand blackwingcat's remarks about the driver I'm running in Windows 2000, before running a GPU benchmark. He said the driver I now am running may be 'wrong and dangerous' so I should correct this before doing anything that could stress the GPU. Don't want to blow out the card ...

I will have to review what I installed to may sure there are no typos in my posts. Also, I will have to look for Windows 2000 system information to confirm exactly what I did install. I would hope the installed version number should be visible ... somewhere.

This post has been edited by RonCam: 09 February 2012 - 08:52 AM

[RonCam]

Hi, blackwingcat,

blackwingcat, on 08 February 2012 - 11:53 PM, said:

It was sound like when you used ATI Driver version 10.11, you could not found ati2mtag.sy_ and ativvamv.dl_ and you copy from 11.7 driver..

... change manually the GPU Fan Speed about 40%. Then the GPU temperature will go down about 40 C degree.
...

On the first point, you are saying that I could not have found the files I mentioned, if I had the right driver version ... so let me check again to see if I have the downloads mislabeled.

On the second point, the EAH5450 SILENT has no fan ... I should do a search to see what the acceptable range of temperatures is, for this board.

[blackwingcat]

Well, I know.
I think perhaps the Driver manager only missfound the driver current directory.
So I said , you had better select the driver folder again.

RonCam, on 09 February 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

On the first point, you are saying that I could not have found the files I mentioned, if I had the right driver version ... so let me check again to see if I have the downloads mislabeled.

[zimon]

I have ATI HD 3450 PCIe - video card and Windows 2000 Pro SP4. The old ATI V3100 video card got broken, so I`d need to get this combination working. Cannot either upgrade to XP due to software license issues (3rd party).

I´ve tried to get that video card working with these backward (from Windows XP to Windows 2000) ported drivers. No luck.

With v 8.10, it says "Error code 31" in the device manager. ("depended drivers missing")

http://blog.livedoor...ves/571484.html
For v8.12, v9.2, v9.4, v9.8, v9.11, v10.2, v10.7, v10.10, v11.7; ALL which I`ve tried, the machine just gets BSOD when it boots the first time after installing some of those drivers. Next time the w2k-machine boots in VGA-mode and says it has found a new PCI device (the video card) and would want to install the driver for it.

In ntbtlog.txt I see it always says "ati2mtag.sys is not loaded".
ati2mtag.sys is "ATI Radeon WindowsNT Miniport Driver", says filemanager properties.

How to debug this issue further and maybe get the driver working?

I guess some drivers which backported ATI driver depends on, is missing.
How to know what is missing? I think the "boot with logging on" doesn't quite work either. It seems to tell about the recovery boot after the failed one and not the failed one.

This post has been edited by zimon: 16 April 2012 - 09:20 AM

[AndyA]

Hi, zimon,

Quote

the machine just gets BSOD when it boots the first time after installing some of those drivers

This happened to me, too, until I visited Windows Update and installed all the hotfixes available (Update Rollup v2, included) for Windows 2000.

Now, the BWC drivers install without any BSOD's on reboot.

regards, AndyA

[AndyA]

Hi, blackwingcat,

Thanks for your outstanding effort to keep W2K alive.

I am trying to install drivers for an ATI HD4350 PCIe, (VEN_1002&DEV_954F) connected to an LCD via the DVI connector under W2K (fully patched).

I've tried most of your drivers, without success.

The drivers install without any obvious errors, but if I try to change screen resolution or color quality, the monitor goes black. On reboot, W2K reverts to the default VGA driver and complains that the driver that was just installed has been disabled because it's for a previous Windows version.

Do you have any suggestions to get one of the driver packages to install correctly?

regards, AndyA

[blackwingcat]

It usually occurs when you install wrong driver at first .

Can you find your VGA Device ID ?

VEN_XXXX&DEV_XXXX

RonCam, on 14 January 2012 - 06:09 AM, said:

Hi blackwingcat, hope you are still watiching the thread. I have not seen this question answered earlier.

I have expanded your driver file ati5k2k1.zip, hoping to run an ASUS EAH5450 SILENT PCIE2. I first followed instructions from elsewhere on the 'net to completely clean my system of the old (Sapphire Radeon X300) ATI driver/software remnants.

My system is Windows 2000 Professional SP4+.

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.

What can I do to complete the installation of your driver? I feel I am so close, yet so far ...

Thanks for your driver and for your help.

[AndyA]

Hi, blackwingcat,

I can confirm that your driver version 12.4(AGP+HDMI) dated 2012-6-24 does work correctly for the ATI HD4350 PCIe, (VEN_1002&DEV_954F). Previous driver versions may also work correctly, but this was not tested.

Quote

The drivers install without any obvious errors, but if I try to change screen resolution or color quality, the monitor goes black.

I found the cause of this problem. The black screen was due to connection of the HDMI port to a HD TV. If both the DVI and HDMI cables are connected, all ATI drivers (even the production versions) appear to default to the HDMI connection at some point after a fresh driver install. The solution is to install the driver, reboot to a black screen, disconnect the HDMI cable, allow the monitor to be detected, and then reconnect the HDMI cable. The monitor should be correctly detected thereafter.

Note that the default audio device may be set to HDMI rear output and may need to be reset to the speakers connected to the motherboard sound card.

Thanks to your drivers, I can now use my W2K install with video drivers that provide appropriate screen resolution.

regards, AndyA