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

AMD APU graphics drivers for Windows 2000?

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1
AnX

AnX

    ...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 153 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

I'd like to know if there are unofficial drivers for the APU graphics for Win2k. If not, can somebody make them? Thanks.




How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#2
tramtrist

tramtrist

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 49 posts
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag

This is the same issue I have.  The APU is not supported under any driver.  A6-6400k here.  HD8470D

As these processors merge with GPUs we're going to have a lot less win2k choices if there is never a driver available :(



#3
AnX

AnX

    ...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 153 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

We can still use dedicated cards in out systems..



#4
Phenomic

Phenomic

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 269 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I've tried,  there is no Win2k graphics driver for AMD APUs  or Intel z77 or any CPU with embedded video hardware.



#5
tramtrist

tramtrist

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 49 posts
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag

If you're not planning to do any 3D accel or play any games you can use the universal svga driver Here

Sucks but at least you can get out of 640x480..


Edited by tramtrist, 04 August 2013 - 09:43 AM.


#6
Phenomic

Phenomic

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 269 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

If you're not planning to do any 3D accel or play any games you can use the universal svga driver Here

Sucks but at least you can get out of 640x480..

640x480?!  There's no need to go back to the 1980s, you can use the latest AMD 8-core CPUs and NVIDIA video including USB 3.0.


Edited by Phenomic, 04 August 2013 - 09:53 AM.


#7
tramtrist

tramtrist

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 49 posts
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag

Ya I'd just have to return all the hardware I just bought :P

 

I'm running mini-itx with no room for a discreet card (on purpose)  

I'll just keep waiting til someone *COUGH* BWC *COUGH* can perform another miracle for us



#8
tramtrist

tramtrist

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 49 posts
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag

Has anyone tried the new BWC AMD driver he posted in November for this problem?  I'm looking at you Phenomic and ANX http://w2k.flxsrv.or...=amd1304w2k.cab



#9
tramtrist

tramtrist

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 49 posts
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag

BWC you're the best!  I loaded up the new drivers on my A6-6400K and they worked great!  I can finally use this system the way I intended with Win2k and without an NVIDIA card :D

 

ほんとにどうもありがとうございました!!



#10
blackwingcat

blackwingcat

    Friend of MSFN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag

But I use nVIDIA GTX780Ti on my Windows 2000 :)

 

AMD HD 5xxx, 6xxx, 7xxx, 8xxx and 9xxx make the screen white out, when you use video helper function (some games use it for example opening ).


Edited by blackwingcat, 06 January 2014 - 02:40 AM.


#11
RacerBG

RacerBG

    Junior

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 58 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Im having trouble for both Windows 98 and Windows 2000 because of my graphics card ATI Radeon X1200. The first AMD Catalyst which supports it is for Windows XP - version 7.6. Windows 98 SE is blocked to version 6.2 and Windows 2000 SP4 is blocked to version 6.5.

 

Im generally upset. :(



#12
blackwingcat

blackwingcat

    Friend of MSFN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag

Im having trouble for both Windows 98 and Windows 2000 because of my graphics card ATI Radeon X1200. The first AMD Catalyst which supports it is for Windows XP - version 7.6. Windows 98 SE is blocked to version 6.2 and Windows 2000 SP4 is blocked to version 6.5.

 

Im generally upset. :(

 

You can use Legacy ATI Driver 10.2 for Windows  2000 from on my blog.

http://blog.livedoor...ves/967121.html



#13
RacerBG

RacerBG

    Junior

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 58 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

 

Im having trouble for both Windows 98 and Windows 2000 because of my graphics card ATI Radeon X1200. The first AMD Catalyst which supports it is for Windows XP - version 7.6. Windows 98 SE is blocked to version 6.2 and Windows 2000 SP4 is blocked to version 6.5.

 

Im generally upset. :(

 

You can use Legacy ATI Driver 10.2 for Windows  2000 from on my blog.

http://blog.livedoor...ves/967121.html

 

 

 

I want to thank you for this! :) But looks like i installed it not where i want it and then BSOD appeared. Anyway thanks for the help.



#14
blackwingcat

blackwingcat

    Friend of MSFN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts
  • OS:Windows 2000 Professional
  • Country: Country Flag

I want to thank you for this! :) But looks like i installed it not where i want it and then BSOD appeared. Anyway thanks for the help.

 

Hi.

 

Did you apply all windows update ?

Plz Check sys file with dependency walker.



#15
RacerBG

RacerBG

    Junior

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 58 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

 


I want to thank you for this! :) But looks like i installed it not where i want it and then BSOD appeared. Anyway thanks for the help.

 

Hi.

 

Did you apply all windows update ?

Plz Check sys file with dependency walker.

 

 

No, I'm avoiding Windows Update.



#16
bphlpt

bphlpt

    MSFN Addict

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,629 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

@RacerBG, I understand you are avoiding Windows update and you feel that SP's are the only updates worth installing, but unless you are content with only using hardware and software that was officially supported by the OS+SP, you might have to change your stance.  You can't be upset and complain when something doesn't work when there have been updates that fix issues which you refuse to apply, or when other software depends on those updates being in place.

 

Cheers and Regards



#17
RacerBG

RacerBG

    Junior

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 58 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

@RacerBG, I understand you are avoiding Windows update and you feel that SP's are the only updates worth installing, but unless you are content with only using hardware and software that was officially supported by the OS+SP, you might have to change your stance.  You can't be upset and complain when something doesn't work when there have been updates that fix issues which you refuse to apply, or when other software depends on those updates being in place.

 

Cheers and Regards

 

Well to be honest if this is my only choice then I give up my "strategy" at least for Windows 2000. I will take a look at SP 5.2 later on and try again my luck.



#18
submix8c

submix8c

    Inconceivable!

  • Patrons
  • 3,879 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

@RacerBG - please don't complain if you don't follow the prerequisites. I honestly don't understand your aversions to a Fully Updated Windows 9x/NT/2K/Vista/7 OS. :unsure: You've repeated this in multiple places. Please note that many fixes are specifically for preventing something from "breaking" in addition to simple security updates.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users



How to remove advertisement from MSFN