Ati Rage Fury Maxx=stuck with Windows 98

[GrimReepr]

I currently have the ATI Rage Fury MAXX which is a 64meg version of a rage fury, as it has dual 32meg rage128 chips. This video card works fine for all the games right now, but I am stuck with windows98. Why is this? ATI, the retards that they are, neglected to make XP or 2000 drivers.... isn't that FANTASTIC! XP has built in 2D drivers, but that does me no good cuz they do not support opengl or dvd features.

Anyone else know a solution to this? I am poor and can't buy a new video card. Thanks for the help in advance!

 

[Rand]

ATi announced that the Rage Fury Maxx's dual core implementation was incompatible with the NT core, and was incapable of 3D hardware acceleration under WinNT/Win2k. It was simply a hardware design flaw, so if you want 3D acceleration your stuck with 9X.
ATi tried for months and months to get the Maxx properly working under Win2k... as you can see it didnt work out.
They offered a trade-in/refund for MAXX owners at one point in time, after it was revealed that they were unable to support NT4/Win2k.

I believe there are some hacked drivers available for Win2k/XP that will effectively disable one of the Rage 128Pro chips onboard, and force it to act as a typical Rage 128 Pro card. You'd definitely take a performance hit but you'd be able to utilize the 3D capabilities that way.

Where you would be able to obtain such hacked drivers I'm not sure though... perhaps someone else knows?

 

[GrimReepr]

bump

 

[spanky]

all your ati answers are here

 

[Boobers]

Try Rage Underground
If they don't know, nobody does...

IMHO, you're SOL, as the NT kernal won't deal properly with multi-processor vid cards...

 

[Rand]

<<
IMHO, you're SOL, as the NT kernal won't deal properly with multi-processor vid cards... >>



More appropriately it won't deal properly with ATi's implementation. There are many alternative implementations from various manufacturers that work perfectly.

 

[Boobers]

Let me rephrase: The NT kernal won't deal properly with the AGP bridge that ATI (and many others) use with their multi-processor vid cards...

 

[The_Lurker]

<<

<<
IMHO, you're SOL, as the NT kernal won't deal properly with multi-processor vid cards... >>



More appropriately it won't deal properly with ATi's implementation. There are many alternative implementations from various manufacturers that work perfectly. >>



Yup... Perfect example would be the Voodoo 5's with their dual VSA-100's.

 

[Rand]

<<

<<

<<
IMHO, you're SOL, as the NT kernal won't deal properly with multi-processor vid cards... >>



More appropriately it won't deal properly with ATi's implementation. There are many alternative implementations from various manufacturers that work perfectly. >>



Yup... Perfect example would be the Voodoo 5's with their dual VSA-100's. >>



WinNT4, WinNT 3.51, and Windows 2000 all deal perfectly well with the V5 5500.
Only WindowsXP has issues, and that's mostly due to 3dfx dying before WinXP was officially released.
Judging by the fact that third party developers have managed to create reasonably decent drivers for the V5 under WinXP I think it quite safe to say that 3dfx would have been able to do so had they lived on.

I see little reason to say that the VSA-100 had any issues with the NT kernel, definitely not anywhere akin to that of the dual Rage 128Pro's on the MAXX.

 

[GrimReepr]

Thanks for all you help folks, I can make it a 32meg rage fury for xp, but I will just sell it and buy like a 64meg mx400 or something GF2. Thanks again guys!

 

[DClark]

I think the problem with regards to the Maxx and Win2000/XP is more that one of the cores acts as an AGP card while the second acts as a PCI card; with the V5, both cores acted as if they were PCI cards. But that's beside the point of why I'm posting.

I'm posting because Win98 is still a perfectly acceptable OS, and not something you're "stuck with". I intend to stay with Win98 until they pry it from my cold, dead, hard drive (or stop making games for Win9x/Me, whichever comes first ). It's inobtrusive, simple, and fine so long as you don't need to (efficiently) use over 512mb of ram. Is there a particular reason as to why you think you need to change to WinXP?

 

[Boobers]

I second that, DClark. There is nothing wrong with running Win98SE, and it is a great gaming OS.