POST A COMMENT

51 Comments

Back to Article

  • Bluefront - Monday, September 06, 2004 - link

    So is this new control panel of any use to a non-gamer? Will it have any benefits to people who use AIW cards for their multi-media capabilities? Reply
  • bobbenedetti - Sunday, September 05, 2004 - link

    On my computer with Windows XP SP2 CCC stumbles through half a dozen errors on startup delaying startup of my antivirus and messenger.
    Way too much overhead for what it does.

    I deleted it.
    Reply
  • HermosaBeach - Sunday, September 05, 2004 - link

    Questsion - I downloaded the new full package (driver and new CCC) on Sept 3. It was 42 MB. I then uninstalled my old 4.8 with the old control panel, rebotted, and then installed the new one. My control panel still looks like the old one ? Is there something I have to do to get the control panel to switch to the new looking skin ? I would like to try out the anti-aliasing and AF demo.

    Dave
    Reply
  • Reflex - Saturday, September 04, 2004 - link

    val - I have serious difficulty believing your claims. Nearly every programmer I know would laugh silly at what your saying. Yes there is a place for ASM, however there is also a reason we developed higher level languages.

    As for the 'driver' taking up more memory...well, who cares if it does not impact performance in any way, shape, or form, which is my point. Memory management means more than memory footprint these days. Its part of the point of .NET. You can go on about how its not asthetically pleasing to you to see a driver taking up so much, but when it comes down to it, its an argument of what you 'like' rather than any valid complaint about the driver or its performance impact on your system.
    Reply
  • val - Saturday, September 04, 2004 - link

    last but not least, little more time you spend will save lot of time of all users of your applications. Reply
  • val - Saturday, September 04, 2004 - link

    And to your examples, i am not student anymore, i must not write again what was already written. But thinking in ASM makes you better programmer. Not like you see in many C codes, where many users are not thinking about how each function will take long time to execute (for example usage of timer related code or string related code in many games in main thread, no use for binary search where it is possible, no use of hash search where it helps,...).
    Valerie
    Reply
  • val - Saturday, September 04, 2004 - link

    JarredWalton: i am ASM programmer, and trust me or not it takes no longer time. I do not write whole program in ASM, but nearly all executive functions. In fact, the programming of alghoritms is not easier in C/C++ because functions are more or less same. Many functions you have not in C at all or it is too complicated to use (SSE,...). C is easier for OS related code, and so on.
    For example I wrote SD card reading/writing for PIC whole in ASM, you cannot do it faster in C, only searching and installing compiler will take you longer. Same with my other projects. Just write the frame in C, executive functions in ASM. What C have what ASM not?
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Saturday, September 04, 2004 - link

    "assembly code is not about to debug ten years, it is about to write code for same time but write it good."

    That sounds like something a person who has never written assembly would say. My ASM experience amounts to one class. The final project was a stinking bubble sort algorithm! Sort 10000 integers using a bubble sort. God, I could write that up in C in about an hour, probably less.

    Well, that simple project took roughly two weeks of my life, and I was probably the best ASM programmer in the class. Half of my time in the computer lab was spent helping other people figure out why the hell their computer kept crashing every time they ran their code. (Ah, the joys of the old Mac OS with no protected memory....)

    If you still don't get it, read that again. A BUBBLE SORT algorithm took two weeks to write in assembly! Granted, I was a programming neophyte back then, but I doubt anyone could write and debug an ASM routine to do a bubble sort in less than a day (without copying/reusing existing code).

    Sure, it was fast when it was done, but I could have written a quick sort algorithm in C in less time that would have been much faster due to the use of a better algorithm. If you think writing a bubble sort in ASM would be hard, try writing a quick sort....
    Reply
  • val - Saturday, September 04, 2004 - link

    Reflex: i agree with you and i will not complain about usage of game, office or photoshop, but drivers?! Resident services and applications must be small! Reply
  • val - Saturday, September 04, 2004 - link

    assembly code is not about to debug ten years, it is about to write code for same time but write it good.
    And memory usage hurts performance, because many applications are checking how much memory is available before they will alocate it. And i do not like swapping.
    Reply
  • Reflex - Saturday, September 04, 2004 - link

    Honestly, the people who bitch about this are the ones who have no clue how to code anyways. They see bigger numbers and assume thats bad, rather than make any attempt to figure out how memory is managed these days and whether or not a large memory footprint is a real issue in a given situation.

    Learn about .NET and other programming tools and perhaps you'll be qualified to make statements about program sizes. As it stands now the mentality is that 'bigger memory footprint = bad' when the real question is how that memory is managed, not how much is used.
    Reply
  • Reflex - Saturday, September 04, 2004 - link

    Hear hear! Reply
  • JarredWalton - Saturday, September 04, 2004 - link

    With all this talk of programming and such, maybe some of the people should stop and think about things a little more. How much memory (in textures) does that little OpenGL application use? That could conceivably be a decent chunk of the size and RAM usage when the control panel is open. Depending on how the textures are stored (BMP or TAR vs. JPG), the 3D preview application could also be a decent chunk of the overall download.

    As far as programmers being "lazy", it has nothing to do with that. How did programmers get good results with 256K of RAM? Well, they scapped graphical interfaces and wrote in assembly code. We need to stop being such lazy people and driving around in cars and using microwaves! We should walk everywhere and cook over a campfire! Part of the reason we now see more intuitive UI design is because programmers have gone beyond assembly coding.

    Yes, assembly is still faster, but what would you rather have: Doom 3 in its current incarnation, or Doom 3 that runs twice as fast, with a release date some time around 2015? By 2010, computers will be fast enough that it wouldn't matter if you had the "slower" version of Doom 3 (or pick any other complex game). And if you can code a super-complex engine like Doom 3 and get it debugged and tested using pure assembly before 2015, why aren't you off "building a better mouse trap" instead of complaining about CCC? You could make good money if you have such l33t programming skillz!
    Reply
  • Reflex - Friday, September 03, 2004 - link

    The 70MB does NOT hurt performance in any way. It is seamlessly swapped out of physical memory as other programs need that space, and as a result there is zero performance hit. The complaints about sloppy coding are also rediculous. We do not know what is being done that takes that much memory, but my guess is that a lot of it is .NET overhead that you will have with any .NET application. Likely individual .NET apps will not take up that much space, however their is a certain amount that needs to be loaded before any .NET application can run.

    Regardless, if it causes zero performance hit in any other application, tell me why it should matter to anyone at all? Many of you are busy critiquing code that you cannot even see. Thats rediculous, I invite you to create something with similiar functionality using the tools they are using in less space and *then* you can go criticizing other's code...
    Reply
  • val - Friday, September 03, 2004 - link

    70 MB hurts any way. Far Cry and other games using full size of memory even if you have 1 GB on board. 70 MB is >7% of that size just for design of unused panel? Good developers are rare. Hope that nvidia will not go same way to catch teenager's eyes. Reply
  • DerekWilson - Friday, September 03, 2004 - link

    We've looked into the .NET thing a little more and found that the extra memory usage is manage fairly well and doesn't impact system performance in our limited analysis. If people really want it, we can run a winstone with and without the ccc and report the numbers.

    The .NET framework does not come auto installed with SP1 or SP2. The computer we tested this on had SP2 installed and I had to go to windows update and specifically install the .NET framework.

    /"Just so you all know (including whoever wrote this review), the ATI skins can be disabled and the default system skin enabled."/

    The "system skin" option is poorly done as it does not color the tab panel in a proper fashion. Check display properties, check system properties. Tabs and their associated pages should be an offwhite that is slightly lighter than the manilla background of the window. This inconsistency distracted me enough to not recognize that it was actually not a skin.
    Reply
  • val - Friday, September 03, 2004 - link

    How surprising you havent seen performance drop due to memory usage with 2 GB onboard :-).
    Anyway memory will not be unloaded, it will maybe swapped, but its decreasing performance.
    Ati is moving from performance oriented to design oriented company. What will be next?
    Reply
  • LoneWolf15 - Friday, September 03, 2004 - link

    For everyone saying that "Oh, 60-70MB of RAM is nothing", or "Get broadband you losers", you're missing the point.

    Just because you can get away with coding sloppy doesn't mean you should. I call a program that uses this much resources (disk space and RAM) to do the task of driver control settings to be a bloated hog. Give me simple and straightforward over "Gee Whiz" any day. Go back two decades and think about all the things that good programmers accomplished in such small amounts of disk space and RAM, because they HAD to. Personally, I think that programmers should program like they still have to, rather than require a bunch of huge runtime libraries and resources. I don't want funky windows with animated cars in my driver control app...I want a clear interface with labeled buttons and a good help interface for knowing what this setting or that does.

    Reply
  • vailr - Friday, September 03, 2004 - link

    I was looking for ATI to include in CCC an option to disable the two ATI startup services ("ATI Smart" and "ATI Hotkey Poller"). Instead (after Start/Run/services.msc: disabling both ATI services), you then get a popup notice, that "Since ATI Smart is not running, any settings changed in CCC will not be kept".
    So, this new CCC looks to be much bloat and no benefit whatsoever.
    Reply
  • spartacvs - Friday, September 03, 2004 - link

    Well said ProviaFan,

    Personnally, I feel sorry for peoples who say comments like "get broadband you losers". It shows how some peoples can be ignorants. Specialy when you know their boradband is more probably paid by their mummy and daddy.
    Reply
  • ProviaFan - Friday, September 03, 2004 - link

    The framework comes integrated in SP2, not SP1, IIRC. :)

    But in that case, just get MS to send you a free SP2 CD (no shipping, even), and you'll get the framework also without having to download it (that could be a problem for the people in rural areas with unreliable 21.6k dialup - I was there once, and I feel sorry for them, because they have no other options).
    Reply
  • nserra - Friday, September 03, 2004 - link

    Interesting, have money for the superb 6800 card but don’t have for a cheap 128Kb-512Kb internet access.

    THE FACTS:
    ATI 4.8 VS ATI 4.7
    Driver: 8.25MB VS 8.35MB
    Control Panel: 10.8MB VS 13.6MB
    New driver IS SMALLER.

    Control Center you are not obliged to install IT! If you don’t want it! In fact you don’t even need to install the Control Panel in order to play games.

    Nvidia good drivers are not that good now, because ati have catched up. Not because they are worst.

    And I am a .NET programmer and it rocks, so stop complying.
    And about the fact you have to install the frame work, I am not sure but I think its part of SP1, so maybe you guys already have it installed and don’t even KNOW!
    Reply
  • Reflex - Friday, September 03, 2004 - link

    #28: I only wish more people understood this concept. Its the future of programming and one of the many benefits of the .NET architecture. No longer will apps be bound by memory limitations, and system performance will not be hindered so much by multi-tasking...

    Its a good thing.
    Reply
  • Novaoblivion - Friday, September 03, 2004 - link

    As a .NET developer I know that the releasing of memory when it is needed is true. I have played around with it a lot as when I first started using .NET I was concerned about losing a lot of memory to the runtime. However it does realease the memory and I havent seen any performance problems again. Reply
  • johnsonx - Friday, September 03, 2004 - link

    /grumpy old man voice

    When I was a kid, we didn't have any gig of ram, we didn't even have a meg of ram. We had 16k of ram (that's a kilobyte of those of you under 30), and we LIKED it! We wrote interrupt service routines that fit into the unused half of a 256-byte casette tape buffer! Our floppy disks actually were floppy, and stored a mere 90k, and we LIKED it by golly!

    \end grumpy old man voice
    Reply
  • steeplerot - Friday, September 03, 2004 - link

    I would install .net if it would upgrade an ATI card to a GT. Reply
  • l3ored - Friday, September 03, 2004 - link

    it doesnt include the ability to overclock (not suprised) which would have been nice since it has radlinker-like abilities built in. anyone know if theres 3rd party sofware out there for it? Reply
  • flexy - Thursday, September 02, 2004 - link

    >>>
    the actuall downlaod of the catalyst 4.8 drivers with display driver, contral panel, catalyst control center, and capture wdm driver is only 41 megs. 26 megs with out ccc.
    >>>

    not that it bugs me (anymore) since i am on cable.

    But...seriously...noone ever think its only a bit "weird" that a device driver/control-panel now is a whopping 41MB just for the download ???? It's a f****g driver.....and after you adjust your settings (OG/D3D etc.) you USUALLY dont see a lot of the control panel anymore anyway.
    Oh...and i forgot...you need .NET

    Lol, i am coming from a generation where i had a whole OS running on 512K..and i remember tiems when a whole HD fit 40MB.

    And now we need 41MB just for ONE DRIVER <---- :)

    I know for sure that i will hold off with this control panel 'til i have my new build w/ >1Gig of Ram..IF I WILL EQUIP the new PC w/ an ATI card (oups) THAT IS..which is unlikely at the moment. (preference goes to 6800Gt right now, only R500 can save me i guess :)


    Reply
  • ProviaFan - Thursday, September 02, 2004 - link

    40MB downloads are nothing on dialup, if you plan it right. Just run it overnight, like I would have if it weren't for the DSL I got a few weeks ago.

    For those of you bitching about having to install .NET, get over it! It's basically like the next VB runtime, except slightly bigger, and for multiple languages. You'll have to install it someday, because more and more apps (including ones you _really want_) will require it (unless you're using Linux then, you're probably immune ;-).
    Reply
  • mlittl3 - Thursday, September 02, 2004 - link

    There it is done.

    From the time of my last posting, I

    1)downloaded and installed .NET 1.1
    2)downloaded ATI's CCC and Catalyst drivers 4.8
    3)uninstalled Catalyst driver 4.7 and rebooted
    4)installed the ATI's CCC and Catalyst drivers 4.8 and rebooted

    I also downloaded and installed Windows Media player 10 in that time just for sh**s and giggles (I use iTunes but I like to poke fun at microsoft by comparing the two players).

    No demonic hand burst out of my computer to rip out my heart. Everything works just fine. The only thing I noticed was that after installed the CCC and Catalyst driver 4.8 and rebooted, my resolution was changed to 1280x1024 from 1024x768. Big deal, I changed it back in 2 seconds.

    I'm sure everyone else with have a similar experience. Have fun kids.
    Reply
  • MaxisOne - Thursday, September 02, 2004 - link

    Oh WE WILL get a clue... and get a Nividia 6800GT... under NO circumstances is MS.net going on my system.. When Longhorn comes out thats a diff story but right now theres a choice and i have a radeon 9800 pro right now ... but i wont hesitate to switch when its in my interest. Reply
  • mlittl3 - Thursday, September 02, 2004 - link

    Oh, no...ATI has updated their control panel and it requires a heftier download. I thought 100 years from now I will be able to download a 5 MB file size of catalyst driver 3.0 for my ATI Radeon XXX4008000+ XT Super Duper Platinum Edition with a 56k modem (extreme sarcasm).

    Give me a break people. 50% of internet users have broadband in this country which means a 50 MB download is like 20 seconds. Every company updates their drivers and control panel to something new and guess what, Longhorn will probably have .NET built in no matter how much you hate it. Get broadband, get a clue and stop complaining.
    Reply
  • DEMO24 - Thursday, September 02, 2004 - link

    I havent figured out why the writer wants a XP skin so much. The one on the utility looks good and the XP ones are exactly beautiful. Not really sure how thats a disadvantage but alright. Reply
  • daniel1113 - Thursday, September 02, 2004 - link

    Just so you all know (including whoever wrote this review), the ATI skins can be disabled and the default system skin enabled. Reply
  • Ardan - Thursday, September 02, 2004 - link

    Oh man, this isn't required use is it?
    I'll have 1GB of RAM before I get the 9800 Pro that I want (from MSI, of course), but if this is something that they want people to use from now on, then i'm probably going to sit and wait for a 6800 later on instead.
    Reply
  • starjax - Thursday, September 02, 2004 - link

    http://ati.com/support/drivers/winxp/radeonwdm-xp....

    the actuall downlaod of the catalyst 4.8 drivers with display driver, contral panel, catalyst control center, and capture wdm driver is only 41 megs. 26 megs with out ccc. the ccc download only is 19 megs.

    Reply
  • Da3dalus - Thursday, September 02, 2004 - link

    How is the new profile management "simple and elegant"? It may be an improvement over the current control panels (almost non-existant) profile management, but it still appears overly complex and unintuitive.

    Is it even possible to use the profiles together with something like The All-Seeing Eye (my favourite server browser)?

    The nVidia way of handling application-specific profiles just seems much easier and less of a hassle to use.

    It's a nice initiative from ATI, the control panel does need updating, but the end result is disappointing :(
    Reply
  • Jeff7181 - Thursday, September 02, 2004 - link

    By the way... it can be found in the same area you normally get drivers on ATI's site. It's not worth it though... especially if you're on 56k. Reply
  • kuljc - Thursday, September 02, 2004 - link

    Yeah so like #6 said... where and when can we get this? I tried looking at ati's site, but with my SUPER FAST 56k I gave up.

    Also didn't read anywhere or maybe just missed it, but would it be ok to run older cats w/ this? For those of us who have the standby screen problem.
    Reply
  • Reflex - Thursday, September 02, 2004 - link

    Many people do not seem to understand modern memory management. The amount of memory an application uses really dosen't matter much anymore unless it is truly obscene(Photoshop), what matters more is how that memory is managed. 60-70MB means nothing if that memory can be cleared at a whim for other applications, and it sounds like Ati has implemented it properly since they claim that it will.

    Run some benchmarks. It is unlikely that this application will slow down any other application on your system. If nothing else is slowed down by it, then what does it matter how much memory it takes up?
    Reply
  • LoneWolf15 - Thursday, September 02, 2004 - link

    I don't care if it's streamlined or not, I refuse to run a driver control app that requires .NET. Period. If it gets to the point where I don't have a choice, I'll sell my Radeon 9700 and get a GeForce 6600GT or similar. 60-70megs won't just annoy "resource snobs"...60-70 megs is enough RAM for a major app all by itself. Reply
  • wassup4u2 - Thursday, September 02, 2004 - link

    I have an emachines notebook with a Mobility Radeon 9600 Pro. Will CCC/the normal Catalyst driver work with it?
    Reply
  • Jeff7181 - Thursday, September 02, 2004 - link

    You'd think being .NET it might run good... nope... it takes longer for it to save changes than ATI's previous drivers. It's very frustrating.

    My advice... don't download it. It's worthless. The application preferences don't work correctly for me with Doom 3. I can start Doom 3 normally, but when I try to use the shortcut ATI creates it doesn't work... and I can't see the exact error message because the stupid Windows error box covers up the Doom 3 window that shows where it gets stuck and exits.
    Reply
  • Phiro - Thursday, September 02, 2004 - link

    The message is clear; .Net for teh win.

    Seriously; we're using .Net more and more where I work, and maybe it's just the refactoring but when they rewrite something here to .Net we see HUGE improvements in stability, performance, etc.

    OTOH, new development in .Net here hasn't been so good.
    Reply
  • gsellis - Thursday, September 02, 2004 - link

    I suspect the package is so big because they have included .Net in it. Reply
  • Jeff7181 - Thursday, September 02, 2004 - link

    Am I a moron or is there nothing about where or when we can get this? Reply
  • PorBleemo - Thursday, September 02, 2004 - link

    Well, at least they still offer the Control Panel. Reply
  • PorBleemo - Thursday, September 02, 2004 - link

    I agree #2 that's crazy. At least I have 1.5GB... Reply
  • nserra - Thursday, September 02, 2004 - link

    Excelente. I didnt expect something like this from Ati, is more ala Rage3DTweak.

    However i still think its too much complicaded for the ordinary Joe.

    For me its great, now i dont need Rage3D since i only used their profiles because they run over aplication level, now Ati CP already have this too.
    Reply
  • crazycarl - Thursday, September 02, 2004 - link

    60-70 extra megs????? Reply
  • notoriousformula - Thursday, September 02, 2004 - link

    Nice!!

    ps: w00h00 first post!
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now