What does everyone think of this card? Anyone interested? I am going to grab one as soon as I have the money. It isnt cheap but the results Ive seen are as good or better than a Geforce 3!
Radeon 8500
- Thread starter Ace
- Start date
I'll get excited about it when ATI gets their act together on their drivers. Nvidia has much better driver support for their cards than ATI does.
The Radeon is still seeing about a 12% dropoff in perfomance under Win2k compared to Win9x, while the Nvidia-based cards hover around a 2% performance difference.
That is the only thing that made me not get a Radeon, and opt for a GF2 Pro instead.
The Radeon is still seeing about a 12% dropoff in perfomance under Win2k compared to Win9x, while the Nvidia-based cards hover around a 2% performance difference.
That is the only thing that made me not get a Radeon, and opt for a GF2 Pro instead.
When XP is the standard, drivers and hardware will be a lot better, a lot sooner!
As it is developers have to develop for Win 98, Win ME, Win 2k and most developers try and maintin Win NT and Win 95 compatability, don't even get me started on Linux, now .. thats already 6 platforms to develop one product for, not to mention Linux .. its hell!! (Well, I would assume its hell)
As it is developers have to develop for Win 98, Win ME, Win 2k and most developers try and maintin Win NT and Win 95 compatability, don't even get me started on Linux, now .. thats already 6 platforms to develop one product for, not to mention Linux .. its hell!! (Well, I would assume its hell)
Bob, to help you put things in perspective, there are really 2 Microsoft platform areas:
-95, 98, and ME are all part of the Windows 9x series of platforms where Windows is just a GUI front end for DOS. Each step is really just an enhancement of the previous port. e.g. Windows 98 enhanced Windows 95 OSR2, somewhat.
-NT and 2000 are true 32 bit OS's based on a different kind of kernel....one built for more security. 2000 just adds more functionality to NT to include more support for gamers.
I wouldn't touch XP due to its resource hogging nature.
-95, 98, and ME are all part of the Windows 9x series of platforms where Windows is just a GUI front end for DOS. Each step is really just an enhancement of the previous port. e.g. Windows 98 enhanced Windows 95 OSR2, somewhat.
-NT and 2000 are true 32 bit OS's based on a different kind of kernel....one built for more security. 2000 just adds more functionality to NT to include more support for gamers.
I wouldn't touch XP due to its resource hogging nature.
And it's totally whacked registration scheme.
That alone is enough to encourage me to use Linux as a full-time desktop OS.
Given the choice between using Windows with the activation process or learning a new OS, I'd learn the new OS.
