Intel Onboard Chip v ATI Card

Bought an ATI Card - PCI @128MB memory - and installed it onto a DELL
computer using an Intel 845G Graphic Subset. The Intel reports 64MB of
memory - but shared - having 768MB of memory - do not miss it.

For games the ATI card is superb - for handling my TV Card - it sucks.
The Intel built-in to the MOBO works best. This has happened once vefore
- with a soundcard I purchased - a 5.1 surround dolby thing - but the
Intel AC'97 Intel Chipset worked best - the dolby lagged for video
recording - great for playback - but not capture.

I upgraded my system with some other things recently - a 300GB HD - a USB
DVD-RW - notably. Everything caused problems with this system which has
been dependable beyond belief by following the manufacturers suggestions.

Everything is working normally again - as I removed everything from the
computer - reinstalled XP without a Service Pack (as originally my DELL
shipped without a service pack). Installed all of the drivers -
including the Intell Application Accelerator (for support for drives over
137GB - SP1 has it built-in - but not specfic enough I found for an Intel
Board) and finaly installed SP1a after everything up and running.

No more freezes - system has been running for 76 hours without a single
lockup or reboot. Dependable again.

Have replaced everything but the ATI card. The main difference on setup
when the ATI card was installed versus when only the Intel Chipset is
used - is that XP does not recognize my Intel Chipset and so I must
install drivers later. I was running the ATI card OK - without lockups -
until I purchased the new HD - and needed to reinstall everything - so I
just used XP w/SP1 slipstreamed and turned off the Intel in the BIOS -
but Windows still recognized it - just did not install drivers.

I am back to before the ATI card now - just as prior - with a Ghost copy
of the system without the ATI installed. So if as before I Ghost the
system and then add the ATI card it will be just an extra card and not
primary for XP to mess with at setup.

My question is this - the ATI card is inferior for Video Capture (on my
machine) because it nor the Intel actually capture - they are just
displays - the TV-Card captures which is also a PCI - so for speed it
only needs to talk to the embedded chip on the Intel vs going back out on
the PCI bus - displaying and then returning to the processor again - so
does anyone have thoughts about just creating a 98SE partition for the
ATI card - after installing XP without it physically in the machine -
ghost the partition - and then install the card - disablg it under XP and
running it strictly for 98SE.

maybe it works?

If wrong forum - please advise a better location.

thanks.

 

Likely the wrong forum. rec.video.desktop is for video
editing. Perhaps you want this newsgroup about ATI
graphics cards...
news:alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati

 

If you are going to runat least two GUIs, start with an "empty" HD
(no partitions), install Win98SE *first* (let it take all the space it
can get), then Win2K or WinXP.
Ther is this "glitch" about large drives, that the older Oses cannot
work if beyond some barrier (a few GB i think), so they must go first.
Also, at least with Win2K, it sees the other OS and asks where to go,
and after installation you will see a boot menu where you cah choose
which OS to run.
If you use NTFS for Win2K or WinXP, just remember that Win98SE will
not see that drive.

 

thanks for the tips - but I have two HD's - an 80GB Seagate Barracuda and
because I liked it so much a 300GB Seagate Barracuda both in the 7200
series. I just wanted the ATI card to handle 98 for games. Ended up
using WinME instead as ME (with a bit of tweaking) could understand the
NTSF volume on the larger HD using the NTSF for Win9x program (read only)
and 98SE sputtered bad. I applied 98Lite to ME so it wasn't bloated in
any event.

Things are well in video land - but am posting another question about
something else.

Wonderful community this is.


cya!