GF4Ti4200: Drivers 56.72 and java1.4.2

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Hi everybody,

I've got a problem since I upgrade my drivers to v56.72:
every time I launch a java application or the java plugin control panel, the
screen becomes black with only the content of the java window...

Does anyone experience the same problem?

My Conf:
Asus A7V8X-X
Asus v9280 (GF4 Ti4200 AGP8x)
Athlon 2400+
512Mo RAM
WinXP

Thanks for your help!
Jean

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Zean wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I've got a problem since I upgrade my drivers to v56.72:
> every time I launch a java application or the java plugin control
> panel, the screen becomes black with only the content of the java
> window...
>
> Does anyone experience the same problem?

Ti4200-64: I went from the 44.03 drivers to the 56.72 and have increased my
AquaMark3 score by 7000. Some problems I was having with games were fixed
with the 56.72s. I don't have any problems with Java; no problems at all.

Try re-installing the drivers and/or reinstalling Java. I use MS Java so
there might be a problem with the Sun version. Maybe try 1.5.0 Beta.
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/download.jsp

Make sure you have DirectX 9b.


Too_Much_Coffee ®

---
Got GigaNews?
http://www.giganews.com/customer/gn26215

>
> My Conf:
> Asus A7V8X-X
> Asus v9280 (GF4 Ti4200 AGP8x)
> Athlon 2400+
> 512Mo RAM
> WinXP
>
> Thanks for your help!
> Jean

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

The older 4200 card was not meant to be used with an FX driver such as
56.72. It's not stable. Use the 45.23 driver with that card for stability.

--
DaveW



"Zean" <user@domain.invalid.com> wrote in message
news:c66o5h$9kr$1@news-reader4.wanadoo.fr...
> Hi everybody,
>
> I've got a problem since I upgrade my drivers to v56.72:
> every time I launch a java application or the java plugin control panel,
the
> screen becomes black with only the content of the java window...
>
> Does anyone experience the same problem?
>
> My Conf:
> Asus A7V8X-X
> Asus v9280 (GF4 Ti4200 AGP8x)
> Athlon 2400+
> 512Mo RAM
> WinXP
>
> Thanks for your help!
> Jean

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> The older 4200 card was not meant to be used with an FX driver such as
> 56.72. It's not stable. Use the 45.23 driver with that card for
stability.

Technically, this is not correct. The new drivers are designed to work with
older cards -- this fact can be verified by looking at the "products
supported" list on the nvidia website. Whether or not they work properly
for any specific person/system is an entirely different subject, and has
more to do with the system and configuration. In other words, each person's
mileage will vary.

Just to offer my own experience, I'm using the 56.72 drivers on a GF4 Ti4600
right now, and java applets work fine. That said, I don't know what "java
applications" the original poster is referring to.

I can also add that these are the FIRST drivers I've had on this system
where the TV out actually works correctly. The 56.72 fixed several issues
with TV out for me, including incorrectly sized display from certain
programs, and problems with certain programs not switching the TV to full
screen when they were supposed to. With the 56.72's, these issues were
finally fixed for me.

I'm also using the 50 series drivers (can't remember the specific release)
with a GF3 Ti200 and a GF2 Ultra, and neither of these systems gives me any
problems with any of the games and apps I use on them.

Larry

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

DaveW <none@zero.org> wrote:
> The older 4200 card was not meant to be used with an FX driver such as
> 56.72. It's not stable. Use the 45.23 driver with that card for
> stability.

Not this drivel again. Read the 5x.xx release notes - there are fixes and
adjustments for cards right back to the GF2 range. 56.72 is the only driver
I've used on my Ti4200 that let Far Cry run correctly at Medium and High
settings, earlier drivers had bad texture issues and caused the game to run
extremely slowly.

Dan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:55:39 +0100, "Daniel Crichton"
<news@worldofspack.co.uk> wrote:

>
>Not this drivel again. Read the 5x.xx release notes - there are fixes and
>adjustments for cards right back to the GF2 range. 56.72 is the only driver
>I've used on my Ti4200 that let Far Cry run correctly at Medium and High
>settings, earlier drivers had bad texture issues and caused the game to run
>extremely slowly.
>
>Dan
>

You can run FarFry at a "decent" frame rate...

Man, this game casts havoc on my graphics resources... I have the
settings at medium or low @ 1024x768 and while the open air scenes
like destroying the radar tower run real good,, some scenes like in
the research centre and especially where the hallways and large rooms
are lit up by lights,, this can bring my system down to a single
figure frame rate.. In one scene, where you first enter the "bunker"
after the treetops area, the frame rate most likely went to about 2
frames/sec for a while until things sorted themselves out then I had
to put up with about no more than 10 fps until I worked my way down to
the deep underground areas... This problem was notibly worse where the
rooms were large and there where flood-lights on in that area.. In
bigger rooms where things were darker or natural dyalight, things ran
ok...

My system is..
Gigabyte 7N400 m/b
XP3000+
1 Gb PC3200 RAM
Leadtek FX5700 and 53.06 drivers... I might consider trying different
drivers...

This game is hard on graphics - no doubt about that.. The quality of
the textures is pretty darned good though...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Bruce Tyler <top@bottom.au> wrote:
> You can run FarFry at a "decent" frame rate...

At 1024x768 with Medium settings and AA level 1, plays around 40 to 45 fps,
which is fine in this game. If I run at High with no AA then it will drop to
below 25 fps in some areas (lots of explosions, or lots of enemy) which is
noticeably jerky. I played the whole game through in Medium without noticing
and problems.

> My system is..
> Gigabyte 7N400 m/b
> XP3000+
> 1 Gb PC3200 RAM
> Leadtek FX5700 and 53.06 drivers... I might consider trying different
> drivers...

Try the 56.72s - the 53.03s on mine had problems with textures at anything
but Low settings, but the 56.72s cured this and gave smoother gameplay. Your
system should be better than mine, I have:

ASUS A7N8X-X board (nForce2)
XP2400+
1GB PC3200
Leadtek GF4 Ti4200 128MB

Are you using onboard sound? First thing I did on my system was fork out £4
for a cheap C-Media based 6 channel sound card rather than using the onboard
chipset, I've always tried to avoid using the onboard sound as I find it
often interferes with games.

Dan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 08:48:37 +0100, "Daniel Crichton"
<news@worldofspack.co.uk> wrote:

>Bruce Tyler <top@bottom.au> wrote:
>> You can run FarFry at a "decent" frame rate...
>
>At 1024x768 with Medium settings and AA level 1, plays around 40 to 45 fps,
>which is fine in this game. If I run at High with no AA then it will drop to
>below 25 fps in some areas (lots of explosions, or lots of enemy) which is
>noticeably jerky. I played the whole game through in Medium without noticing
>and problems.
>
>> My system is..
>> Gigabyte 7N400 m/b
>> XP3000+
>> 1 Gb PC3200 RAM
>> Leadtek FX5700 and 53.06 drivers... I might consider trying different
>> drivers...
>
>Try the 56.72s - the 53.03s on mine had problems with textures at anything
>but Low settings, but the 56.72s cured this and gave smoother gameplay. Your
>system should be better than mine, I have:
>
>ASUS A7N8X-X board (nForce2)
>XP2400+
>1GB PC3200
>Leadtek GF4 Ti4200 128MB
>
>Are you using onboard sound? First thing I did on my system was fork out £4
>for a cheap C-Media based 6 channel sound card rather than using the onboard
>chipset, I've always tried to avoid using the onboard sound as I find it
>often interferes with games.
>
>Dan
>

I will try the 56.72 drivers. It sounds like a "few" people are
atcually have a bit of success with them.. I don't really like to
update drivers that much, especially lately, as many newer drivers are
causing more problems than they are worth... 56.72 may well be the
answer for me...

I have disabled onboard sound and use SB Live (the cheap one)...

Cheers.....

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Bruce Tyler" <top@bottom.au> wrote in message
news:621j801ou65akdjpd3oqo2soj1frq3qn9h@4ax.com...
> I will try the 56.72 drivers. It sounds like a "few" people are
> atcually have a bit of success with them.. I don't really like to
> update drivers that much, especially lately, as many newer drivers are
> causing more problems than they are worth... 56.72 may well be the
> answer for me...

I also rarely changed drivers. When I got Unreal 2 I had to go up to the
42.70s to get textures to render correctly, and didn't change them until Far
Cry came along - first to 53.03 which at least allowed the demo and game to
run at more than 1fps in low detail (!), and then to 56.72 when they came
out to allow running at Medium and higher levels without texture and
lighting issues. I'm sticking with these for as long as I can 😉

Dan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

>The older 4200 card was not meant to be used with an FX driver such as
>56.72. It's not stable. Use the 45.23 driver with that card for stability.
>
>--
>DaveW

I don't know why you people keep spouting this BS. Show me in the Nvidia
driver documentation where it says this. The exact OPPOSITE of what you've
posted is true.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Daniel Crichton" <news@worldofspack.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4087c0cc$0$24703$afc38c87@news.easynet.co.uk...
> DaveW <none@zero.org> wrote:
> > The older 4200 card was not meant to be used with an FX driver such as
> > 56.72. It's not stable. Use the 45.23 driver with that card for
> > stability.
>
> Not this drivel again. Read the 5x.xx release notes - there are fixes and
> adjustments for cards right back to the GF2 range. 56.72 is the only
driver
> I've used on my Ti4200 that let Far Cry run correctly at Medium and High
> settings, earlier drivers had bad texture issues and caused the game to
run
> extremely slowly.
>
> Dan
>
>
>

If it's not stable then how am I running drivers as new as 60.72 without a
hitch?