ATI: Requires .NET Framework? What The H....?

[Jerry Jones]

This is incredibly frustrating.

I'm trying to install the new 7.4 ATI catalyst drivers for the "mobility radeon 9600/9700" display adapter.

So I go to the ATI Web site -- after making certain I've downloaded all Windows XP critical updates, including the .NET framework version 1.1 -- and I download ATI's own executable file that determines if my system is compatible with the latest driver.

The ATI program does its check of my system.

It then indicates my system is compatible.

Then I let it automatically download and install the 7.4 driver.

After restarting the system, the Catalyst program generates an ugly error stating that it needs .NET framework version 2-point-something.

And then nothing makes that error go away.

ATI's Web site says only the 1.1 version of Framework is required.

And ATI's own "compatibility checker" indicates my system is compatible.

Yet, I get this mess.

So what gives?

Should I wipe my system again and then reinstall Windows and then install Framework versions 2.0 and -- for safety -- version 3.0 prior to installing the ATI driver?

Or should I play it safe and install driver version 7.3?

This is a nasty issue.

Anybody else run into this?

By the way, I've tried three clean installations of Windows XP Home; same result.

I filled out ATI's online form to report this problem; but who knows if they'll listen?

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jon P. Inghram]

Why wipe your system? Just install .NET 2.0 and try again. I managed to get by for a while with just 2.0, but when my brother (foolishly) bought the LOTR MMORPG, it needed 1.1 for it's log-in interface. They co-exist just fine, other than needlessly wasting disk space.

[Jerry Jones]

Should I install version 3.0?

Or does version 3.0 include version 2.0?

Or should I first install 2.0 and then version 3.0?

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Dr Mordrid]

No problem with .NET here. Get used to it

[Jerry Jones]

It would really help if they would explain it on the ATI Web site.

There's one reference to only "1.1" being necessary for this latest driver.

That's it.

Yet, THEIR OWN COMPATIBILITY TEST FAILS TO WORK PROPERLY AND REPORTS MY SYSTEM IS COMPATIBLE AND THE CATALYST PROGRAM REPORTS THE NEED FOR VERSION 2.0.

This is crazy.

No, it's even worse than crazy.

It's just plain ignorant and stupid.

Another reason to switch to the Mac.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

By the way, here's the official ATI page:

http://www2.ati.com/relnotes/catalyst_74_release_notes.html

The Catalystâ„¢ Control Center requires that the Microsoft .NET Framework version 1.1 or 2.0 be installed. Without .NET version 1.1 or 2.0 installed, the Catalystâ„¢ Control Center will not launch properly and the user will see an error message.

Again, I *have* 1.1 installed.

Yet, I *still* get the error.

So I'll try installing 2.0 and then see what happens.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

Fixed it.

The ATI Web page is wrong.

The installation requires .NET Framework version 2.0 -- minimum.

If you attempt to do the installation with version 1.1 -- as ATI's Web page claims -- it might fail, depending on your configuration.

I installed .NET Framework versions 2.0 and 3.0 to be safe.

All is well, but this really should have been explained in a thorough fashion and the fact that it wasn't just goes to show how things need to improve on the Microsoft Windows platform or many people just aren't going to put up with it much longer.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[schmosef]

What makes you think the same ATI engineers would do a better job targetting a different platform?

When you program with .Net you target a specific version of the framework. You need to know the version, how to detect it's presence in a deployment scenario and how to gracefully inform the user about the need to install your required version. It's not the same thing as DirectX where newer versions contain COM interfaces for older versions.

Each major version of the framework is designed to be installed in parallel to other versions. Maybe ATI was maintaining two code paths (one for .Net 1.1 and one for .Net 2.0) or maybe they switched to .Net 2.0 recently and didn't document it properly.

As a programmer, I've been coding with .Net since 2002. It still boggles my mind when I see posts on the Xbox forums from people complaining about the need to install .Net if they want to stream music and photos from their PC. They act like it's such an inconvenience. And that .Net is some obscure foreign tech.

.Net is the future of Microsoft. Bill Gates stepped down as CEO and gave himself the "chief software architect" title so he could oversee it's design and implementation. He's called it a "bet the company thing". As much as Microsoft has no power over how well their tech is implemented (you, the consumer can and should drive the market with your $$$), .Net is here to stay.

As Doc said, "get used to it".

[Jerry Jones]

What makes you think the same ATI engineers would do a better job targetting a different platform?

Driver updates on the APPLE Macintosh platform are much easier.

Regarding the Windows platform, I think .NET is great in concept; but if they fail to execute properly -- as ATI clearly did in this case -- then it's going to make a lot of people very, very angry.

And they'll spend their money elsewhere.

There is absolutely no excuse for the way ATI handled this.

Their own executable -- their own -- confirmed my system was compatible.

Clearly, the executable was flawed.

In addition, ATI's Web page is inaccurate.

This says more about ATI than it does about .NET, but it's an example of how even a good idea can be messed up by poor execution.

I'll ***never*** "get used to" lousy, incompetent execution.

If lousy, incompetent execution is something you enjoy, then go for it; that's your right.



Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Elie]

Matrox Parhelia also requires .Net 2.0 in order to run Powerdesk HF, so it's old news, just download and install like the rest of us

[schmosef]

One of the points I was trying to make was that, as Microsoft has no control over how other companies implement their tech, the only recourse any of us have is to spend our money on brands that do get it right.

Having said that, I'm not sure if nVidia drivers are any better.

[Hulk]

I've been using ATI boards for 10 years. In the beginning the drivers were pretty bad. Then the community started screaming and they got on the Catalyst thing with regular updates and things got better. Now with them being bought by AMD I don't think they're putting the resources into the drivers again and I'm seeing more problems like the one Jerry is describing. My AIW X1900 will simply not install the latest Multimedia Center. Not that I mind as I hate having the darn thing recording all the time so I use an earlier version where I can turn on the recording thing in the Registry.

My next video adapter will be nVidia unless there is a dramatic change with AMD/ATI.

[Debbie]

I left my ATI AIW Radeon 9600XT and 9800SE on the old ATI CATALYST 5.2, 02/04/05.
No .NET and I'm happy.

[Dr Mordrid]

My AIW X1900 will simply not install the latest Multimedia Center. Not that I mind as I hate having the darn thing recording all the time so I use an earlier version where I can turn on the recording thing in the Registry.

My next video adapter will be nVidia unless there is a dramatic change with AMD/ATI.

Tried updating your system BIOS & board drivers? Had that problem with a couple of boards.

[Hulk]

Doc,

Thanks for the advice. I'm running the latest bios. Next time I reformat or make a significant change to the system I'll try updating the mobo drivers.

Luckily MMC 9.13 is solid so there is really no reason for me to "upgrade" to the latest version.