Unable to install 270X drivers on XP?

[globalist]

Hi,

I have downloaded the Catalyst package 13-9_xp32_dd_ccc_whql from AMD's site but when I install it on my WinXP SP3 PC, the Catalyst Install Manager apparently does not detect my Gigabyt R9 270X video adapter, and won't give me the option to install drivers for it.

It only lists the following components available for install:

Any ideas? The PC had an old nVidia card in it prior to this new 270X, so maybe that's why it's not playing along?

 

[The Mac]

im pretty sure the new R7s and R9s support neither XP nor Vista.

what does it say on the box?

you could probably fiddle with the inf and make it think its a 7870.

support for R7/R9 didn't start till 13.10.

 

[Dr. Zhivago]

XP is supported by 13.9 for R9 270X. There are 3 separate packages that support different cards, however, so make sure you grab the right one. The link below should take you to the right page. Grab the middle package of the 3 for your 270X.

Link

Let us know how it works out.

 

[globalist]

Thanks guys, will try the 2nd one. But WTF is the first one, that's obviously the primary choice for people with not enough attention to fine print like me, supposed to do if not install the damn driver?

 

[Dr. Zhivago]

Use the Driver disk that came with the card?

 

[bittermann]

Use the Driver floppy that came with the card?

Yeah I'm bored...

 

[globalist]

Use the Driver disk that came with the card?

Yep, that helped, too.

 

[Dr. Zhivago]

 

[globalist]

I'm still wondering though. Doesn't the dd in "13-9_xp32_dd_ccc_whql" indicate there should be a display driver in the install package?

 

[Bl?n D'?ero]

There isn't?
The "ccc" part means catalyst control center which is also in the package.

Or your question relates to your first post in this thread? In that case: the driver did not show up in the list because it was considered incompatible with the hardware. It's a safety measure to prevent installing wrong drivers...

 

[globalist]

There isn't?
The "ccc" part means catalyst control center which is also in the package.

Or your question relates to your first post in this thread? In that case: the driver did not show up in the list because it was considered incompatible with the hardware. It's a safety measure to prevent installing wrong drivers...

I guess I don't get the "incompatible" part. If I go here:

http://support.amd.com/en-us/download

And select Desktop, Radeon R9, Radeon R9 2X0 Series, Windows XP and click Display Results, the first result shown is this driver download:

http://www2.ati.com/drivers/13-9_xp32_dd_ccc_whql.exe

So why isn't that compatible with my card?

 

[Bl?n D'?ero]

The first result (Catalyst Software Suite 95 MB 13.9 10/16/2013) is not compatible with your card (R9 270X). The second result (Catalyst Software Suite 174 MB 13.9 10/28/2013) is. As is clearly stated in the Description.

 

[globalist]

The first result (Catalyst Software Suite 95 MB 13.9 10/16/2013) is not compatible with your card (R9 270X). The second result (Catalyst Software Suite 174 MB 13.9 10/28/2013) is. As is clearly stated in the Description.

Description:
Package contains the following graphics drivers and dependent/required software for the products specified in the current version's official release notes:
Display Driver ver. 9.00.100.18
Catalyst Control Center ver. [FONT=&quot]2013.0924.1040.17289[/FONT]
Languages:
Czech, Danish, German, Greek, US English, Spanish, Finnish, French, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Dutch, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Swedish, Thai, Turkish, Chinese (Traditional), Chinese (Simplified)



Where exactly is it stated in the above description that the package is not comaptible with 270X? Seeing as it's showing as the first result of a specific search for a 270x WinXP driver, I'd expect it to be pretty compatible with a 270X card.

 

[Bl?n D'?ero]

Description:
Package contains the following graphics drivers and dependent/required software for the products specified in the current version's official release notes:
Display Driver ver. 9.00.100.18
Catalyst Control Center ver. [FONT=&quot]2013.0924.1040.17289[/FONT]
Languages:
Czech, Danish, German, Greek, US English, Spanish, Finnish, French, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Dutch, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Swedish, Thai, Turkish, Chinese (Traditional), Chinese (Simplified)



Where exactly is it stated in the above description that the package is not comaptible with 270X? Seeing as it's showing as the first result of a specific search for a 270x WinXP driver, I'd expect it to be pretty compatible with a 270X card.

It is stated clearly in the Description:

 

[globalist]

No it's not stated in the description of the pertaining package (package number one). How is anyone expected to look into the description of the second or third package, to find any meaningful info about the first package that comes up in the search results? Are you seriously saying what AMD is doing here makes sense?

Going by your logic, no single card model is supported in the first package, because there's nothing in the description. So WTF is that package doing in ANY search results then?

How about we make these companies try harder, for the premium amount of money we are paying them for their premium products, instead of inventing apologies (or even shifting the blame to the user) for any crap they pull?

 

[Bl?n D'?ero]

Are you joking? I gotta ask, seriously.

 

[Bl?n D'?ero]

[random normal user behaviour]
User arrives at download page.
Sees 3 different packages for download.
Asks himself, which one of the three to take for my card?

He reads the descriptions with each package.
He sees no reason to select the first package, and moves on to the second package's description. The text mentions R9 270X as one of the supported cards. Knowing he has a R9 270X, he decides that therefore the second package is the one to take.
And the third package's description says it's for R7 260X / HD 7790 so yes the second package obviously stands out to take.

/end description of random normal user behaviour.]

[...]

Going by your logic, no single card model is supported in the first package, because there's nothing in the description. So WTF is that package doing in ANY search results then?

[...]

Package 1 is for all cards not mentioned in description 2 or 3. Which are MOST of the AMD cards before the latest generation (like, the HD5870, HD6950, the HD7970... and such); those users read the descriptions too thus will not select package 2 or 3.

Seriously dude, if you see your R9 270X mentioned in package 2, how difficult is that.

 

[globalist]

He sees no reason to select the first package, and moves on to the second package's description.

Except that I am specifically searching for a 270x driver. I am not going through the 4-step selection process on the previous page just to be presented with a bunch of random packages that I need to look through each of their descriptions to get the full picture and know which one is really for my card.

Package 1 is for all cards not mentioned in description 2 or 3. Which are MOST of the AMD cards before the latest generation (like, the HD5870, HD6950, the HD7970... and such); those users read the descriptions too thus will not select package 2 or 3.

Seriously dude, if you see your R9 270X mentioned in package 2, how difficult is that.

How difficult is it to put any of this info in the description, instead of just leaving it blank? Seriously, do you not see at all what is wrong here?

 

[Bl?n D'?ero]

[...] I am not going through the 4-step selection process on the previous page just to be presented with a bunch of random packages that [...]

Except that they're not random: they each have a distinctive description.

[...]
How difficult is to put any of this info into the description, instead of just leaving it blank? Seriously, do you not see at all what is wrong here?

Package 1: mentions no specific cards.
Package 2: mentions your card.
Package 3: mentions other cards.

Complicated?

 

[globalist]

Except that they're not random: they each have a distinctive description.

Yes, "no description" is also a "distinctive" desciption of sorts, but apart from that it is mainly a sign of laziness and brokenness, at least to me.

Package 1: mentions no specific cards.
Package 2: mentions your card.
Package 3: mentions other cards.

Complicated?

Complicated indeed.

1. I search for a 270X driver.
2. I get 3 search results, in order.
3. I naturally select the first one, as I always have during my years with ATI/AMD.

Just a couple of releases back this used to work fine - the first result was ALWAYS the package you were looking for. The other ones were either betas, or CCC-less packages, or similar. But ALL of them were for your card, because back then the selection process had meaning.

OK so they've broken it, no big deal. I'm just glad they've now washed the pages all white with grey/black font, all in the vein of Apple's iOS7. Oh wait.. my eyes!! And my brain!!