Worth it to upgrade 2MB Cyber9397 to 4MB in ThinkPad 770?

[SilentDude56k]

Hey,

I'm wondering if it's worth it to replace my 2 MB Cyber9397 video card with a 4 MB one. I kinda want to have 1024x768 resolution at 32 bit color on Windows XP Pro SP2.

And, if anyone knows of a slightly newer video card that could work in my 770, I would love to hear about it! Windows XP has a crippled Cyber9397 video driver, and I tried both the "Video Driver IV Windows 95/98" and the NT one. XP doesn't recognize the NT driver at all, and although it recognizes the 95/98 driver, it won't let me install it (I didn't expect it to, but I thought it was worth a try).

I am able to use OpenGL and Direct3D with Windows XP, but it seems to be using a sort of software emulation for it. If I open dxdiag, it tells me Direct3D acceleration is unavailable. I'm assuming it's the same with OpenGL, too. If anyone knows how to enable it, PLEASE post here!

Any opinions would be greatly appreciated!

Michael

[AlphaKilo470]

To my knowledge, the only way to upgrade the video is with a new motherboard pulled from a newer 770 model such as an ED or an X.

However, if you're looking to improve Direct3D, don't expect much as it's not hardware supported on my 770ED either and that computer does have the 4mb video. The main advantage you get from having the 4mb video is that you can display 32 bit color at 1024x768. Other than that, things aren't too much different. DVD and MPEG performance can be improved with the DEVA card.

[pianowizard]

I'm wondering if it's worth it to replace my 2 MB Cyber9397 video card with a 4 MB one. I kinda want to have 1024x768 resolution at 32 bit color on Windows XP Pro SP2.

Do you think 16 bit and 32 bit are really that different? I always use 16 bit even on Core Duo, Pentium M or Pentium 4 machines because 32 bit doesn't seem much better to me.

[SilentDude56k]

Do you think 16 bit and 32 bit are really that different? I always use 16 bit even on Core Duo, Pentium M or Pentium 4 machines because 32 bit doesn't seem much better to me.

Yeah, they are. At least to me. I will post a pic of my 770's desktop in 800x600 in both 16 bit and 32 bit color when I can, but I need to get outa here at the moment. 16 bit shows stair stepping on some things, namely icons, as you will see later.

Thanks for posting

[AlphaKilo470]

32bit helps if you're doing lots of graphics work but for just about everything else, 16 bit should be sufficient. My primary computer, a ThinkPad 600, maxes out at 16 bit and I've never hit any real limitations due to that.

[pianowizard]

My primary computer, a ThinkPad 600

That's amazing. What are the specs again?

[AlphaKilo470]

My ThinkPad 600 (2645-45U):

13.1" XGA TFT LCD
2mb NeoMagic 128XD Graphics
300mhz Intel Pentium II
192mb PC66 SDRAM
40gb Hitachi 5k80 PATA Hard Drive
Internal 1.44mb 3.5" Floppy
New After-market Main Battery
Microsoft Windows XP Professional w/ SP2
Cardbus AirLink101 MIMO XR Wireless G or Cardbus Xircom Realport 10/100 Ethernet + 56k Modem Combo

[tom lightbody]

[carrying on off-thread][ak47's 600]
your basic standard adequate computing
device--no TV-set wannabe in identity crisis:
great keyboard, cute little rubbery doors--
match that, you *2* *3* *4* *6* guys:
my only suggestion would be an OS
upgrade...no,no, not v*: *nix:-)

happy holidays
(pogo:600e)

[dsigma6]

Do you think 16 bit and 32 bit are really that different?

Have you ever compared the beautiful "Bliss' wallpaper in 16 and 32 bit? In 16 bit, it looks like square clouds in the sky.

I tend to run 16 bit even on my fastest machine, as things seem to load faster with less strain on the video card. (Don't argue, I'm not changing my mind).

[jruschme]

On a 600E running Linux, you pretty much have to run in 16-bit mode, otherwise the Xserver is is not accelerated (and you will notice the difference in speed).