mm wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:41:43 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.com> wrote:
>
>> mm wrote:
>>> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 15:54:07 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> mm wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, I had XP SP3 and it was working fine, then after 3 weeks it
>>>>> wasnt' working fine and I had to uncheck Shell and UPS services.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was working fine then and I don't know if I had anything with .net
>>>>> in it. but after I installed a used but newer (ATI 7000, with real
>>>>> 3D) video card, then it insisted I install .net Framework. It didn't
>>>>> say upgrade, and it took a relatively long time, so I don't think I
>>>>> had it before. Without it I could still get some resolutions on my
>>>>> monitor, but either I coudlnt't get all or I couldn't run the ATI
>>>>> software that does other things to the monitor output.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe computers that come with later model video cards won't work
>>>>> without .net framework.
>>>> You could have avoided that, if you wished.
>>>>
>>>> ATI splits their install into "driver" and "control panel". The
>>>> control panel software needs .NET 2.0 . If you don't attempt
>>>> to install the control panel, but just install the driver, then
>>>> you don't need to install .NET 2.0.
>>>>
>>>> ATI offers downloads in either a combined driver+control_panel package,
>>>> or you can download just the driver or just the control panel.
>>> I sort of thought that was the case. I especially thought about it
>>> when the install was running. grin. I took comfort in the fact that
>>> it was free, so I got something free! Whoopee.
>>>
>>>> I'm currently running my computer, without the ATI CCC control panel,
>>>> and just have the driver installed. It means I cannot access advanced
>>>> features via CCC, but I can play 3D games just fine.
>>> I first wanted a newer card to use Google Earth, but just Thursday I
>>> started using it to output to my TVs too.
>>>
>>> Do you think I could have done that without the ati control panel?
>>> Serious question.
>>>
>>> When I first plugged the tv in, the picture was blank and I had to go
>>> into the control panel and set TV Output On. I"m guessing that means
>>> I needed the control panel, but maybe not.
>>>
>>>> Paul
>> For anything non-trivial, you should have the control panel installed.
>>
>> And that would include doing things like setting up multiple monitors.
>
> Good. So I needed it.
>
>> I just change OSes, as my Win2K boot disk has CCC installed and
>> I can test multiple monitor configurations there if I need to.
>>
>> One reason for not using CCC, is it wastes RAM when it loads. That
>> is my philosophical objection to using it. Software which is not
>> being used, should not burn up RAM for nothing. My attitude might have
>> been different, if a lightweight process sat there waiting for me
>> to click the CCC icon, and then loaded the software at that
>> point in time. That would mean most of the time, I'd get to keep
>> my RAM for more useful things.
>
> Well, I don't think I normally load it, but I'm not positive. It
> gives an option to put an icon in the systray, but I have that turned
> off, and I will use an icon on the desktop on the rare times I plan to
> use it. I'm expecting that now that I have set it, the tv output will
> work without starting it. Yes, I think so. I changed the station on
> the DVDR to E1 and the TV connected to it shows my computer screen.
>
> I don't think I started CCC this session, but I'm not positive. I'll
> reboot if you want to know for sure.
>
> Right nown in cntl-alt-delete there is running AT2EVXX.exe with 1,284K
> and a second occurrence with 736K mem usage. I don't know why they
> are running. (I wrote this before I checked my DVDR/TV output. I guess
> I could close these processes and watch if the tv picture disappeared.
> Well, I stopped the smaller one and the picture is just as good as it
> was. The larger entry seems to have disappeared when I stopped the
> smaller one.) And is there a way to tell if they have been swapped
> out???
>
> Nothing to do with RAM but both listed as zero percent of cpu. The
> only cpu users are Firefox, from 50-90%, Windows Media player 5% (I"m
> listening to Gunsmoke from 1952), explorer up to 1%, task manager up
> to 2%, Agent up to 4 percent (I'm typing in Agent now)
>
I don't think CCC uses any CPU cycles, so it isn't bad from that point
of view. But when I first installed it, I noticed a rather large chunk
of RAM used by having it present.
I evaluate software on a cost/benefit basis. Three things have been
kicked off my computer. ATI CCC. My webcam software (which continues
to run, even if the webcam is unplugged). My printer software (I use
the printer so seldom, I just install the software when needed). The
rest of the software got to stay on the computer, because I got some
benefit from it, and it only used resources while I was actually using it.
The printer and webcam failed in that respect, using resources
when they weren't needed.
What I expect to get with hardware, is unobtrusive drivers, the kind
of drivers where you hardly know they are there. Companies used to
know how to make drivers like that, but I guess they just couldn't
resist the urge to "take over the machine".
Paul