Anyone like Catalyst Control Center?

[Jimmy 2004]

I'm posting this poll in the Video Card section of the forums because I'm guessing the ATI drivers count more toward that than General Software, but who actually prefers Catalyst Control Center to the good old Control Panel that ATI used to give us? It's larger to download, aimed at less computer literate people and takes up too many system resources in my opinion. I think the preview can be neat, but I prefer to make most of my settings in game anyway so it doesn't make much difference. I'd definitely like to see the Control Panel Back.

What does everyone else think?

 

[zekrahminator]

Catalyst control panel for great justice .

 

[gR3iF]

i like the ccc because of its options its easy to adjust things but normaly i use atm omega driver just because i have then 150mb of ram more free

 

[dolf]

I don't like and don't use CCC any more. I have even sign a petition to ATI to return CP but who cares about damn users like us :shadedshu . Our opinion is like voice in the desert for ATI. We should admit that ATI is much more "flexible" concerning the customer service in the last few years. I have always been on ATI (Radeon 8500, 9000 64M, 9800PRO, 9800XT, X800XT, X850XT PE) but I used to complain from the service. Now I stop to complain and the things start to be better and better. Just using what is "must" and looking forward .

AtyTray Tools has the same options like CCC and even more but doesn't require .NET bla bla

 

[zekrahminator]

Speaking of catalyst being a memroy hog, I just went into everest and found out that I'm using 380MB of memory on system idle :shadedshu. Time to fix that lol. Lets see what msconfig, an uninstallation, and a few tweaks have to say about that lol. Edit: Now it's 300MB at system startup. Ouch. My next graphics card is gonna be courtesy of Nvidia. But I'm not getting a new graphics card for a LONG TIME (except for Darth Flatulence, I kinda killed her 6200 lol.).

 

[Alec§taar]

When I had an ATI Radeon 9800XT Pro in use, I didn't use it...

I stuck by the "traditional/older" model of their wares, & blew-off using the .NET coded "Catalyst Control Center" larger download driver & tools edition...

Why?

Because .NET is FINE imo, for developing business applications (due to its high level of abstraction & "macro'd" commands (many commands done in 1 single commandline in code) so development is faster & also more secure (this is a BIG plus in .NET code) & stable (memory cleanup built-in, like Java "garbage collection"))... but, I personally think that is about all I would want coded in it, because of those factors.

(ASP.NET for instance, is one area where this "rule" of mine does not hold true - it outperforms "normal" ASP pages, & is much like ISAPI (IIS extensions via DLL) for speed, but far better "anti-memory leakage" control built into its code (which was a problem in ISAPI, for all of its speed, you needed to reboot your servers sometimes if it was leaky/faulty code)).

Now, today's CPU's tend to make up for its "interpreted code" speed (slower), but I still would want "powertoys/tweaking tools" coded in faster languages personally... you don't need to build smallish apps in 'safe' languages (albeit far slower too), because debugging them or "delinting them" (tracking memory allocations & deallocating each properly) should NOT be that "big of a hassle" imo @ least.

(That control panel for instance? I'd wager, even if done in C++?? Is WAY under 1,000 lines of code, by a LONG shot! That is manageable, easily, for checking your code for proper memory allocation-deallocation imo @ least, no need to write in managed code/clr imo...)

.NET apps have their place, imo @ least, mainly in line-of-business work, where accuracy &/or security of the code running outweighs the importance of sheer speed (again, ASP.NET is the 1 area that "overturns" this rule)...

After all, it's money & lives + personal info. often riding on it.

The code for this type of app? IMO, @ least, does not fit that 'mold/category'... you don't NEED classes (& thus, objects, & EVERYTHING in .NET is an object, even strings) for this type of app, because class/object use encapsulation comes with added "bulk/bloat" as well - & I don't need it for "hello world" type apps!

(Yes, this control center, no matter HOW it was coded in each version is someone's hard work so I am not out to "put it down", but it does not require the weight inherent in objects imo, for this level of work - I'd rather have sheer speed, so that I know apps read/write their settings quickly to the registry etc., as quickly as possible (disk caches lag this too though, somewhat, in write-back modes even more)).

* To each his own I suppose, but I always went to the C++ coded (assuming that was the language tool they used, MSVC++ probably) versions when I was an ATI vidcard user.

APK

P.S.=> Plus, I also think it's largely if you are a "Creature-of-Habit" as well - NVidia's latest found of "Forceware 90 series" drivers have a new control center as well... do I use it? Nope.

Sure - It's probably decent & wizards-driven & all that (attempting for better ease-of-use, much like Classic View CONTROL PANEL in the OS, vs. the newer XP models, very wizardish too iirc) but I am just WAY used to the "old-school method" of doing things in this area, w/ the older toolsets... apk

 

[{JNT}Raptor]

Control Panel for sure....I just don't lke "Needing" crap I never did before just to tune my Vid Drivers.....the CP from 5.11 driver release Is all I use on all newer ATI drivers.

 

[Juggernaut1987]

I hate CCC. I liked the control panel much better. CCC takes forever to load and has some bugs like telling me I am no administrator for no reason.

 

[Alec§taar]

CCC takes forever to load and has some bugs like telling me I am no administrator for no reason.

This is something you're going to notice (especially on "slower" (purely relative term) systems) nowadays, & for awhile, when comparing true "standalone" executable code vs. interpreted code languages (this is what you used to see in the early 1990's too, regarding VB written interpreted P-code, i.e.-> "it's slow & bulky" etc. & especially in the 386-486 cpu days, it REALLY showed!)).

Like I said above?

You do NOT need an object to do a "hello world" smallish app & can more than "get by" using procedural languages & methods largely!

Heck, & most times, utilities like these??

Well, relatively speaking, they're sub 1000-5000 lines of code max/tops imo & experience (having written many over the years in the freeware/shareware circuite over time since 1994 or so).

Where is the "weight" coming from? Memory & "garbage collection" CLR runtime routines for one... & also, memory consumption!

See, each time you instance a new object, for instance? You're adding 472 bytes of memory consumed...

Sure, it may not SEEM much, but @ nearly 1/2 of a "k", it begins to add up & especially in languages like .NET (all classes & objects, heck, like I said above - even in STRINGS variables & data inside them).

That 472 bytes extra, per object/class?

Well, if applied to EVERY thing in a windows program?? It adds up (e.g.-> Count the number of strings used on each screen, or Window Handles, or really ANYTHING ELSE in a .NET coded app (because everything in it is class based & objects) & start to see my point)...

Do I "dislike" .NET code?

No, by no means... it has its place!

DO note above where I felt it "excels" (business app environs for Windows-Forms (windows apps, not ASP.NET ones - these are faster & superior to std. ASP in fact) in security, stability, & build time speed for things (threadwork in .NET for instance? Cake, simpler than in say, MSVC++ or Delphi)).

APK

 

[noneed4me2]

I have run into to many varying issues with CCC so I just gave up after 5.10 and only install display drivers and use a games own video control section for adjustments and I find, for me, its just more stable. I have an x800gto w/vivo but since I don't use vivo I don't need CCC, but I am getting ready to upgrade to a x1900 AIW and I think I will have to use CCC for Avivo functionality.