File Details |
|
| File Size | 11.6 MB |
|---|---|
| License | Freeware |
| Operating System | Windows 9x/Me |
| Date Added | December 21, 2005 |
| Total Downloads | 55,807 |
| Publisher | NVIDIA Corp. |
| Homepage | nVIDIA GeForce Drivers |
Publisher's Description
Recommended driver for Nvidia cards. It is Microsoft WHQL-certified and will also be available for download via Windows Update.
Latest Reviews
sam13484 reviewed v77.72 WHQL Official on Dec 22, 2005
These drivers that are found on the nVidia download page have not changed for some time. However, if you go to the FTP site:
ftp://download.nvidia.com/Windows/81.98
You will see that there are 81.98 drivers for Windows 9X machines!
Jeffsoft reviewed v45.23 Official on Aug 14, 2003
finally an excellant one!
unger71 reviewed v41.09 on Jan 2, 2003
my old agfa scanner 1212p(newest driver) from 2001 doesn't work with 40** and 4109 (2942 does)
eviljolly reviewed v40.72 on Nov 11, 2002
Don't get me wrong, these drivers are still on the cutting edge of technology, but I saw a small loss of performance on my 3Dmark benchmarks. Not much, but not a 25% gain as claimed either. Perhaps they are making this claim based on benchmarks against the standard OEM drivers that came with the card because I could definitely see a 25% improvement there. These drivers are worthy of a 5 star rating as far as their overall quality, but they are not a necessary upgrade. The largest improvement I have seen over my previous 29.42 drivers would be the user interface in the configuration page of the display properties. Overall a good driver, but I would have waited longer before bothering to release it.
Tux0Racer reviewed v40.72 on Nov 10, 2002
Is it just me, or do they claim "Up to 25% preformance increase" in *every* release? Hell if that's true by now the cards are 10-20 faster then they were when they were first released, just due to the drivers.
seany187 reviewed v40.72 on Nov 10, 2002
over all, they are very nice drivers, I like the new control panel a lot, lots of new features there. One problem. Lord of the rings, now has a garbled screen, other then that, everything is excellent.
cupnoodle reviewed v40.72 on Nov 9, 2002
just another .01 update that claims to be faster
personally i dont get higher fps in anything
everything appears to run the same speed
Mr Crisp reviewed v28.32 Official on Apr 9, 2002
I own a Geforce3 Ti card, and found no real improvement in framerates using XP drivers.
Some apps and games hate the drivers, and Counterstrike flickers bad in 1024x768 mode even tho the refresh rate is set to 100hz, some reason the XP drivers lag to, being a GF3 owner with a 21" monitor, i should be able to run 1600x1200 mode, no probs, but alas, the Detonator XP drivers usually crash at anything above 1024x768!
Pap! I hate these new all-in-one drivers!
stalinhb reviewed v28.32 Official on Mar 30, 2002
Sorry!
I meant Detonator XP 23.11 instead of 11.23....Sorry!
OddFox reviewed v28.32 Official on Mar 21, 2002
Disregard my previous comments on past reviews, I didn't notice that they were for previous versions (even the topmost reviews, figured at least SOMEONE would have reviewed so far). My bad, kinda tired, I guess.
sam13484 reviewed v77.72 WHQL Official on Dec 22, 2005
These drivers that are found on the nVidia download page have not changed for some time. However, if you go to the FTP site:
ftp://download.nvidia.com/Windows/81.98
You will see that there are 81.98 drivers for Windows 9X machines!
Jeffsoft reviewed v45.23 Official on Aug 14, 2003
finally an excellant one!
unger71 reviewed v41.09 on Jan 2, 2003
my old agfa scanner 1212p(newest driver) from 2001 doesn't work with 40** and 4109 (2942 does)
eviljolly reviewed v40.72 on Nov 11, 2002
Don't get me wrong, these drivers are still on the cutting edge of technology, but I saw a small loss of performance on my 3Dmark benchmarks. Not much, but not a 25% gain as claimed either. Perhaps they are making this claim based on benchmarks against the standard OEM drivers that came with the card because I could definitely see a 25% improvement there. These drivers are worthy of a 5 star rating as far as their overall quality, but they are not a necessary upgrade. The largest improvement I have seen over my previous 29.42 drivers would be the user interface in the configuration page of the display properties. Overall a good driver, but I would have waited longer before bothering to release it.
Tux0Racer reviewed v40.72 on Nov 10, 2002
Is it just me, or do they claim "Up to 25% preformance increase" in *every* release? Hell if that's true by now the cards are 10-20 faster then they were when they were first released, just due to the drivers.
seany187 reviewed v40.72 on Nov 10, 2002
over all, they are very nice drivers, I like the new control panel a lot, lots of new features there. One problem. Lord of the rings, now has a garbled screen, other then that, everything is excellent.
cupnoodle reviewed v40.72 on Nov 9, 2002
just another .01 update that claims to be faster
personally i dont get higher fps in anything
everything appears to run the same speed
Mr Crisp reviewed v28.32 Official on Apr 9, 2002
I own a Geforce3 Ti card, and found no real improvement in framerates using XP drivers.
Some apps and games hate the drivers, and Counterstrike flickers bad in 1024x768 mode even tho the refresh rate is set to 100hz, some reason the XP drivers lag to, being a GF3 owner with a 21" monitor, i should be able to run 1600x1200 mode, no probs, but alas, the Detonator XP drivers usually crash at anything above 1024x768!
Pap! I hate these new all-in-one drivers!
stalinhb reviewed v28.32 Official on Mar 30, 2002
Sorry!
I meant Detonator XP 23.11 instead of 11.23....Sorry!
OddFox reviewed v28.32 Official on Mar 21, 2002
Disregard my previous comments on past reviews, I didn't notice that they were for previous versions (even the topmost reviews, figured at least SOMEONE would have reviewed so far). My bad, kinda tired, I guess.
BillyBoy666 reviewed v21.85 on Oct 16, 2001
You will not get any performance increase out of any of the new nVidia DetonatorXP drivers unless you are using WindowsXP or have a GeForce3.
Unfortunately, I have neihther of these :(
ditoa reviewed v21.85 on Oct 16, 2001
yup are you right, if they do make a final release because ICQ aint open source they would technically have to charge, i think! AOL would make them anyways! so keeping it in BETA is just a way of saying it is finished but still has minor updates etc, just like WinAmp. at least i think this is right, i could be wrong tho! ICQ is crap now anyways, download an older version from icq-4u.com or something and use the 99b versions they are the best, SMS was great but is now capped :(
espectro reviewed v21.85 on Oct 16, 2001
You realize they call the final software "beta" just because if Icq goes non-beta then they will start charging for the software? Says so on the webpage... So what i am trying to say, is that, on Icq, beta is final and alpha is beta
Anyway, you can kill the banners, and icq is still good piece of software then. But the principle of IM software is dying, back in the old days all you could do was type messages and send files, but now everyone wants to support phone calls, videoconferencing and lots of other crap most people dont need chewing off their pc's ram. I guess that's why purists like icq99 or 98, and why the old 3.6 messenger it's still there. Now with msn 4.5 coming, prepare to get some more ram chewed