1 - Posted by
SAMSAMHA
on February 21, 2005 - 2:42 am
VERY NICE card. Cool review.
2 - Posted by
Rich
on February 21, 2005 - 8:38 am
Thanks, yes the card is nice. Too bad the software doesn't live up to it though. :(
3 - Posted by
Guest
on February 22, 2005 - 3:02 am
If all you are comparing to is the USB VideoMate, you better make that clear in your recommendation - "better than the VideoMate". Please compare to other cards before saying this card could "revolutionize the quality of TV on the computer." My findings are the card is a major disappointment. Image quality was not nearly as good as the PVR150 or even the NVTV.
4 - Posted by
Guest
on February 22, 2005 - 8:32 am
Same as the above comment, you kept saying the software "lacks setting" for about 5 times, but other than it does not allows you to choose save video folder and bitrate(which average user has no idea what it meant), you failed to identify precisely what is lacking in settings, and what is wrong with the software for that matter. Similarly, how is MCE superior compared to it? A good review requires not only judgement but a better support of the statement.
5 - Posted by
Guest
on February 22, 2005 - 11:36 am
I'd like to throw my two cents in here and mention that the AIW 9600 uses ATI's proprietary Multimedia Center (MMC) software suite. This has excellent configurability, and it is a source of great consternation to ATI devotees (like myself) that the company has not seen fit to make this chip compatible with it. All the previous ATI Theater chips (100, 200) have worked wonderfully with MMC, and it was expected this new generation 550 Pro chip would be king of the heap. ATI must've had a lapse of reason on this one...
We're now waiting on the new version of MMC 9.0.6 to address this shortcoming.
6 - Posted by
Guest
on February 22, 2005 - 10:28 pm
Due to the time to market need, ATI only certified 550 on MCE and WinXP, not Win2K
Also, ATI did not expose proprietary functions to external software vendors, hence the lack of ability for customization.
MMC is a 2-foot application, it is not a comparable product to that of a 10-foot MCE-like application.
7 - Posted by
Guest
on February 24, 2005 - 8:02 am
Exactly which Compro model did you compare the PowerColor to? Was it the "VideoMate Live USB2" or an older USB model ? Also, have you compared it to The Lifeview Walker Ultra ?
8 - Posted by
Guest
on February 25, 2005 - 11:09 pm
How do you compare the quality of the USB2 Compro and the PowerColor when capturing VHS ? And how would you rate either with conventional methods which capture VHS as AVI or Dv and then have it recoded to mpeg-1 for VCDs ? Is there a noticeable difference? thanks
9 - Posted by
SlipSand
on March 3, 2005 - 4:37 pm
Do you think it would be possible to buy your own software that would use the card properly?
10 - Posted by
DnD
on March 3, 2005 - 10:12 pm
That would be specially made I think and cost lots.
11 - Posted by
Rich
on March 3, 2005 - 10:54 pm
Since this card is so new, I imagine it will take some time for third party software vendors to integrate it into their new packages. That is assuming that ATI is even willing to let that happen.
12 - Posted by
SlipSand
on March 4, 2005 - 6:16 pm
Ohh I was just wondering I wanted a TV tuner for football season next year.
13 - Posted by
Guest
on April 21, 2005 - 2:24 am
Software is so bad I have complained to ATI since I got it and it is not as functional as cheaper ATI cards. The picture is not that much better so go with another card unless all you want to do is watch TV, and if you do a cheap TV beats the picture quality anyway.
14 - Posted by
Guest
on June 9, 2005 - 8:38 pm
Ditto to all the previous posts. This card is so bad that I already return my to Newegg. The Cyberlink software and the immature driver development from ATI kills what otherwise could have been a great Video Card.
Add Comment
To add a comment without being a member, you may omit the password field, but you must enter your name (or nickname) along with your comment. * Denotes required fields.