Why doesnt this meet the requirements

CPU: AMD Athlon™ II X4 Quad-Core Processor (2600 MHz)
Memory: 5888 MB
OS Version: Professional (Build 7600)
Graphics Card Vendor: NVIDIA Corporation
Graphics Card: GeForce 9100/PCI/SSE2
Windows Graphics Driver Version: 8.15.0011.8640
OpenGL Version: 3.0.0

It does meet the requirements. Your video performance will be lacking since that is the lowest performing card in the 9000 series for nVidia but it meets the minimum requirements.

Are you getting the message that your card is not supported or you drivers are outdated (or some such message)? That's not unusual with the newer cards. It means that LL has not tested that particular card with SL and will not endorse it to work. You can ignore the message.

Far lesser cards work with SL.

Amiz - are you get a message telling you that your computer does not meet the necessary requirements?

Far, far lesser. Especially with a non Windlight viewer.

That should work. If you get that warning message, ignore it and continue.

There was a time last year when the 8800 was the cat's pajamas and was on the cutting edge. There is hardly anything lacking about having the 9100 since it far exceeds the basic requirements. Nothing has really changed in terms of video resources in a long time, there is no reason why her 9100 shouldn't be more than sufficient for SL's needs.

I just upgraded from 8800/512mb to 9500/1gb and it's more than fine, with high frame rates. And my computer will be 2 years old in May.

The 9100 is a bottom end graphics adapter that really is not suitable for 3D gaming. It should run SL, but not well.

Two potential issues (aside from dismal performance).

If you can't login to SL, download the current video drivers from Nvidia.com.

If you can login and SL is giving you a message about not being able to recognize the graphics adapter, don't worry about it. That's just because the 9100 isn't listed in SL's GPU Table file of recognized graphics adapters.

It is more than suitable for Second Life.

https://blogs.secondlife.com/community/features/blog/2007/11/16/typical-frame-rate-performance-by-graphics-cardgpu

It is just not listed here.

You should be able to ignore and continue like everyone else said but also keep in mind that if you do, I think it will default you to the lowest graphics settings in your preferences so make sure to tweak them including checking the custom graphics button and customize to your liking for the best performance.

I've always liked that graph and would refer people to it when shopping for a new gpu but I wish they would update it since it's from 2007.

Those are pre-windlight numbers. But running Cool Viewer will definitely help on this system. I do wish LL would update their info on graphics chips.

If you can post some info on your motherboard and power supply, we may be able to give some suggestions to upgrade on a budget to get better performance.

How do you come to that conclusion?

It's suitable only in that it supports all the functions SL needs to run. Performance wise, it's crap. It's a slow, bottom end, low-performance adapter.

You can see about where the 9100 stacks up compared to other graphics adapters at Tom's Hardware Guide:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-310-5970,2491-7.html

It's down near the bottom with other low end and obsolete graphics adapters.

For anyone shopping for a new graphics card, I personally found this website really helpful in benchmarking all the different cards on the market when I was shopping for a new system in Dec. I found it really confusing getting a handle on which card was better between manufacturers and all the crazy numbering systems:
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_list.php

Bear in mind that results shown are in 3 separate graphs, one each for high, medium and low end cards. The 9100 showed up highish on the charts of the low end cards. http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/video_lookup.php?cpu=GeForce+9100

Typical of most threads of this kind the OP posts once with a question then we never hear from them again.......it's been more than 24 hours now. We all are assuming the thread starter is getting the message upon log in that the computer or it's hardware does not meet SL's minimum requirements yet the user can log in.........but we don't really know if that's the case or not. I know I asked if that was the message being recieved. There's little anyone can do more to help without some type of response from the OP...........I wish she/he would chime in.

From the original post I can tell her/him that the CPU is capable, the video card is capable (though not high end enough to give more that mediocre performance), more than enough system RAM, the user is *probably* using a 64 bit operating system (however, which one is only a guess), the driver for the video card is not the most current (but looks like a Windows driver that is a version or two more current than the one I'm using with no problems, so I believe it probably not a driver issue), and we know nothing about any issues once the user logs in (or even if the user can log in).

All this makes it frustrating to try to help th OP. All the suggestions so far are valid and are, for the most part, helpful. But it seems we are just spitting in the wind now.

You need the XFX NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 video card.

Heh heh, got an EVGA GTX 260 626MHz OC, and it can run SL *and* blue mars, full screen, max settings, on two large monitors at the same time, its a great card.

(its actually overkill if you want to run just one copy of SL, unless you want to max out draw distance and get high frame rates all at once)

Sweet! They are going like hotcakes on newegg.com and ebay.

I'm not sure the OP is ready to spend $180 to over $225 for a video card. With the specs supplied it seems cost is, at least, a factor in the computer purchased. Plus a larger capacity power supply would likely be an additional requirement.............to make that cost somewhere in the $225 to almost $300 range.

I can still run the white box with a FX 5200! come on that crap 9100 is fine just slow

if you're gonna get a GTX 200 series, go with at least the 280... way better memory bandwidth, and more of it than the 260... prices aren't but a shade higher.

O.o a 9500 is not an upgrade from the 8800 ... that's a downgrade.

The 9500GT is a low midrange card with just 32 stream processors.
The 8800GT is a gamer card with 112 stream processors.

The 8800 is an old card that ran hotter than most any other card made. It was a beast for sure but you had to take extra precausions just to keep it alive. It's hard to find a new one these days and I'd never consider a used one because of that heat issue. A 9800 is basically the same card with twice the cooling.............and cheaper too.

It's discontinued, and the ones I see still available are a LOT more expensive than the 260.

GTS250, 9800GT, and 8800GT are all the same card, just with new chip sizes... the 8800 was 90nm, and yes it did run hot, but if you bought a decent manufacturer there was no problem. Mine's been running in the server for 3 years, day in & day out, 95 degree's idle, 110 degree's when I start anything graphics...

the 9800 used 65, then 55nm which cut down the heat significantly.

the gts250 uses 40nm.

any of those cards is great for SL.