24bit desktop under XP with G200?

[Prefect47]

Is there any way to activate 24bit desktop support for an ageing Marvel G200 under Windows XP? I'm not sure, but I've read that the G200's have HW accelleration for 24bit 2D...

[Brian Ellis]

The G-200 will support 24 bit colour depth but only with Z-buffering. It prefers 16 or 32 bit, which employs double buffering. The latter is essential if you wish to use it for video work. As for compatibility with XP, my suggestion is to forget it and buy a modern card, unless you are willing to use it only for display purposes and not video. Better still, scrap XP and upgrade to Windows 98SE

[Prefect47]

How is Z-buffering used in 2D? Do the G200's really use double-buffering when displaying a simple 16- or 32bit 2D screen on the monitor, or only when TV-out is activated? No, really, I'm genuinely interested.

For the record (as in "don't want to start a flamewar"), XP has taken everything I've thrown at it, games included. But you're right - maybe I should buy a new GFX card since Matrox won't support the G200/G400 properly under XP (even if TV-out works fine (with some bugs) with the w2k drivers). So my next card definately won't be from them.

[dZeus]

why doesn't Matrox support the G400 properly in XP ?

[Brian Ellis]

dZeus

Now there's a question that everyone's been asking for ages: why don't Matrox support Marvel G200/400 with the NT kernel that is common to 2000 and XP? Because they are incapable of reliably supporting the hardware MJPEG that is the main feature of these cards. Give them their due, not for the want of trying. They've been very trying, indeed, because they have refused to admit that they've taken thousands of Marvel users for a long ride on a short pier - and they have lost an enormous amount of goodwill as a result. Not because they ran into a technical difficulty - that can happen - but because of their arrogance in the way they announced the fact and their refusal to help users to find a good, cost-effective way around the problem.

[dZeus]

sorry for bringing up the MJPEG issue again, but what I meant to say was that I don't think the G400 (read: not the Marvel G400) has bad support at all in XP... so I was surprised about what Prefect47 said, and tried to figure out what he calls 'badly supported' in XP with the G400.

Though I don't really blame Matrox for the MJPEG troubles... people with the card from pinnacle/miro with the same Zoran hardware codec are as screwed as the Matrox users in OS with NT kernel (afaik).

[Frank Marshall]

...and the disasterous Iomega Buz which was also based on the Zoran hardware codec. Seeing how abruptly Iomega dropped support for that product (way back in 1998/9) should've been a warning. Ce la vie...

[wkulecz]

20 20 hindsite

IOMEGA has never rated highly with me, I wasn't surprised the Buz didn't work and they dropped it.

When Matrox came out with the G200 Marvel using the same MJPEG chip, given their reputation at the time, I figured this was THE card to buy.

Matrox has clearly damaged their reputation. Because of the Marvel issue, I refused to buy an RT2000 or RT2500, Given Pinnacle's reputation, I couldn't quite bring myself to buy a DV500 either.

Seeing the silver lining, now that fast CPUs and improvements in MSP and VV have made my needs for a real-time card largely disappear, the Marvel debacle "saved" me 600-1000 by not making me feel comfortable about buying a real-time card.

--wally.