Poor Matrox

[wkulecz]

WDM, VfW, who gives a flying f... how it works, we only care that it works!

Bottom line, Hauppauge can capture video and play TV on w2k without crashing. Matrox can't.

Other than support for DV, I see nothing really worthwhile in WDM. I've captured >5GB with the Vegas Video capture tool using the Hauppauge VfW drivers so the 2/4 GB limits seem gone. I've got all the functionality I had under win9x without all the crashes and re-install voodoo to fix things, plus the benefits of no 2/4 GB limits with openDML aware apps.

Actually people need both driver models until MS fixes netmeeting/netshow to use WDM. I'd argue that working VfW drivers on w2k is a higher priority than WDM right now until MS gets off their duff and leads the way to show the benefits of WDM. As I said other than DV support, I see nothing of practical value in WDM at this time.

Last time this thread came around it was waaaa Zoren dosen't have a w2k SDK for their MJPEG chip.

--wally.

[sergiovalentino]

A simple question:
If building drivers for Win 2K is so difficult, tell me why the Matrox has working final drivers for the G450 eTV.
My opinion is that Matrox want to sell his new board before release the Marvel G400 Win 2K drivers (at this time ready in a tray).

[rchapoteau]

Hmmmmm .. . . I've been away for a while, and this post just caught my attention. In my oppinion I still blame matrox. Other companies such as ATI have been able to produce Win2k drivers for there system. I'm sure it does cost money to develop drivers, but I didn't think Matrox was a 2 bit whole in the wall company. As far as operating systems goes I've been trying damn near every microsoft operating system since Dos 2, and I think Win2k with service pack 1 is the most stable I've used by far IF YOU KNOW how to properly set it up! I can't emphasize that enough. I'm not saying that anyone here can't, BUT I have seen a lot of people do a lot of stupid things with microsoft products (especially anything NT based). I don't think its totally unreasonable for them to have released a driver for an operating system that has been out for almost a year next month.

[coolfish]

I think if we're going to put any blame on Win2k, which okay, we might be able to, Matrox should change its standard response. If it IS the OS's fault (lovely idea, somehow puts all the blame on M$ instead of the driver people), then WHY does Matrox continue to say that Drivers are under development when they are most blatantly not? If they are waiting for M$ to fix the problem, shouldn't they tell end users this and that they have ceased development until Win2k works?

No, instead they tell users "we're working on it". Why? So it doesn't look like they've blatantly given up on a card that was released to the market such a short time ago. "We're working on it" gives some sort of reassurance to the user. What they are really working on is the next card, the G450. Why give them usuable drivers when they can just buy a new card that has usuable drivers? Drivers that work, by the way, because Matrox worked on them, not because win2k is different for G400 and G450 installations.

G400 & Marvel users, I ain't a newbie at this forum. Been here, read the posts complaining about it, suggesting open letters or calling "customer support". Guess what, it won't make a damn difference. You wanna make a difference? Take that $300 you were planning on spending on a new video card and buy NvIdia or whatever, just stay the hell away from Matrox.

It's cold in the ocean,
Coolfish

[Dr Mordrid]

I beg to differ about them not being under development. They are. It's just *very* hard to develop for a moving target like Win2K. How much can you think can get done when fixes for its inherent problems are in beta themselves?

Developing release drivers for a beta service pack (SP2) is an exercise in futility. Even when release candidates for SP2 arrive they will have to go through compatability testing themselves, and that isn't a short process at all.

As for the eTV having "working drivers"....have you seen them or it? Used them? Have you seen one for sale? Do you have one?

Didn't think so....

Oh, and while we're at it I'd like to inform those who obviously didn't bother to check that the Windows2000 capture drivers for standard (non-RADEON) AIW cards are to be found in their "Special Purpose - unsupported drivers" page. That translates as BETA.

As for the AIW RADEON Win2K drivers, you should read the problem list for them. Capture problems, audio problems, device detection problems etc. etc. Their favorite catch-phrase:

"ATI Software Engineering has been advised of this problem and is investigating. Any updates will be posted on this page as they become available."

Dr. Mordrid


[This message has been edited by Dr Mordrid (edited 21 January 2001).]

[Elie]

A friend of mine got rid of ATI AIW Radeon because he could'nt capture playback or even use the TV Tuner under Win2K.
ATI never had fully released drivers for any AIW card under Win2k, check there web site and see.

Cheers,
Elie

[Technoid]

I have solved it by having a separate computer with my RRG and G400 and capturing on w98se.
With nothing else installed than win98, Huffyuy, AVI_IO and VirtualDub it's rock stable.
Then i move the captured data to my w2k box over my home net and do the editing!

[Dr Mordrid]

Why not just set up a dualboot on a single system? Works great....

Dr. Mordrid

[This_Idiot]

Well I wasn't really after an argument.

G400 Marvel is a hardware MJPEG capture card, G450eTV is software MPEG2. Kinda large difference there. Besides, as Doc already pointed out, have you seen a G450 yet ? I also did not say that Matrox had stopped work on W2K drivers for the G400, I just pointed out that they have limited resources and that product releases are more important (to a corporation) than software revisions. To see my stance on this, feel free to read some 2+years worth of news on the site ( www.desktopvideoworld.com ). Sometimes ya just run out of gas.......

[AlgoRhythm]

Well, I've got an AIW Radeon, and I don't have any problems with vid. cap., play back, DVD, or TV tuner. As far as released drivers and utils go, those on the CD that came with it have been trouble free...

As far as this argument about drivers for Win2K... If it is so difficult to develop drivers for, why do the NT4 drivers work so well even on Win2K? (EDIT: for the Marvel, just to clarify) (Yes, I was crazy enough to try this.) They're much better functionality-wise than the 2K drivers.

Bottom line: Win2k is not that much different than NT. The only real difference is changing a few things in driver initialization for more robust plug-and-play and for power management.


AlgoRhythm

[This message has been edited by AlgoRhythm (edited 22 January 2001).]