ATI Hydravision

[CHHAS]

Heh, I had kinda hoped they might have improved just a tad over the years

[Rags]

Originally posted by Indiana
And the piece of crap is indeed M$ Win2k here.
Matrox "workaround" is in fact a quite ugly system-hack.
(but then who cares, as long as it works - I just wonder how they managed to get WHQL certification for a hack like that )

Indiana, what on earth are you talking about? It's not a system hack, it's all in the drivers. And ugly? How so?

Sheesh

Rags

[WyWyWyWy]

Originally posted by Rags

Indiana, what on earth are you talking about? It's not a system hack, it's all in the drivers. And ugly? How so?

Sheesh

Rags

Uggg... IIRC Matrox said it. Don't ask me to find the reference, I couldn't find it!

Anyway, Matrox w2k driver mislead w2k in order to be treated as two different cards instead of a single dualhead card, that is a hack I suppose... (can't comment on whether it's dirty/ugly or not.) But it works fine of course.

[Marshmallowman]

I think it is very nice hack, and ati is using it for there 9000's as well.

Is all par for the course, decent hardware manufactueres have been working around microsofts inadequacies for years.

[Rags]

Originally posted by WyWyWyWy


Uggg... IIRC Matrox said it. Don't ask me to find the reference, I couldn't find it!

Anyway, Matrox w2k driver mislead w2k in order to be treated as two different cards instead of a single dualhead card, that is a hack I suppose... (can't comment on whether it's dirty/ugly or not.) But it works fine of course.

It's not a case of misleading win2k or hacking. It's a case of clever drivers that make the system work for the hardware. I would hardly call it a hack or a system change.

Ever hear of coding for the system? Programmers have to do it all the time.

Rags

[Indiana]

Call it what you like.
Making the system detect two installed different gfx-cards in the hardware manager with each their own chips and address spaces and thus load the same drivers twice when there is in fact only one device there - I WOULD call that a hack and would not be surprised if this thing is easily breakable by future changes to the kernel (Service Packs,...). At least it's a workaround using tricks to fool the systems plug'n'play / hardware-detection.

However as said: Who cares, as long as it works?

@marshmalloman: Are you sure 'bout that? This is the first time that I've heard someone claim this about the R9000. However, since ATI already stole Matrox DVDMax, it surely wouldn't surprise me...

[CHHAS]

I can't make it work with my R9000 in any case, but I put the Mystique back in and it's running as primary, so I can use the Radeon for gaming and running my ancient 15" secondary monitor.

[The PIT]

All I know is that the Radeon 8500 dual monitor support is sucky. The damn thing keeps mixing up the monitor drivers and I've got to set my LCD as the primary otherwise I get out of sync messages becuase the damn thing is trying to stick 200hz through it becuase it's then using the IIyama Pro 512 drivers.

[Rags]

Originally posted by Indiana
Call it what you like.
Making the system detect two installed different gfx-cards in the hardware manager with each their own chips and address spaces and thus load the same drivers twice when there is in fact only one device there - I WOULD call that a hack and would not be surprised if this thing is easily breakable by future changes to the kernel (Service Packs,...). At least it's a workaround using tricks to fool the systems plug'n'play / hardware-detection.

However as said: Who cares, as long as it works?

@marshmalloman: Are you sure 'bout that? This is the first time that I've heard someone claim this about the R9000. However, since ATI already stole Matrox DVDMax, it surely wouldn't surprise me...

When the devices act as two different devices anyhow, what's the difference? I don't know anyone who thinks it's ugly, a hack, or even sloppy.

Only someone who doesn't know what they are talking about and would like to make excuses for others would call it the things you did.

What they did was clever, well within WHQL guidelines, and adhered strictly to the GUI, so I don't see what your problem is...

Oh and "Each with their own chips". Obviously you have no idea how graphics drivers work, they don't see chips, they see registers and write to and from buffers, they don't have any clue what a chip, multiple chip, triple chip, or otherwise is. All the system cares about is if the memory addresses are there for access and the driver allows the video card access to that.


Rags

[Marshmallowman]

on my ati 8500, I only get one device entry, and dual display is not very good in win2k, stretched desktop and theatre mode only

but with 9000's you get two driver entry's one main entry, and a secondary display device in win2k.
(catalyst 2.2)

I have not played with it much, I am assuming they did the change for the same reason matroc did.

[Wombat]

Service Packs breaking dual-head? The only reason Matrox had to do what they did was because MS promised and promised they'd support dual head when SP1 came out, and then said "oops, we'll never support that."

[Ryu Connor]

Service Packs breaking dual-head? The only reason Matrox had to do what they did was because MS promised and promised they'd support dual head when SP1 came out, and then said "oops, we'll never support that."

Reminds me of the continued lack of support for detached devices in the 2K/XP kernel.

[Marshmallowman]

CHAAS...use the built by ATI catalysts.
my brother s-media 9000 pro installed with those no questions asked.
(different story to my 8500)

The built by ATI driver's seem to support hydravision better.

do you get two entries in your device manager for primary and secondary displays?,

[CHHAS]

I'll try the built by ATI ones this weekend.

[RichL]

Originally posted by Rags
When the devices act as two different devices anyhow, what's the difference? I don't know anyone who thinks it's ugly, a hack, or even sloppy.

Well, you do now.