Radeon 64MB

[Galvin]

Also to everyone else that has flamed me.
If you want to use winME that's fine, just don't go around saying win2K is not for gaming. winME was designed so that people could use it easier. Most people don't know how to fix the simpliest of computer problems. WinME makes things easier for people that don't know how to fix problems.

I rather have a REAL os that was designed from the ground up. Win2K I beleive took over 2 years to make, winME was like 1 year or 1.5 years. I Just want one OS on my machine. This simplifies things, no partitions, etc.

Anyways next year or the year after MS will have switched to windows 2000 based system it will be called 2001. So it would be rather strange to create a new OS that brings winME and win2K together based on win2K that people say is not a gaming os.

[Galvin]

Originally posted by Brian R.:
Galvin - Did you try changing the default refresh in dxdiag?

Yes but it doesn't work in all games, same thing with OGL. Also you can't have different refresh rates for each resolutions.

[Galvin]

Originally posted by Brian R.:
Galvin - Did you try changing the default refresh in dxdiag?

Yes but it doesn't work in all games, same thing with OGL. Also you can't have different refresh rates for each resolutions.

I have my ATI card on ebay for sale: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI...tem=1200196908

[Greebe]

I didn't see anyone here claim Win2K wasn't for gaming! Don't assume that we are defending WinMe either, it was your comment that Win2K is better at gaming compared to WinMe/Win9x that got you into trouble.

Peace

[Brian R.]

ok, well anyway, I just run 75 Hz across the board

[Rags]

Okay, I have some comments. Big surprise

Win2k is not exclusive of games. It's not the best OS for games, though (yet ). I agree with Galvin that you need 256MB of RAM, and a processor of at least 700Mhz to beging to enjoy speed across the board in win2k. I have win2k, 98, and Me on my box right now. After leaning down Me, I have come to the conclusion that it's the same spee-wise, except for bootup, which is way faster than 98, and way way way way faster than 2k. Multitasking in 2k is way more graceful for me, as is compiling my programs. The UI is crisper in 2k IMO. The games I play seem to play exactly the same between all three, but this wasn't the case about 5 months ago. Then again, I use a G450/G400, and the drivers in 2k are excellent. I have all the same features except for individual desktops.

The biggest obstruction for win2k and games are:
1. Video card DRIVERS. It's going to take some time for this OS to become mainstream in the video card mfrs drivers.
2. Older games that have cruddy installers that don't like to install in 2k *cough* NFS 4 *cough*. But most, including NFS 4 CAN be installed if you think it through a little.
3. Sound card drivers. No need to explain this one

Take a look at the list above and compare to the first year win95 was in the wild. We were having the same discussions. I remember "DOS runs my games faster still, and it's been a year!" "DOS has better sound card drivers, and it's been a year" Yada, yada yada.

Look, folks, it takes some time for a new "style" of OS to work it's way into app/support. Right now it's really not too awful, but it sure could be better. And it's only getting better. Matrox was quick to get in their awesome PowerDesk novelties to work in win2k with the G200 and G400 both. Now, we have to wait for the companies that neglect the niceties to follow. They will, even if it is only the newly released stuff.

Rags

[Galvin]

Which means matrox G800 will probably be the best gaming card for win2K since powerdesk is already rocking now. A tech support guy from matrox on the phone told me that they are working on the G800, I never mentioned g800 in my question to him. So this is the most accurate non rumor news I heard yet. I think ATI will catch up but it will probably take them a year from now to do it.

Matrox needs to work damn hard on OGL, it needs work.

[Rags]

What problems are you having with OpenGL right now?


BTW, I don't think it's coincidence that the G800 has appeared in a few driver releases

Rags

[Galvin]

There are still some artifacts in one of the maps with the lights. And occassional flickering of textures as you walk past them. It's still far from perfect. With the ATI I had zero artifacts of any kind. I don't have a website so I can't show you a snap shot of such an artifact. But I don't expect matrox to be awesome at OGL vs companies that been doing it for over 10 years.

[Rags]

You are talking about little white pixels? If so, I hear this is being looked at. Other than that, I don't see much wrong in the OpenGL I use, which mainly consists of a few games at the moment.

Rags

[Galvin]

Well graphical artifacts are more comon in 16bit texture mode than 32bit texture mode.
But I just ran this test I started quake3 up in 32bit texture mode 16bit zbuffer.
I loaded Q3TOURNEY1 map, the lights when you look at them at the right angle get green outlines in 16bit texture mode and white outlines in 32bit texture mode.

Just curious are you guys just custmozing the ICD for quake3, or fixing bugs in the ICD overall. Just asking if I ever get another OGL game that it won't have new artifacts.

What was weird is when I first started quake3 I didn't get artifacts at all with the lights in that one map, but when I switched to 16bit texture and flipped back they remained.

I'd rather use 16bit texture because it the difference between 11fps in timedemo and I barely notice a difference between 16bit/32bit textures. I only been using 32bit textures because it reduces some of the artifacts.

Timedemo1 58.0 fps 16/16
Timedemo1 47 fps 16/32

All testing done in bilinear high geometry,etc.


[This message has been edited by Galvin (edited 02 December 2000).]

[Rags]

I don't have Q3A installed on this machine at the moment, so I can't tell you if this problem is here for me, but I do know that two weeks ago when I ran it (32 bit/32bit), the pic was flawless, and it ran well for me.

AFAIK, they are working on compatiblity and bugs in the ICD. Your best bet to get your voice heard is to find specific problems and let us or the Tech Support forums know.

Rags

[DentyCracker]

Damn you Rags to cool things down when skin was just beginning to roast. JUST KIDDING

Honestly I'm glad the voice of reason stepped in. Guys before you start flaming, read carefully. The wording with regard to who makes good win2k videocard drivers was awkward but I had no problems understanding it. This was because I read it carefully and heeded the context clues.
Basically Galvin was saying that it was pathetic that a small company like Matrox were the only ones to produce good win2k drivers, thus he was selling his Radeon. I have said before that I have a big problem depending on ATI for drivers (Still haven't got the TV Wonder version 2 software that doesn't fuXx0r EzCD Creator 4 that I ordered in August)
WinMe is just a glorified Win98 really. However I can boot into WinMe at 1GHz (it gives me a registry error), whereas I would get a Windows Protection Error with Win98(SE). I can run non 3D apps at 1GHz in Win2k. This is with poor cooling (Coolermaster HSF MB/CPU Temp 27/42 deg C Duron@850 running seti and dling Mandrake 7.2 as I type)
The major problem I have with win2k is that using the same monitor customisation file as in 9x, it tells me that my monitor can't do certain refresh rates which it can, and doesn't give me those resolutions in DirectX.

------------------
1° System
Inwin Q500 Case
Abit KT7 Motherboard
AMD Duron 700@850 MHz.
384MB PC100 Cas 2 PC100 SDRAM.
Maxtor 20 GB 5400 RPM UATA 66 HD
Quantum Fireball 4.3 GB UATA 33 HD
Plextor PX-W8432 burner
Toshiba SD-M1402 DVD ROM drive
Creative Labs SoundBlaster Live! X-Gamer 5.1
Matrox G400 DH 32MB
Mag Innovision DX17T
Klipsch ProMedia v2.400 Speakers
ATI TV Wonder*sigh*
Realtek 8039AS based 10Mbps NIC
Running WinME, Win2K SP1, BeOS 5.03

2° System
Generic Finger Slicer AT Case
FIC VA503+
IBM Cyrix PR 266 *brrr* (long story)
128 MB Generic PC100 SDRAM
Maxtor 10 GB 7200 PRM UDMA33 HD
Creative Labs Ensonic AudioPCI64 (es1371)
Matrox Millennium G200 AGP
Realtek 8019 ISA NIC
Win98 2222A
Win2k Pro SP1

3° System

PCChips M571
Intel Pentium MMX 233
128 MB EDO DRAM (SIMMS)
IBM 10 GB HD
Diamond Stealth S3 trio 64
Realtek 8019 ISA NIC

[Ashley]

WinME: for people that don't know how to use computers.
Win2K: For people that know how to use a computer, professional users.

I don't know if I'd go that far, but I would agree that anyone who has trouble setting a refresh rate in Win2k should probably be using WinMe...

(Just kidding... )

[Brian R.]

How do I get qualified to run Win2K? I'm worried that I'm not competent enough to deserve it. Maybe I should play it safe and reinstall Win98??? I'm sure I'm qualified to run that...