Announcement

**Scytale** · 18 August 1999, 19:16

As long as real time is not a factor almost anything can be done with (or despite) NT.

But look at the PowerDesk drivers for NT, and you see that it's just a matter of priorities.

**J-kun** · 18 August 1999, 19:48

Just received word from Glenn Booth, Matrox UK about this issue. In his reply, following comment. Let's pray they mean what they say and that their search is succesfull:

>However, we are
>currently investigating alternative ways to control the display
>characteristics across multiple displays. If these alternatives are
>functional, we will build them into our drivers as soon as possible.

**Zwisch** · 18 August 1999, 21:25

Hi,

Everything is possible... but is there really any reason why a manufacturer would go head to heel to make tweaked drivers for an OS that doesn't have this feature? The drivers do work very nicely already.. but we cannot expect the same level of multi display as in windows 98 where the OS supports it!!!

Furthermore, you need to remember that MS has it's word to say in there... they will not certify or approve drivers that will hack the OS too much... and if you are not certified by MS, then you will not sell to any OEM manufacturer... This is not as easy as it seems.... we are not in Linux here, where all codes are available.

Why should they take the change also when we all know that NT4 will soon be replaced by windows 2000 Pro (which WILL support Dual display).

We can blame everyone for everything, but we sometime need to look a bit further to see why it is done that way...

Ciao

Z

**Scytale** · 18 August 1999, 21:46

I guess you're saying it's all a matter of priorities

[This message has been edited by Scytale (edited 08-19-1999).]

**J-kun** · 18 August 1999, 22:36

I don't entirely agree.

Win NT OS's are stable and usable starting at SP3. Ask a sysadmin if he will upgrade his working system of NT4 to Win2000 and he'll reply : after SP3 appears.

Microsoft's NT line has a reputation of not being stable from the start, it takes quite a while for a new OS to mature.

Not to mention : Win2000 will not be out for another 4-6 months. NT4 is running on many systems NOW. Matrox should have had drivers ready before releasing their card. Maybe they just had gamers & Win98 in mind, which is a pity, for the G400 has many qualities that make it attractive to professional users.

I really would like a Matrox DH. The display quality at high res is so much better than other boards. But with poor DH support, and poor OpenGL performance, I have difficulty in explaining the $350 for it (yes, the DH costs that much over here, and they're nearly impossible to find too)

I have a bit of time before I have to enter my purchase list, so I'll wait and keep an eye on what Matrox does. I am happy though that I found the Elsa product, so that if it comes to the worst, I have an alternative.

If, as you say, it is a question of priorities, then I must conclude that Matrox has no interest in the pro market, but wants to concentrate on the gamer's interests. I do hope this is not the case. I'll stay optimistic and think their NT driver programmers aren't *yet* capable enough :-)

J-kun

**armyworm** · 18 August 1999, 23:20

Hi,

Fact are still facts :

- There are fully functionnal drivers for NT available. You cannot expect them to be the same level as in Win 98 for Dual Monitor or Gaming.

- NT is not a gamers OS, it doesn't even support any above DirectX 3. I agree that it's fun to play games in NT, but we stlil have to ackwoledge NT's limitation

- NT will go on for a long time even if Windows 2000 is soon to be released, but for dual monitor... they will have support that NT 4 does not have

- Multimonitor is supported under NT with current drivers for up to 5 monitor (would need to check this with the Matrox guys). What more do you really want when taking in account NT's own limitation?

I am not bitching here or flaming anyone, just stating the facts. NT is fine but not perfect... don't ask the manufacturer to bypass al it's weakness. If it was meant to be, Microsoft would have arranged it with a service pack. If MS are not making the modifications, why should the manufacturers???

Take care

Ben

**J-kun** · 19 August 1999, 00:14

Ben,
- There are fully functionnal drivers for NT available. You cannot expect them to be the same level as in Win 98 for Dual Monitor or Gaming.

Why not? Elsa's drivers are.

- NT is not a gamers OS...

I don't play games. I use my NT workstation for work. It needs a stable SMP OS, Win98 does not qualify. I want a Matrox board because I work at 1600x1200 and higher. Try any other board (except perhaps the Voodoo3's) in the sub-$1000 range at that resolution and you'll know why.

However, the DH second display is limited to 1280x1024. Which is fine for me, but what is not is that it will force down my first display to this resolution too! Not to mention that my primary display is a 16:10 monitor...

- Multimonitor is supported under NT with current drivers for up to 5 monitor...

G400's are only AGP, so only 2 monitors need support in the DH driver part. Adding G200 PCI's is a different matter, one not covered in the topic of this discussion.

>I am not bitching here or flaming anyone, just stating the facts. NT is fine but not perfect... don't ask the manufacturer to bypass al it's weakness. [...] If MS are not making the modifications, why should the manufacturers???

Why indeed. Perhaps to offer a professional graphics solution. Again, Elsa has made the effort, and unless Matrox also puts in extra effort, people will buy from other companies like Elsa. Does Matrox want these customers? It all boils down to that question.

Remember, we're talking a _pro_ solution here, not some neato features for gamers to play with. Professionals want stuff that works, and works the way they need it to work. In the current form, the DH feature is too limited for comfortable professional use.

What I'd like to see is support for different res & refresh rates per monitor, have the system messages appear on one monitor (not spread in the middle over the two) and better OpenGL performance. I fully expect the OpenGL to improve in time, hopefully some of the other issues are also addressed.

J-kun

**Spike!** · 19 August 1999, 01:18

DH may be on the cut list for Win2K.
Look at this week's Katt column in PC Week.

**Ashley** · 19 August 1999, 01:35

If you use NT and need a new card right this minute, here's the score in a nutshell:

1. color/gamma correction: Intel, S3, 3dfx or ATI
2. power management: ATI
3. multiple monitors: Matrox or 3Dlabs
4. robust OpenGL: 3Dlabs, Intel or NVidia
5. custom monitor support: Matrox
6. Windows 2000: NVidia or 3Dlabs

There is no clear-cut winner here - everything depends on what's important to you. But if you don't point out that Company B and C provide better support than Company A, where's the incentive for Company A to improve their support?

**J-kun** · 19 August 1999, 01:57

Spike,

I don't have access to PC Week. Can I look at this someplace on the web? If not, what's said, in a nutshell?

Thanks!

J-kun

**Spike!** · 19 August 1999, 05:18

PC Week is at http://www.pcweek.com
Look at the Spencer Katt column

**armyworm** · 19 August 1999, 11:51

Hi,

I haven't see the elsa drivers... so i couldn't know... anyway you may be right and yes, OGL should be higher. I was just pointing out that Matrox is not so bad compared to everyone else with the multimonitors and drivers under NT... So we can't put all the blame on them.

Ciao

Ben

**J-kun** · 19 August 1999, 18:16

Thanks, Spike!

It's just a rumour for now. A collegue here at work has very good connections to Microsoft; I'll ask him to make a few calls and maybe find out if this rumour has any substance to it.

**Helmchen2000** · 19 August 1999, 21:49

up

------------------
and ty%&§!° went down again

Helmchen

Announcement

G400 DH & NT : NT is NOT the limiting factor

G400 DH & NT : NT is NOT the limiting factor

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment