This is what I was told by Haig. OpenGL seems grim for NT.

[noackjr]

Sorry Holly - We get a little out of hand sometimes.

It's always nice to have you set us straight...

Jon

[This message has been edited by noackjr (edited 08 February 2000).]

[Nuno]

LOL! Fun indeed, but I wonder what will Ant think if he sees java applets being used in the fori...

[Rags]

Hi Paul,

I agree totally that there is nothing wrong with the NT architecture that is preventing it from being a suitable gaming platform. The problem is how NT is marketed. Ultimately it is up to MS how NT gets used, not the everyday consumer who buys the games. MS is the one who did not give NT all the API support necessary to become a viable gaming solution, and I do think it's a shame. Hopefully with Win2K it will be different, but I am having some doubts about it. It looks as though MS may be doing the same thing as before. They are coming out with a general consumer OS that will be for the general PC user. I know that you and I don't care what MS thinks we should use, but the general public that goes out and buys their Compaqs/Gateways/Dells/Microns/IBMs/etc. use whatever OS is on the system they purchase, they don't care what it is just as long as it works. And if MS says that NT5 is not going to be on the basic computers I would have to say that's the way it is. You don't need to tell me all the advantages NT and NT5 have over the dos shell based OS's because I am fully aware of them. But the reality is that if 80-95% of computer users are going to be using it, then that is what the games and hardware are going to support. That leaves us with one point of hope: MS can somehow manage to keep the gaming API's consistant between both of their OS's and up to date with each other. This would allow game mfrs and game equip mfrs to more easily support both OS's. Is it going to happen, I hope so, but I do have my doubts. I am sure that NT5 will be supported by Matrox. Hell, NT4 is not too bad with Matrox right now, they have had more driver revisions for their G200 in the last 6 monts than nVidia has for their TNT, and ATI for their Rage Pro. The G400 is the current flagship, so I see no reason to believe that Matrox will dump NT4 or Win2K support. I can definitely agree on Matrox's decision to stick with OpenGL app. support over game support with NT4. Win2K is something that is undecided as of yet, let's have this coversation 6 months after Win2K is released, shall we??? Hopefully there won't be anything to be angry aobut.

Rags

[HollyBerri]

I think that for a while Win2000 Pro is going to be the OS of choice for high end systems, gaming or otherwise.

Seriously??? You think that if my office orders a new PC from Staples/OfficeMax/PCZone/Buycomp.com (and may I add that these are people who, when they ordered their first PC for testing applicants to our temp agency-- staff uses dumb terminals running under PICK-- they asked for a "486 Pentium", *ahem*) that their Compaq/HP Pavillion/Aptiva is going to be running Win2000 Pro??? Or do you mean workstations...? which would be running it anyway... I sure don't think that if I order a gaming rig from Falcon Northwest next year that that's the OS it will be running...

I really wonder: what makes you so sure of that opinion?

-------------
Holly

[noackjr]

Well, I'm making several assumptions here. First off, I would consider a high-end system to be a workstation. By this I mean a dual Pentium III would be a high-end system. Now, if Win2000 Pro supports DX and OpenGL and manufacturers optimize their drivers then I would say that dual processors and Win2000 Pro would make a very formidable gaming machine. If this happens I would not understand it if people at Falcon Northwest didn't produce a Win2000 Pro dual processor gaming machine. Maybe I'm missing something obvious like Win2000 Pro not supporting DX or some other necessary API, but I don't think so. If DX and OpenGL is supported (and whatever other APIs i'm missing, if any), Win2000 Pro should be a very good gaming platform. Let me know if I have no clue what I'm talking about (it has happened oh so often in the past).

Jon

Sorry if I wasn't supposed to put the applet up - it just seemed appropriate.

[violentg]

if we have to wait 6 months after the official release of windows 2000 to discuss the driver situation for matrox cards and win2k then they will miss a lot of sales im sure and my next card will be something else
i love my g400 and defend it everywhere but win 2k will be a viable gaming system with full support of dx7 as well as multiprocessor
support (important to me since i run a dual celeron system)there is really no excuse for not supporting win2k at release hell the matrox card is the only thing in my box not supported even highpoint got me some ultra ata/66 drivers and is working fine now.this os has been in use by buisnesses already for sometime.what part of people will need drivers of this os on release is so hard to understand?how can they release stable drivers for win2k without builds and bug testing now to insure upon release that they have drivers that work and are bug free?win2k will be used for gaming and we will need support for it.if matrox doesnt deliver
and everyone else does(most have already)then
there is no defending them for it period.

[PaulS]

Rags,

Well, the wait will soon be over. RC3 was declared a couple of days ago, I think that leaves 21 days until RTM. I am just hoping they post it on MSDN before Christmas, and Matrox has some drivers ready. I am really keen to see FS2000 running properly!

Paul

[mj12]

Anyone not seeing w2k as a viable replacement for NT AND 9x needs to wake up fast. Icestorm, dude read all of PaulS long post in response to yours, He hit it right on the button and he from reading his post he understands win32 very well. We never stated we wanted a turbogl. The turbogl is just a something matrox threw out to make benchmarks look comparable in ogl to nvidia. All reviews of the g400 said the same thing, "great card, good dx drivers, crappy opengl drivers". And w2k IS the present! Because of various NDA's I can't state whom, but there are very very large comanys running w2k NOW! W2k is not months away, goto zdnet and look up the latest release date. It is in Dec.

------------------
Get Paid to Surf the Web! <A HREF="http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=CBM-295
" TARGET=_blank>http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=CBM-295
</A>

[Livius]

Hi!
Unlike you guys I'm not an OS expert although I have used both Win98 and NT (and a little Linux, which I find great but unfortunately limited by the small(er) user-base).
Just let me say first that Win98SE has been all problems for me. I am curious if any of you replaced some substantial hardware (e.g. mobo) while running Win98SE (without re-installing it, of course). I've done that a hundred times on Win98 and it was an (almost) flawless process. I've done it just two times on two different Win98SE machines and hell broke loose both times. So I've had my share of SE - thanx but no thanx MS.
Secondly, a big question - what is the state of Win2K right now. Assuming you have a Matrox card (MAX over here) what can you and what can't you properly do with it. Is it really the best of two worlds (98 and NT)?
Thanks!

[PaulS]

Hi Livius,

If you have a Matrox card you can do nothing except 2D, no OpenGL or D3D or dual head yet.

Most Matrox Windows 2000 users seem to be getting a bit worried. We are hoping that the platform will be supported better than NT 4, but Matrox hasn't given us much encouragement so far.

It is a fantastic OS, and if you have the hardware for it I doubt you'll be disappointed. BTW, you won't be able to change motherboards in W2k without doing a complete re-install either.

Paul.

[SwAmPlAdY]

I'm pretty sure that Matrox will release some kind of beta win2k drivers in a few days. I agree with GURM, the drivers are pretty good although there's no monitor tabs but the ICD and TGL is looking good for win2k.

SwAmPy

[Snake-Eyes]

LOL. Seeing you folks argue over this is pretty funny to me.

Here's one reason W2K (as it currently stands, with MS also doing Millenium) will probably not be the gaming platform of choice, at least for developers and those of us with less than pockets full of money.

MS is marketing two distinct OS lines, just as in the past. The 9x successor is Millenium, and is probably going to be priced somewhere in the affordability range of the average home software buyer (ie.: anywhere from $50-$150 bucks, close to $100 for the upgrade from Win98/SE). Win2K is going to be targetted more at business environments, which need the extra stability for their workstations, and tend to buy in bulk, and will likely have a much higher cost (think several hundred $$, and you get my drift).

This alone will help keep Win2K from being overly popular for the average person (which is the target for most <$100 software titles, especially games).

This isn't to say that those of you with extra thick bank accounts won't use Win2K, since you'll probably get that Dual P3/Athlon rig with outrageous disk space, super big screen monitor, 5 pt. sound system, etc., and take advantage of W2K's multiprocessor support to get a faster gaming rig. But you probably won't be buying W2K by itself in that case- you'll probably get it with this hyper powerful rig.

Those of you just upgrading your OSs will probably find that Millenium is faster on your machine than W2K for games, even though you WILL (finally) be able to play most of them on the NT based OS. Only those of you that already have multiprocessor systems will buy the W2K off the shelf, by itself. How many?? (even better, how many use Win9x with those right now??- if you do, are you nuts, since 9x doesn't support that 2nd processor? Oh, you want games. Well, that processor will be outdated faster than the OS is released. Wasted money there, huh?)

Anyway, not intending this as flamebait- I just don't see the need (now) for dual processors if you're not using NT (and by extension, not if you want games). And later, I see those of you wanting dual processors and games getting a complete system with W2K, not W2k by itself. Everyone else will probably use the Win9x successor, at least this go-around. Those will be the majority (face it, MOST businesses don't want their employess playing games on their hardware).

So, for the near future, 9x based OSs will remain the primary target for games, even if NT successors can now run them acceptably (on high-end dual processor boxes).

Sorry for the long post. I jut really think that despite both being capable of gaming now, one will remain dominant in that arena, while the other stays mainly business oriented for the time being. That's the way MS has set up their market, and it's not likely to change until they merge the codebases for most of us.

------------------
Ace

[mj12]

I must step in to burst your little bubble. First of all it's millennium not millenium. And second of all I am running beta2 of millennium right now and it is nowhere near w2k. The only reason MS is releasing millennium in between 98 and neptune is because they have consumers believing that they must upgrade their OS every 9 months to whatever hunk of crap MS throws out the door. As soon as microsoft figured out that people would pay full price for 98se, they were off to the races to roll out another cash cow in 9 months.

[Gurm]

Folks,

For the umpteenth time the drivers are coming along just fine. The fact that Matrox has chosen to only release them to developers and beta testers doesn't mean they aren't working on them. They're on the fifth iteration of DirectX 7 drivers right now. The full OpenGL ICD is working, albeit not without its quirks. It's just fine, and it WILL be ready in time.

Now, as to why Matrox doesn't release these drivers - your guess is as good as mine.

- Ash


------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[PaulS]

Ace,

I agree that it is unlikely that W2k is going to become the dominant home / games OS, that's virtually impossible unless the OEM's adopt it. But it is certainly where MS is concentrating their development efforts, and it I can't imagine why game developers would work on anything else (unless they like really enjoy rebooting 100 times a day). Of course games developers will make certain that things run well on Win9X/Millennium, but there is always some advantage to running an application on the platform that the developer used. And most game developers are hardware freaks, so I'll bet we'll see some pretty nice things happening on W2k.

Paul.