Windows 2000 G400 refresh rates

[telstra]

Well more than 12 months since win2000 has been 'ready' and still matrox has not enabled power desk with custom monitor refresh rate adjustment. Can someone explain how I might do this otherwise via the registry. I'm sick and tired of not being able to adjust my refresh to what monitor can handle. I can't even fill the screen with the picture.
Oh and by the way, virtual desktop feature has been discontinued? A big thanks from all the power users matrox. They kept Desknav, which is gimmick at best. Good one you bunch of freaks.

[Gurm]

Wow, almost trash-bin material. You'll get no real answers with those tactics, ya dumbass.

But to answer your questions... you can adjust the refresh rate for each resolution manually. As for rates in games, either use the game itself (like Quake3), or use PowerStrip.

And as for virtual desktops, blame Microsoft. They screwed it up (well, just CHANGED it really) in Win2k and Matrox are working on a workaround.

- Gurm

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

[fds]

To set the desktop refresh rate use the Advanced button on the Display Properties settings page.
You can not use anything higher than 75 Hz in 1152x864 though. I have absolutely no idea why because it allows 85 Hz in 1280x1024 for example.

To set DirectVideo/Direct3D refresh rates use the More Help tab in DXDIAG (Start -> Run -> DXDIAG).

To set Quake3's refresh rate, put the following line into a file called autoexec.cfg inside the baseq3 folder (if you don't have one already, just create one):
seta r_displayRefresh "85"

Unfortunately I don't know of a way of setting the refresh rates for other OpenGL games (HL, Q2, etc.)

Don't bother with PowerStrip, it couldn't make any difference in the refresh rates for me.

And as for virtual desktops, blame Matrox. They removed it way back when they went from PD4 to PD5. It's not even in Win98.

[Kruzin]

"And as for virtual desktops, blame Matrox."
Wrong answer.
MS changed the requirements for their certification quite a while back. Those requirements necessitated that Matrox remove the virtual desktop from PD5.
Thank Miico$loth for that one.

[telstra]

Good one Gurm, u answered nothing and got your facts wrong. You are a winner as long as your believe it in your mind. Rock on!

Kruzin and fds, thanks for your useful replys. Matrox offical line on VDesktops is that they cause incompatibilities with dual head. Its very disappointing as i work with a lot of programs that have many palettes, and I used to move all these to the second screen. Since I have not had this feature, I estimate my productivity has fallen up to 20%.

[telstra]

PaulS. Thank's for giving a practical perspictive on this for a non-code-cruncher like me. Didn't know Matrox had a forum. Is it in the develop section or is it public? I'd be happy to stir up a hornet's nest!

[Gurm]

Telstra,

Which answers did I get wrong? Hmm? I said that Microsoft FUBAR'd virtual desktops. However, I managed to combine that (in a broken sentence) with the fact that Microsoft ALSO screwed up multi-monitor. That was, admittedly, my bad.

However, I was 100% correct about the refresh rates. You can adjust each and every refresh rate, for every resolution, and every single solitary color depth... by clicking on the desktop, picking "properties", and changing the refresh rate. How friggin' hard is that?

So bite me. Don't insult me until you learn to read.

- Gurm

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

[PaulS]

telstra, try posting this on Matrox's forum. Could be fun

You have to take Matrox's protestations about Microsoft with a grain of salt. Sure MS changes the way things are done, which usually means some recoding, but it is quite something else to say it is no longer possible.

Virtual desktops are still possible, multires dualhead on w2k is possible, refresh rates higher than 85hz are very possible. The question is simply can Matrox be bothered doing the work. Eventually they'll do the simple things - like add the higher refresh rates, but the rest of it will probably have to wait for a newer card, or maybe MS to change things so implementation is a no brainer.

Paul

[This message has been edited by PaulS (edited 07 March 2000).]

[Mr. Cold]

Gurm,

Get a clue.. You can't have anything higher than 75hz refresh in 1152x864 (32-bit color if that matters) in Win2k. This is very taxing on the eyes for someone who sits in front of their monitor all day like some of us. It strains the eyes more than you can imagine when my refresh is anything lower than 85hz. I am used to 99hz (Hitachi CM751 monitor) with the Win98 drivers, and I can stare at my monitor for hours on end without any eye strain.

[telstra]

Thankyou Mr. Cold. Now if someone can figure out a registry hack or something for the 75Hz limit at 1152x864, many of us will be a lot happier.

[Gurm]

Ah yes ok. The 1152x864 thing is a bit of a mystery. But every other mode can be set any ol' way you like. And the original poster wasn't talking about 1152 specifically, he was just talking trash in general.

- Gurm

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