When are Matrox's driver engineers going to remove their heads from their buttocks?

[Mr. Cold]

Just curious... been waiting several months to upgrade to Windows 2000 now, but because of Matrox's lazy driver programmers I haven't been able to do that.

[MURCer]

Gee, I wonder what happened to your first thread. Maybe the same thing will happen to this one.

[Jord]

Want to bet at that, Hunsow?

I'm giving an all go at a BBQ festivity, just because we're back from 1997.

Although I liked Mr. Cold's comment about the losers at Matrox better. It would give some more boiling things around

Go git'im guys&gals.

Jord.

[Aurel]

I don't understand guys like you Mr.Cold. What did you expect to achive with your post, beside geting flamed ?

[Nuno]

Fear not my friend. Word in the street is that Matrox is releasing this friday (the drivers day ) Win2000 drivers - moron edition.
To get them you must answer a few questions (I think they call it IQ test, go wonder).

But I think you´ll have no trouble downloading them.

[Nuno]

Oh did I mentioned I´m using win2k for 2 months and can´t remember the last time I booted win98? Geee...

If you are talking about custom refresh rates, use powerstrip, for god sake.
About dual-head please complain at microsoft. It´s the OS that at the present time doesn´t allow G400 multimonitor implementation.

[The Rock]

I've been using Win2k for months now, and the drivers are ROCK solid, you fool. Why don't YOU take your head outta your damn a$$ and TRY IT AND SEE.

The Rock
www.3dforce.com

[Jord]

I think Mr. Cold still thinks this present version of Win2k will play all his games with all the functions without a hitch, where for sure he's wrong, for he has to wait for the Millennium (plus 1) version of Win2k.

Mr. Cold, the present version of Win2k is extremely good for networking, as it's NT5 (gasp!).

Since NT4 didn't do good for gaming or multi-monitor usage, outside those who got it to work with some twiddling and dedication on their own, not waiting for MS or Matrox to solve their problems, how do you expect the present version of NT will do all this?

Please read what it says on the box: Windows 2000 <u>Professional</u>.
Since you've made it clear that you're not the latter, STFU !!

Jorden.

[Aurel]

Damn, that last paragraph was nice Jord

As much as I hate flame threads, that part I enjoyed

[Damien Green]

What's wrong with the Win 2K drivers? I find that apart from a few naughty programs (3D Mark 2000 - Lazy programming if ever I saw it - add to that biased benchmarks under a P3 system - yep I have an Athlon) everything runs pretty much as it did under Win 98 - With fewer crashes and incresed speed.

To be honest I think Matrox have worked bloody hard - they were one of the first manufactures to release Win 2K drivers - anyone got an ATI rage Fury MAXX - Ati have decided that the won't/can't be bothered to release drivers for their cards. In light of this I fail to see how people like Mr. Cold can justify themselves and flame Matrox for their drivers.

Mr. Cold if you can't run Win 2K properally - then you have either have a hardware problem or do not posess the competance to set up a reliable system. For most of us, the Matrox drivers are quite satisfactory.

I think what most people forget is that Win 2K is after all NT 5 - it's not intended to be a gaming platform, we're very lucky that it allows most things to run - I used to have NT 4 - and the difference between this and 2K is amazing - plug and play - all my hardware works - this was never possible under NT 4.0.

Mr Cold you've obviously never been a system programmer, I have and I can appreciate the huge amount of work that goes into developing drivers for cards - these are not simple beasts, and it often takes a great deal of time to get them working to 99% efficiency under any system.

Right I've had my say - what does everyone else think?

[Nuno]

this present version of Win2k will play all his games with all the functions without a hitch

Mine does Hell, I even can play with my MS force feedback wheel!

[Guacamole]

Actually, I've been running Win2k for several months now, and a LOT less problems than 98. I think I'm getting to like this single screen stretched between two monitors better. This allows a larger screen and such. I did boot 98 just to see how 98 handles multimonitors and quite frankly, I don't like that. Especially since ICQ or other small programs don't like to be dragged into the seconrdary monitor. I don't see what's all this fuss about. I don't really play many games (except half-life), and everything else is graphics work so this single long resolution suits me just fine.

[This message has been edited by Guacamole (edited 16 May 2000).]

[Kruzin]

Mr. Cold, I suggest you read the "Forum Survival Guide". Your first inflamitory post was already deleted. This one will be closed, before the flaming gets carried away.

Learn how to write a diplomatic post. You may have some legitimate complaints, but whining and name calling will not be tolerated here (as seen here, it only results in more flaming and name calling). Many MURCers have ties to, and freindships with these "lazy driver programmers with their heads in their buttocks", and do not appreciate seeing there pals torched. Matrox also monitors these forums, and your pathetic whining will not get their attention. More likely it will be ignored. A constructive post, outlining your issues, and minus the insults will be left alone by me, better recieved by the other forum users, and will be heard by Matrox.....

Thanks to those of you who replied in a level-headed manner...shame on those of you who fell for the flame-bait