Announcement

**Joel** · 5 August 2000, 07:37

For the most part I think you are full of shit.

Well you did ask what I thought.

Joel

**cputnam** · 5 August 2000, 08:03

Interesting response.

Consider me an x-Matrox user and ex-patron of MatroxUsers Group.

**Joel** · 5 August 2000, 08:23

And is this suppose to make me feel bad in some way.

What I am trying to say is stop blaming all your computer problems on Matrox and maybe take a look at your machine setup itself. And if you want our help in solving a problem then including some system specs will help. Bashing Matrox does not do it.

Joel

**Gurm** · 5 August 2000, 14:43

No, it has NOTHING to do with Matrox financials. They simply got a really late start on the whole OpenGL thing and have never really invested heavily in it (timewise) until recently.

Their D3D and 2D are spot-on, and always have been.

- Gurm

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

**Raptor^** · 5 August 2000, 18:11

Forgive me if I'm wrong here, I don't pay that much attention to Nvidia driver releases, while Nvidia do release drivers more frequently, half of their releases seem to be to fix problems introduced in the previous version.

The other thing they do seem fairly good at is getting development drivers leaked, to screw up your system in new and interesting ways, while providing additional bugs and a nice speed reduction for your benefit.

**YoKoMo [1]** · 5 August 2000, 18:21

And people say Matrox Zealots are not as bad as Nvidiots.

**red2** · 5 August 2000, 18:27

I think the beta boys need to ease up slightly with the people that are negative toward Matrox. Sometimes people in the know forget that those that are not do not have the same understanding as they do. I think that nasty replies should only be reserved for those who are outright being nasty or disrespectful. I think a basic tolerance level should be established and agreed upon. Over the years, I have watched the people who are anti-Matrox or even questioning of Matrox get blasted, and it is getting worse. I feel that this is wrong and that they should only get blasted when they are being blatant ****oles. Cputnam was neither nasty nor rude and deserved no such reply. He was merely posting his opinion as to why he feels a situation is the way it is.

However, back to the topic... Matrox entered the Opengl scene late and after they went through internal reorganization which cost them jobs (ie programmers). Also, Nvidia was able to get SGI employees to help them with their Opengl driver. Nvidia's initial opengl driver was just as bad as Matrox's and for just as long. Matrox deserves credit for making up for lost time.

It is unlikey that Matrox has financial troubles. Matrox is still the second largest Video graphics OEM and the largest of professional video editing boards. Despite what Nvidia and 3dfx want you to believe, it is the OEM market that is where the money is. Matrox is 90-95% OEM sales so the retail market is really an after thought to them. They are also the only graphics company left of the original ones formed in the late 1970's, early 80's, so they do indeed know what they are doing.

Also, about their employees... Matrox is basically a training ground for bigger companies like Intel, etc. That is because Matrox is the best in the field and it looks good on resumes. If Matrox where a public company (it's a partnership of only two people!), they could offer stock options and keep their employees, but they can't since they are not and most people would like to be millionaire. (from the stock options)

**Joel** · 5 August 2000, 19:39

Guess I over reacted a little to all the Matrox bashing that has been going on lately. Sorry.

Joel

**cputnam** · 5 August 2000, 22:14

First off, if I came across as being a Matrox basher, my apologies. I'm not. I have one system with a G400 and, until Joel's response, was considering replacing the Nvidia GeForce2 with a G400 due to the better image quality.

Second, don't...DO NOT categorize me as an Nvidiot. The new system I purchased did come with a GeForce2. That particular system setup didn't have a G400 option (Gateway's business systems do, BTW) The GeForce has it's strengths (OpenGL, good drivers under Win2000) and it's weaknesses (average image quality for 2D - nothing can touch Matrox' image quality).

Third, never said that I was having any computer problems. Both systems run fine. However, the system with the G400 has certain limitations, as noted below.

Fourth, if it matters, I have a great understanding of both computer hardware and software...if you choose to believe that.

My points are these:
a) Matrox makes an excellent piece of hardware. 2D work and DirectX games are excellent on the G400
b) Matrox support for OpenGL is lacking. We all know that.
c) Monitor refresh rates under Win2000 Pro are limited to 85hz max (unless of course the latest beta includes their custom monitor setups that go above 85hz, same as on the Win98 drivers)
d) MY OPINION ONLY - the way that Matrox handles custom monitor settings appears to be convoluted versus the way that other card/chip manufacturers do. Both Nvidia and ATi utilize the monitor INF files to determine refresh rates. The Matrox drivers have built in customized settings that are independent of monitor INF files.

That being said, if I've erred in some way on any of the above statements, you're welcome to correct me. If I'm misinformed in some area, enlighten me. I'm open to correction. I welcome it. Lots of times I need it.

But, if you make a statement like Joel and leave it at that without providing ANY valid information to correct/contradict, then you're way out of line.

The upshot. I don't want to spend additional funds on a video card that would better suite my needs (i.e. excellent image quality for 2D work - mostly word processing and photo rendering, etc.) if that company is going to provide weak and limited driver support. If I can be convinced otherwise, I'd reconsider.

If you have something intelligent to say, I'll listen. If you simply pop off the way Joel did, see ya.

**paulcs** · 6 August 2000, 00:28

I think certain companies have their strong suits, and OpenGL implementation is something that nVidia and 3DLabs are particularly good at. They sit on the OpenGL board and help steer the direction of the API.

Matrox's bread and butter has always been in the realm of 2D, business and now content creation applications, and their Direct3D support has been solid for a while. It is probably a bit better than nVidia's, 3dfx's, and ATI's.

Probably the most notorious episode in Matrox's history was the G200 OpenGL debacle. I've been purchasing Matrox products for a while now, and I see the current ICD as kind of a miracle turnaround.

I think Matrox's driver support has been and continues to extremely good. They release driver updates, both beta and final, far more often than nVidia. The opposite appears true because of the preponderance of leaked and hacked nVidia drivers. There are suspicions on some of the less biased nVidia forums that these drivers are leaked intentionally, so nVidia can conduct beta tests on an epic scale and not have to provide support. (I'm using the word "suspicion" loosely. Many people are absolutely convinced this is the case.)

I don't know what to believe. NVidia has certainly gone after sites for posting leaks, although they appear to have given up, as the Russian site, Reactor Critical, may be bullet proof. I do know this. There were no official nVidia releases between the 3.62 and 5.22 Detonators. Not beta or final. Nothing. That was a period of about eight months. I think Matrox users would find that kind of support both shocking and completely unacceptable.

I guess it all depends on your tolerance of this sort of thing. I kind of like the leaks; many do not and they have good reasons for not liking this approach.

Matrox's driver support is far better than ATI's, and I think anyone who tells you differently is lying or just plain nuts. I believe most ATI users would agree with me, and use much stronger language as well. ATI was an enormously profitable company, and it hit upon some really hard times. I think this is because there driver support has been so consistantly dismal for a very long time. (The story is always the same. Great DVD support. Solid 32-bit performance. Lousy 16-bit performance. Lockups in Notepad. Do the hard stuff fairly well. Screw up the simple stuff.)

The company that was formerly S3/Diamond probably has the worst driver support in the industry. They support a product for a couple of months and then just stop. They had done this over and over again, and now they are VIA's problem.

3dfx has no shortage of OpenGL-related problems. They, like Matrox, got into the game late, and their ICD also is experiencing "teething pains." 3dfx drivers seem to write to thousands of places in the registry, and they are a bitch to unistall. These are gaming boards as well, and they just can't seem to break into the OEM and business markets.

I guess you're going to have to access your needs. If OpenGL application performance is really important to you, you might want to consider biting the bullet and purchasing a Glint-based board or a Quadro. (It's funny. For a while there, 3DLabs appeared to think Matrox was a big threat, and attacked them or their website. Then when they weren't looking, nVidia stuck up behind them and bit them on the ass.) That's what these boards are designed to do.

I just don't see the fascination with Microsoft certified drivers. Microsoft certification is practically a religion with OEM's, so Matrox is forced to release certified drivers. However, Microsoft severely restricts what videocard manufacturers can include in their drivers. These restrictions are related to both interface and functionality issues.

This might be the case with the custom monitor settings in W2K. It's bizarre. Microsoft will not even permit an option to disable vsync in Windows 98. That's why nVidia users must hack the registry and Matrox provides a separate utility.

The vast majority of professional users do not use CAD-based applications. Period. And I know a lot of graphics professionals. I went out with a designer in college. My best friend from college is a designer. (She recently won a Webbie Award, beating Martha Stewart!) My former roommate was a designer. My current roommate is a graphic artist. My father was a commercial artist before he retired. With the exception of my father, who used pens, brushes, and Exacto knives, all of them use Macs, which means all of them use ATI boards. Although things are changing, it is still a 2D world.

I think if Matrox is not meeting your needs, you should look elsewhere. NVidia will have better OpenGL performance, at least in the short term, and the W2K support, in places, may be better as well. You're going to lose a bit of performance as well, particularly in the 2D department, and I think that's a really important consideration. I spend a lot more time in a 2D environment than I do in a 3D environment. I just don't have a sense of what your needs are. (Unless you absolutely need an ulcer, stay away from ATI. Frankly, I think negatively comparing Matrox's drivers to ATI's is specious in the extreme.)

One of the reasons Matrox has such razzle dazzle 2D output is because their drivers are so good.

Personally, I'm more concerned with the state of Matrox's product cycle than I am of their drivers. A year without a new product seems excessive to me.

Good heavens, I've written a book!

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

**Joel** · 6 August 2000, 06:48

Oh well, so much for trying to appologize. My origianl post was meant as a joke, that is the reason for the winky at the end. Those with a sense of humor and those that know me would have seen that.

As for Matrox's support. Name me one company that still supports it's older cards like Matrox. And as a beta boy I can say that Matrox is working on some of the issues stated but not everything can be solved by a driver fix. Sometimes the hardware's limitations and the application itself has to be taken into acccount. That is unfortunate but it is true.

Joel

**cputnam** · 6 August 2000, 15:03

O.K. Enough.

PaulC - excellent response. Gave me something to think about. Ya oughta publish it... I think I'd have myself committed if I ever gave ATi another try. Their driver support stinks (can't write 'em for beans).

Joel - apology accepted.

Now, if anyone can advise if the current beta set of Win2000 drivers includes Matrox custom monitor properties (i.e. allowing a refresh rate higher than 85hz @ 1024x768), I'd be a happy camper.

Matrox - it'd be nice if you'd let us know once in a while what corrections are being worked on and what sort of timetable can be expected. NDA's are a pain.

**Brian R.** · 6 August 2000, 16:40

Putnam - If you want to talk to Matrox, you better go to Matrox.

Announcement

Whither Matrox?

Whither Matrox?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment