G400 Driver Rant (Depressing)

[Joel]

And the only one to blame for all this concerning the G450 is Dan Woods. I personally think they should drop the G450 deal for the retail market and go full tilt on the G800. And while I agree that somethings may be able to be fixed in the drivers there is always the limitation of the hardware that has to be considered.

Joel

BTW: I have the cheese for this whine party.

[Greebe]

Problem is, you're complaining about it through non Matrox channels doesn't help. As always, the problem continues and not telling these people (are they that disconected from reality?) what needs to be addressed, is a must!

email technical marketing as they say what flies / doesn't and post up your problem(s)/issues to forum.matrox.com

(I thought you would have done this by now :\
"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again."

[Erich]

It seems to me that they need some more people writing drivers for there cards.

Personally I wouldn´t even think of buying anything else but a Matrox card even though I use my puter for mostly gaming(Dualhead is great when watching VCDs).

BUT I may be forced to if they don´t write a better ICD.

[This message has been edited by Erich (edited 01 August 2000).]

[Gurm]

I'm SERIOUSLY considering a GeForce2 MX. It's a little baby GeForce2, no faster than a GeForce1, but with more features, dualhead, and it's $150. Then I can put this G400 in my wife's machine (it will run all HER games just fine, and she'll love me for giving her something faster than her TNT) and maybe that will hold me over until someone comes out with something better.

I concur with Ant - I'm not holding my breath waiting for the G800. The G450 is basically what the G400MAX should have been. It's not a new card. And the odds that they will have fixed the drivers any time this year are slim to none.

It's too bad, really. I love this card. It's a great card. But Matrox is headed the way of ATI, and it's depressing.

- Gurm

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

[Erich]

Forgot one thing. It´s kind of a poll and I would be glad if you guys answer i would really like to know.

If Matrox Windows 2000 drivers was just as good(or bad, depends on how you look at it) as the Windows 9x driver would YOU switch to Windows 2000?

And I would also like to thank dZeus for having a great Windows 2000 bugg page. Helped me with HL(the "gl_trick 1" thing).

[Indiana]

I had a Asus V3400TNT before my G400, so I probably have a bit of another point of view.
The thing that was most impressive for me when I got the G400 was the stability of it's drivers (2D and D3D)! Finally no more strange lockups and/or overlay problems - and the 2D quality of the TNT really was bad. Besides the TV-Out of the ASUS-card, while of top visual quality (similar to the G400's if not even crisper) had a lot of small annoying bugs that, together with the other driver bugs, the problems with most software that used overlays and the blurry 2D made me sell the card and buy the G400 - Yes, for me the speed-gain was NOT the reason for the upgrade, the TNT was fast enough for my gaming needs.

BUT (before this gets too positive for Matrox...) the G400's OGL - sorry, but I'll frankly say it - really sucks! I NEVER EVER had any problems with any OGL program on the TNT, they were running fast and stable and without visual glitches - and this over one year ago!
This is something you definitely can't say about the G400: OGL software is slow, has minor to major visual problems or often doesn't run at all. Only the major game titles (like the Q series) seem to run and even with these there are some issues. If you try anything else, you're in a lottery game: a lot of OGL screensaver WILL crash your computer, things like MAME GL won't work, many of the OGL 3D demos crash, look like crap or also don't work at all.

I don't know if NVidias 2D and D3D are better nowadays than they were in summer '99 but at that time the only good thing about NVidia was the OGL support and the speed (of course). With the G400 the only bad thing was OGL, and since I considered 2D and D3D functionality more important than OGL, I bought the G400.
BUT (the next but) over half a year later I surely would expect some progress on the OGL front and there was almost none. Even if Matrox started with OGL only with the development for the G400 drivers, NVidia had mature OGL drivers in shorter development time.

This leaves the question: is Matrox able to provide a fully functional OGL at all? The answer to this question might be a reason to buy (or not to buy) the G800...

[This message has been edited by Indiana (edited 01 August 2000).]

[Gurm]

Indiana:

Sadly, the answer to your question:

Is Matrox able to provide a fully functional OGL at all?

Is a resounding NO. They are willing to provide an ICD. They have worked hard to make the ICD fairly crash-resistant. However, they seem entirely uninterested in making that ICD "complete", by any definition of the word. This has been borne out historically by their failure to provide an ICD for the G200, then by their failure to provide a working ICD for the G400, and finally by their failure, fully 2 years after beginning ICD development, to provide anything meaningful beyond Quake2/Quake3 support in their ICD.

It's sad, really. *sigh*

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

[The PIT]

I've got to admit I can't understand the logic of the G450. The card ought to be scrapped and the G800/drivers concentrated on. How many here will buy the G450 when it's a clearly stop gap measure. I wouldn't be surprised if the Pc press slag the card off when they compair it to other new graphics cards hitting the shelf. Matrox may up ending wishing they buried the card.

[Randy Simons]

Hmm, when was it, that Matrox said they were committed to design a 100% OpenGL 1.2 ICD? Don't remember anymore, but I'm pretty sure I read it.

Although I've little to complain about D3D support or stability the last year or so, even a simple OpenGL game like XTom3D has visual bugs and runs slooowww...
I run MAX in software-mode. Says enough I guess.

Ow, I'd like to see some new w2k drivers as well? The G200 and G400 aren't THAT different... (hint: a build-in resolution manager would be a nice idea. I cought myself using 1400x1050 ONLY the last weeks, while otherwise I would constantly switch between 1280 and 1600)



[This message has been edited by Randy Simons (edited 01 August 2000).]

[dZeus]

I don't believe in the G450 being scrapped is a good idea. The G450 has almost the same core as the G400 (different memory interface, faster ramdac for second head and some other things probably), and not much effort is needed to make drivers for it (my guess). Since the G450 is practically launched already, it doesn't seem very smart to scrap it.

What you also should realise is that the G450 will only bring good, looking at the OpenGL ICD driver: The G450 is somewhat targeted for OEM's and more professional use than the G400 (certainly not gaming). For those purposes Matrox needs a top-notch OpenGL ICD. Recently Matrox had a sign-up for beta-testers using professional apps. Coincidence? I don't think so

I think the reason the G400 driver development currently is not at the level that the people in this thread want it to be, is that they are busy writing a driverset for Win2k/Win98/WinME for the G800.... if it uses a new core, it needs a lot of work done on the drivers.

My advice: have patience! the only way to fix all the problems is to make them easily reproducable and inform Matrox Tech Support about them (in a friendly matter, since that solves things a thousand times faster than when you are complaining in a neagtive way)

[PaulS]

dZues, I can't see any OEM considering the G450 in a graphics workstation, Matrox's target has still got to be the SOHO / Home OEM machines, word processors with some entertainment capabilities for the (big) kids.

The obvious explanation for Matrox's targeting the G450 as a business solution is to try and dampen the inevitable bashing they will get when the 3D hardware geeks finally review this card. Marketing is already in damage control.

Paul

[Goc]

OK Gurm...

Just one thing... GeFarce 2 as you called it is 2 (two) generations ahead of G400 in graphic card market... Isn't it just a bit unfair to compare those two?

I agree that OpenGL ICD sucks really bad, and, yes it is pretty annoying the way big M advertises it as a product for proffesionals, but I think that there wasn't a graphic chip capable of more at the time G400 hit the market... For the proffesionals there are more expensive but waaaay better solutions... Anyone said 3DLabs Oxygen GVX1?!?

What I think Gurm, is that you should stop bitching about the drivers and start to put some pressure for a next-gen chip. And i mean really a next-gen, not a recycled core... Matrox is lagging behind in hardware development what is more critical than drivers.

Anyway what I wanted to say is: if you are a pro in need of good OGL performance you wouldn't most certainly buy G400, GF2, Radeon , or even G800, NV25 or whatevercode the next Nvidia "killer-chip" will have. You'll spend some money for The-Real-Thing-Whatever-It-Is-In-The-High-End-Market, and never take a second look at the so called monster chips for the gaming population.

I am not a pro and I am happy with D3D performance. OGL-only games are really scarce these days so what the heck.
I think that is the sentence that Matrox expects from an average Joe Customer.

[Zyn]

If there was such thing as a matrox borg, I would be it, I have had the millenium, millenium2 8mb wram (3 bills for that one) g200 g400 and loved it all the way. But damn, they really pissed me right off g200 angers got the best of me, got a tnt, ulcers went away. then picked up the max.


Let me say something quick about win2000 support. It sucks ****. Any questions?
Driver 5.03 is slow, has no monitor info you change, just nothing, but it worked... slow as **** but it worked. 5.04 is for g400's only, not g400max.. "WHAT THE ****" So I loaded it, that worked out pretty good. Even though I wasn't supposed to do that. 5.10 hahaha, that was pretty fun, loaded up a little counter-strike.. You guys might have heard of this term, its called "TOTAL DEATH" So, I went back to 5.04. Then came 5.11, yah! they fixed it(wishful thinking) Nope, I get mad vertical lines under any 3d game. "Mother ******" Well, 5.04 sucks, but I have to suck it up. I wonder if those guys hacking away on a geforce have to be scared that their newest video card drivers will crash their computer. Matrox, what the hell are you doing? Matrox, "Well I have my thumb up my *** all day long."
Im not finished yet, let me continue with marketing. G450, What the **** kind of crack are you smoking, cause I want some of that ****" I mean seriously, 1 year later, they come out with a slower card with more toys? Are you serious? Who in the world is going to buy it? Well, it is cheap...... *cough* *cough* but ... "The gefroce2 MX will tear the g450 a new ***hole"
Matrox... seriously now. Come on

------------------
G400 on a G400

[Gurm]

Goc:

Yes, the GeFarce2 is two generations ahead of the G400. You know what isn't? The TNT1. You know which card has a better OpenGL implementation? The TNT1. You know which card gets better framerates in OpenGL? Well, the TNT1 only lags by a few, and the TNT2 eats the G400 for lunch.

Let's not talk about "quality", because we know the G400 has the best display quality. What I'm saying is that nVidia introduced a FULL OpenGL ICD around the same time Matrox started working on one.

For crying out loud, ATI's ICD is better than Matrox's! So is 3dfx's, and they make a bloody GAMING card!

And I don't intend to "get behind the next-gen card". I don't care about the next gen card. It will likely share a drive core with the G400, just as the G400 shares a core with the G200. And if Matrox is incapable of making the G400 OpenGL compliant, then they are surely incapable of making the G800 OpenGL compliant.

Period.

And I know how "hard" it is to write drivers. I've done it. It's no picnic, but when it's someone's JOB, it gets done.

And look at some smaller companies... 3D Labs ships every card it has ever made with a 100% OpenGL compliant ICD OUT OF THE BOX.

- Gurm

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

[C=64]

Here here!

Being one of those people Gurm "picked on" for this type of rant, I can honestly say I completely agree with Gurm. It's amazing how far Matrox is willing to go to make sure I'm no longer a customer.

If I were an engineer at Matrox, I'd be on the verge of going on a bloody rampage. I mean, to produce such wonderful hardware, and then have it dragged down by such shoddy software...


(a completely frustrated) C=64