Can we make a new parhelia win9x driver?

[UtwigMU]

While you're at it make some Windows 3.1 drivers as well.

(Meant as sarcastic.)

Windows98 is 5 years old.

it's like Windows 3.1 in 1997 (200-300MHz CPUs).

Also if your software works in 98, it should also work under NT 4.0 Workstation (same time period), for which Parhelia has drivers.

Why not use that?

I'd love to be able not to use Windows98 @ work - a reboot a day at least, crashed application taking down entire rig...

[High_Jumbllama]

I cannot work in NT4 if it needs DX.

[prr]

As we all know, Matrox tries to keep expenses down. And I'm supporting completely their decision to cut it with not making W9X drivers. As MS itself has abandoned to support W9X-series, why not Matrox?
Personally I never understood, why there were such thingies as W95/98/ME, when MS already had created real OS -- NT 3.5...
But marketing strategies are not always easy to understand

[Kruzin]

Originally posted by Kuriton
But I want to know the reason matrox canceled the win9x plan.
So I want to know more about win9x driver.

There was no cancelled plan.
From day 1 it was known there would be no 9x drivers for P.
The plan was not to support it, and they stuck with their plan.

[Wombat]

Originally posted by prr

Personally I never understood, why there were such thingies as W95/98/ME, when MS already had created real OS -- NT 3.5...
But marketing strategies are not always easy to understand

Because NT wasn't worth using until NT4, and they didn't find a reasonable video performance/stability tradeoff until 2k or XP.

[Kurt]

Originally posted by prr
As we all know, Matrox tries to keep expenses down. And I'm supporting completely their decision to cut it with not making W9X drivers. As MS itself has abandoned to support W9X-series, why not Matrox?
Personally I never understood, why there were such thingies as W95/98/ME, when MS already had created real OS -- NT 3.5...
But marketing strategies are not always easy to understand

@kuriton: just to point out whatprr said, MS is not supporting Win98 anymore. It's already difficult to develop a driver per se, now try when the company that does the OS is not helping you either. Unless you want to reverse engineer Windows on top of things...

Matrox was probably 6months to a year early on the public for not supporting win98. let's face it now: computers that still have win98 are relegated to the low end, corporate buyers have xp, all new pc's have xp. No reason for Matrox to support 98 (ppl in the low end do not buy Matrox cards either). The few sales they possibly miss aren't worth the trouble and money. Ppl who were stuck with 98 and wanted a P will get it the next upgrade cycle when they buy pc with xp (that should be about now...as pc get changed every 3 to 5 years on average).

[thop]

I'd say that 95% of all possible Parhelia buyers don't run 98 or ME do i think it was a reasonable move.

[Kuriton]

@Zanna

The first stage, some of person complained about parhelia support in win9x in Japan.
I also was disappointed that Matrox said that parhelia won't support that.
I also think Matrox won't release the secret information to keep original sharpness.

@a_h

Hey! I found a document in japanese windriver faq.

http://www.excite.co.jp/world/url/body/?wb_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xlsoft.com%2Fjp%2Fsupport-j%2Fwdfaq%2Ftechinfo%2Fagp.htm&submit=%83E%83F%83u%83y%81%5B%83W%96%7C%96%F3&wb_lp=JAEN&wb_dis=2&wb_co=excitejapan

It maybe strange because its document was translated by computer.

When I look at this, I thought that windriver can make a agp driver.

Why I want to know more drivers is I originally is interested in hardware and electronic science.
I want to know how to control hardware by device drivers.

@Mikko

Yeah. If I make a driver, I have to study them too.
But, if I make it at all, we had better not decide that we use powerdesk-HF and .NET.
As you know .NET is very complex, so it still has many problem.

@High_Jumbllama

Hi. Your opinion is one of good suggestions.
But I think parhelia supports win9x is not bad.
And all of their system aren't unstable, win9x is usually stable first.
And the system's response is very quick.

@UtwigMU

Did you mean that winNT4.0 supports win9x software?
If it is true, I'm very happy.

@prr

hehehe... But parhelia is very expensive in Japan :P
nVidia and ATi still support win9x, though Microsoft stops supporting for them.

@Kruzin

Really?
Did you mean Matrox made a part of win9x driver?

@Kurt

I see.
I know MS don't support win9x.
OK, I need to read more books which about develop drivers because I know about drivers few.
If I understand more about drivers, I find the answer whether it is impossible or not.

Thanks for your many reply about this thread.

Kuriton

[Kruzin]

Originally posted by Kuriton
@Kruzin

Really?
Did you mean Matrox made a part of win9x driver?

Kuriton

No, that's not what I mean.
I said they never planned to support 9x with P.
Long before the public even knew about Parhelia, the decision was made NOT to mess with 9x drivers.
That was the plan all along.

You suggest they planned to make 9x drivers, and cancelled that plan. That's not how it happened. The plan was NOT to make 9x drivers all along.

[Kuriton]

Hi Kruzin.

I understood what you meant.

I said like that because I find this message on InfoMagic as Matrox agency.

Windows2000/XP k Windows98/Me, WindowsNT4.0 (beyond SP3) will be corresponding schedules from now on. l

According to your opinion, the document was wrong.



Regards.

[UtwigMU]

NT 4.0 doesn't support all 98 software, but a lot of pre 1999 stuff that doesn't work with win2k or XP (Don't forget compatibility mode in XP or 2k) natively works with NT 4.0.

AutoCAD 14 and versions of Illustrator9 come to mind.

What kind of software do you need to run?

Why not build another box, slap G550 in there and use it for old 98 stuff that doesn't work with win2k.

[runderwo]

You could always email Matrox Developer Relations and ask for specifications. (rolls eyes)

I think they don't want anyone programming their hardware besides themselves. Matrox today is very different from the G400 days, unfortunately.

[Wombat]

Really. You're not going to get M to release specs. Figure that the Linux community has tons more resources, experience, and interest in writing their own drivers - if they're not pulling it off, you have no chance.

[lecter]

If i remember correctly, there was some misleading information on the Matrox site a year ago, on the WinME part of the driver page it said "Coming Soon" or something, which was LATER changed to "None Planned"...not exactly fair if what Kruzin says is true.

[Kuriton]

@lecter

Yeah.
After I read your reply, I looked for a matrox user diary log, I found there was "Coming soon" or "To be determined" on the official driver download page until 7th July 2002.

@Kruzin

Do you remember this message?
I think there might have been the message there too.

@UtwigMU

I want to know about win9x drivers, and I want to know why matrox don't have a plan for win9x supporting.
It's also my hobby

@runderwo

Yes, I know.
So I can't ask Haig that thing, can I?

@Wombat

Well, I'll try to read more books.
Whether I make drivers or not, I am interested in that.

Oh, If I can make drivers one day, I shall implement VertexShader2.0, hehehe...