How to hurt matrox if your unhappy - suggestions

[GNEP]

Strike!

[bsdgeek]

Don't say the M word! Talk only about NV and ATI. DUSTBUST!

[FormerEx-SalesSoup]

I'm going to try to look into this for you guys. As it stands, I simply don't know what the situation is with the removal of "DX9" from the site. From browsing the Matrox Tech Support Forums, it seems that since we do not offer a DX9 supported driver that can implement this capability, mention of it was removed from the Parhelia documentation on our site.

Although I understand the anger and frustration, you should also realize that not all chip-level features advertised are necessarily implemented on the board-level product. If this was the case, then the Parhelia board would have had several more capabilities that the Parhelia-512 GPU can theoretically support. Think of the G400-chip and how G400 MAX had capabilities that the Mill. G400 32MB didn't have, while they were both using the same chip.

Regardless of this attempt to appease the growing riot, I'm going to take some time to learn about these recent events and, hopefully, I can offer some kind of reasonable explanation in due time.

Hang in there.

[GNEP]

@bsd: LOL

@Soupy: thanks.

(edited when Soupy's post came before mine!)

[Haig]

i also have to endure the fact that i own a card from a company who has "removed" features from my card in now saying it does not have vertex shader 2.0 and i also bear in mind they are a company who mislead customers on the aniso spec and clock speeds.

Not to pour salt on the wound borat but technically speaking, the product spec never said anything about DX9 shaders, only the chip spec did.

We've been thru this with some of you folks before where there is a chip spec and there is a product spec.

Parhelia product spec said DX8.1 hardware. Our chip spec could have said DX10 but so what, the product itself will not get you DX10.

[Greebe]

I could pour a freighter full of salt on this issue, if they knew the bigger picture.

Despicable behaviour, that is best left in the wake of Dan's prior Wrath.


@bERNIE, Maggi and I are ex Matrox beta testers so this is coming from 2 on the inside and 2 on the inside out.

BTW we knew this would happen and have been trying to derail it for the last >3 years so this situation would not come to fuition.

[bsdgeek]

Well I suppose, as usual, we'll never get the full story.

Anyway, I guess Matrox is technically covered, the chip spec page has the little note which Haig (For some reason I keep typing 'Hiag' ) and Soupy seem to be referencing. Matrox advertising is very misleading and deceptive.

[Greebe]

I find it rather interesting that Omar never said anything to dispell this belief when it was mentioned oh so many times previously (not suprising)

Guys it really doesn't matter if the product spec doesn't list this feature, there is no external hardware neccessary for it to work outside of the chip spec. The real issue here is this product has less than 0.001% market share(much less IMHO), so no cash to employ the coders neccessary to get it done.

Besides, M is out of the gaming/general use market, so no new cards that do it all (2D/3D/TVout) for us anymore

It had a chance, dispite it's misgivings (not ready for prime time), but then again we also had wonderfully optimistic reviews by the likes of the big three industry sellouts whom have done us alot of good.

[Chrono_Wanderer]

Originally posted by GNEP
Where's Amiga Blitter when you need him?

btw: you know what I think? its only the management that is really messed up. Guys like soupy and haig and all others are much more helpful that also mean management wants to kill themselves makes no sense to me

[a_h]

I fear bad PR will do no good (for us). Why don't they implement VS 2.0? I think they abandoned them, simply because they don't have the manpower to get them done.

Every now and then I read somewhere Matrox fired employees - I can imagine that less than 10 people work on the graphics drivers comparing to more than 30 NVidia has (and think what they're doing with them, I just say 3DMark). Proof: still beta linux drivers, win32 drivers only OpenGL 1.3 compliant, only slow support of released video editing software (after effects with 1.5 drivers).

They cannot afford VS2.0. Bad PR is going to make things worse - do you really want that your P's opengl stays at 1.4 minus 4 extensions?

I really hope they have some decent card for the future, so sales grow and the future development of the drivers is safe.

Just my 2 pesos.

[Greebe]

I think they abandoned them, simply because they don't have the manpower to get them done.

BINGO!

I can imagine that less than 10 people work on the graphics drivers

Whoa you're an optimist!

Just my 3 cents (inflation

[borat]

haig and soup, as has been said many times before you guys are the only good points us customers see at matrox any more, as for the chip spec/board spec issues, its not mentioned on the board spec as far as i can see it makes no mention of and directx lever support(i could be looking in the wrong place though: http://www.matrox.com/mga/products/parhelia/home.cfm ) nor does it mention the fact that the cards have banding in 3d although they do. my point is that anyone looking at the spec for this card is directed to the chip spec via a link on the page which made mention of dx9 features, this is misleading advertising. it should have been made clear what chip features parhelia supported from the start. its misleading advertising, once again not blaming you haig or soupy for this, the whole situation is just a disgracefull mess.

[WyWyWyWy]

TechTV?

[borat]

Originally posted by Greebe
BINGO!



Whoa you're an optimist!

Just my 3 cents (inflation

i suppose its a given we need to do a bit of reading between the lines there greebe

[GNEP]

They've only got one part-time summer student writing all the drivers now. That's the G-series ones, AND the P-series, for Windows AND Linux. And his term just started again back at uni...