58 Million Windows 98 Users -- No Windows 98se Driver for Parhelia

[Zanna]

Thanks Borat. I voted.

Peter: This is the point: I'm not a M$ fan.

I think it's best to buy an ATI video card for the same premium I will pay for an upgrade to XP.

At least, ATI is CANADIAN as Matrox !!

[Peter Aragon]

I'm also not a MS "fan" (or are you considered a fan if you don't use Linux or use .NET?). I simply use their technology, the same as I use technology of other companies to make my computer be what it is and do my work.

But I can only say this: your opinion of Microsoft will likely not get any better with the decision to keep using their older versions of the OS... I presume you also use Office'97?

[Che Guevara]

@topic

Of course, more supported OS would have been nice, but I think it's more important that the XP drivers become as good as possible (Linux drivers would be more useful then win98 drivers).
I don't like M$, but XP was the first windows that was good, only it's spy-functions and the activation procedure are a shame...


@VS 2.0

Somebody mentioned the old shader-story

@Sr17
First of all, why should a only half DX9 compatible card be useless? I don't think a game engine checks if the card is "DX9 compatible", normally it would rather check if it supports PS 2.0 or/and VS 2.0 and uses the shaders which are supported.
Further, DX9 is not a very clear standard for all the features, there were many discussions about the "full DX9 compatibility" of Radeon 9x and G-FX, and they talked not about Displacement Mapping .


Of course I'd like to see VS 2.0 shaders on Parhelia too, but remember what Haig said: VS 2.0 was in the white papers (!) of the Parhelia CHIP, never in the specs of the Matrox Parhelia-512 128mb CARD...
Further, mostly gamers are interested in them but most gamers don't bought a P , in such a case ATI and nVidia would have decided the same way (ATI did something very bad with the RFM...). I thought Matrox is "better" than both others in this way, but perhaps Matrox has to manage their ressources.

[Sr17]

Originally posted by Zanna
Ok, I read.

But if I need BOTH the new Operating system and Windows 98se ?

elsewhere I don't think the potential Win98Se + Parhelia users are only 2.

At least two years ago was not only 2.

Consider using your old computer for Win 98(or buy any for a few dollars).

There are A LOT of recent hardware that really don't work well with 98 even if they claim that they support it.

The only reason to use Windows 98 is for software compatibility. But i have said that multi boot ISN'T a good solution.

[Sr17]

Originally posted by Che Guevara
[B]@topic

Of course, more supported OS would have been nice, but I think it's more important that the XP drivers become as good as possible (Linux drivers would be more useful then win98 drivers).
I don't like M$, but XP was the first windows that was good, only it's spy-functions and the activation procedure are a shame...

Yes, i am not a Windows supporter.

But we must admit that Windows XP is far better than 98-ME. Far more stable in all cases for professionnal work.

Yes, i expect more in the future than Ms-Spyware-OS-XP.

@Sr17
First of all, why should a only half DX9 compatible card be useless? I don't think a game engine checks if the card is "DX9 compatible", normally it would rather check if it supports PS 2.0 or/and VS 2.0 and uses the shaders which are supported.
Further, DX9 is not a very clear standard for all the features, there were many discussions about the "full DX9 compatibility" of Radeon 9x and G-FX, and they talked not about Displacement Mapping .

Game coders in facts dont test and use individual functionnality : It's in fact impossible to code. They use "codepaths" wich are multiple render modules. Each one correspond to a class of supported possibilities. Exemple : All GeForce FX class have theire own codepath. All Radeon R300 also. Old cards will have a "generic max compatibility" codepath used for all of them.

John carmack (father of Quake, Doom, Doom III) said about the parhelia that using this card would require a particular codepath to use it.
In other words, in all cases the Parhelia will be used with the "generic max compatibility for Direct X 8.0" codepath that would never use the particular shader possibilities of Parhelia because NO DirectX 8.0 class cards supports the Vertex Shader 2.0.

In other words, to have the Parhelia Vertex shader 2.0 used in game would require EXPLICIT support of game creator for THAT card because no other cards have partial DirectX 9.0 support.

I think everybody is intelligent enough to understand that NO game coder would spend time(and money) to make a codepath for Pahelia only. They are too few users.

So, the Vertex Shader 2.0 ALONE is a totaly useless feature. Matrox might have done a better job in doying Pixel shader 1.4 support like Radeon 8500 instead of 1.3 like Geforces. Some game would have used it because Radeon 8500 have a lot of users.

Maybe Matrox developper time can be used in a better way for us than developping silly useless features even if it was promised on the box.