New matrox driver posted

[bsdgeek]

Originally posted by Haig
If the bad bug is with a DX9 game, it will not be addressed. If it's a bad bug with an application, then it will also show up on the non DX9 driver where it will be fixed in that driver only.

So does that mean that this DX9 driver will never be updated? (Say there's a full new 1.7 release or 1.8 and so on, the DX9 driver will stay at 1.6 forever?)

[Haig]

Since it's labelled as FINAL, I take it there won't be any updates planned.

[DGhost]

that is a shame

[Venturer]

Originally posted by Haig
Since it's labelled as FINAL, I take it there won't be any updates planned.

Ok, but i continue to not understand why do you have Direct X 9 compliant drivers for the oldest G4xx/G5xx cards that you still update, while Parhelia Direct X 9 drivers released today, will be never updated.

[Peter Aragon]

Sounds like I can forget about Longhorn support if the amount of investment to build a DX9 driver is allready limited...

[borat]

personally i welcome this, id rather have a driver that allows me to play a few extra games but is unsuported, than no Dx9 driver at all.

[a_h]

Of course. But development time was spent to bring them to DX9, so why not use them further?

I think a decision has to be drawn - to go for DX9 or not. Problems related to DX9 are going to happen regularly sooner or later, since games are going over to DX9. Battlefield vietnam was just the first candidate.

Usually I'm very happy with the decisions the devs have drawn and I hope this continues!

However a company's top performer not supporting current games is not good for business, is it ;-) ?

[KeiFront]

This is quite sad.

Every other graphics manufacturer already has a directx 9 compatible driver out (ATI, nVidia, etc) or dirext 9 compliant drivers, the driver support from Matrox is severly lacking (and I'm not even thinking about the linux drivers).

[DGhost]

Originally posted by a_h
Battlefield vietnam was just the first candidate.

not true. EverQuest's new DX9 rendering engine fails horribly on the Parhelia. While it has not been rolled out to everyone yet, it will be relatively soon.


I think the fact that Matrox's driver support is lacking has been well established previously. I think this just is another nail in the coffin, so to speak.

[a_h]

Hi DGhost! It was just the first I heared of that it causes problems and a bunch of complaints at the matrox support forums.

Interesting that the 1.06.99 driver is in Everquests compatibility list?

http://eqlive.station.sony.com/support/tech_support/ts_video.jsp

Cheers, Hannes

[VJ]

I personally welcome the driver.
(sadly, driversupport in general is down a bit, but this might be a first step in the good direction)

Anybody know how much work goes in to compiling a driver with the DDK ?
It would be great if every future Parhelia driver release would have an accompaning version with DDK enabled (even if this would just be final beta)...

Any ideas if this DDK fallback will work with Longhorn ?


Jörg

[UtwigMU]

Longhorn = 2007, it's like asking, "Will my Millennium PCI work with Whistler?" in 1998.

[VJ]

Oops, I thought Longhorn was coming faster... My mistake...


Jörg

[DGhost]

Originally posted by UtwigMU
Longhorn = 2007, it's like asking, "Will my Millennium PCI work with Whistler?" in 1998.

2007? got any source for that?

keep this in mind - longhorn was originally targeted at 2003-2005ish release. the specifications for GDI+2.0 have been available for quite a while. the Parhelia claimed full support for it in its spec sheet.

the new display engine in Longhorn does not require PS2.0 and VS2.0, contrary to popular opinion. it does, however, require DX9 level drivers to enable the sort of functionality needed for it.

a_h - yeah, Everquest works fine with its DX8 renderer (what is currently live), but the DX9 renderer that they have been working on (and is only active on the test server) has had huge problems with the Parhelia drivers... at least it used to. they might have fixed that. and the new DX9 drivers probably resolve a few of those issues.

VJ = DDK = Driver Development Kit. it is like an SDK, but targeted for drivers, etc. the DX9 DDK is simply for drivers to be compiled for DX9. what they have been using is the DX8 DDK, thus the drivers have only been compiled for DX8. DX9 can work with fallbacks for DX8 level drivers - but to enable new features inside DX9 (even things that do not require new silicon, just simply new ways of accessing features) require that the device driver to be compiled against the DX9 DDK.

[Wombat]

It probably will be 2007 it seems, from comments made at MDCs. 2006 at the earliest.

I still think that one of the main reasons for the delay is so that the sunset clause on the MS monopoly sentence runs out, then MS can release new technology without opening the specs to people, like the Samba team.