Matrox - why are you abandoning gamers? WHY?!

[JackYi]

Sigh..
I was real proud when I bought the G400 DH back then, when games like Quake2 ran as smooth as silk. Now, you chose to release the G450 for the workstation market, and abandon us. At least you should have released a G450 with 128-bit DDR memory.

I'm very dissapointed. Gamers are no longer anything for Matrox. If they don't announce anything REAL special at Cebit, you bet they're not going to base their chipset/boards for fast 3D acceleration anymore and that their business would be "just" provided graphic cards for workstations..

Well, sorry, I was lying about the G450.
I didn't really purchase such a product at all. I just didn't want to say, "Hey I'm going to buy something else so get lost!!"
Sorry about that. I just didn't know what to say to you all after the kind and polite help of all here at the forums.

I really like Matrox, but if the same strategy continues, they're going to lose a loyal customer. Many people already shifted to a ATi Radeon or Kyro although Matrox's image quality is way better. I'm not the only one.

[This message has been edited by JackYi (edited 24 March 2001).]

[Kruzin]

As with all rants...
Relocated to The Soap Box forum.

[The PIT]

Yeh it's surprising that Nvidea haven't worked harder with companies to improve there image quality. If they did that that maybe the knock out blow for Matrox.

[GT98]

I think the main reason Nvidia doesn't give a sh*t about image quaity is that one they don't make the board themselfs and there hasn't been any out cry from the users of their products to improve it so its a product basicly "good enough". I gonna guess that the avg user out there only runs their monitor at 800x600 or 1024x768, and there isn't that big of a differce between video cards in image quaitly in my option.

Scott

------------------
Abit BH6 rev 1.0 Celeron 2-566@877mhz,256mb RAM,ATI Radeon AIW,SB Live! with Klipsch Promedia v2-400, Optiquest V95 19in montor, Asus 40x CD-ROM, Aopen 5x DVD-ROM,HP9110i 8x4x32 CD-RW,SupraMax 56k modem,WinME on Western Digital 30GB drive

[Topha]

im not quite sure, but a few months back there was a thread here that explained how you could get rid of the bad image quality, but you had to do some work on the card using methods that might easily damage it.
im not really that experienced, but doesnt that mean that the image quality has more to do with the card manufacturers than it does with the chip?

[Pace]

<center><h1>ARGH! FPS!</h1>
</center>

[Rags]

Yeah, it does. The modification you are talking about refers to removing the filters that eliminate noise to make it FCC compliant. The original signal and the filter both have to be good for the visual quality.

Rags

[Pace]

(and Topha, yes, but there's still some quality gained with Matrox' rendering processes )

[Topha]

hey pace, thats why i still got my g400 max

that and my limited financial resources, my charactre fault of always wanting the best, and since there is nothing "best" out there at the moment i stick with what was best 2 years ago .
another reason is my unexplainable loyalty to matrox, which reason cant destroy.
and the fact that i dont really play any fps dependent fps (it always bothered me that "frames per second" and "first person shooter" have the same abbreviations, the should call the latter "fips" or "fipesh", which would be fun and help keeping the two appard, although usually (in this forum) both abbreaviations have the same meaning: matrox cards are not fast enough for fps-freaks
UT runs fine here, quake 3 i dont like.