Do you Still use a matrox card in your prime machine

[andyadler]

I just finished building a new system based on an Asus A8V, Athlon64 3500+, 2 gigs RAM, etc. And you know what? I chose a G550. I'm not a gamer -- a professional writer & heavy Photoshop user -- and the results I'd been getting from my four-year-old G400 dual-head card made me want to stick to a similar solution. I'm running 1600x1200 true color @85hz on a Sony Artisan monitor, and couldn't be happier with the display quality.


best...aa.

[Mcollector]

Yes.
I guess the ones I use the most are the Millennium 2 (in systems w/o an AGP slot), G200, G400 and G400 Max. My web-surfing machine has a Mil G400 DH.

I have several machines built of scrounged parts (too poor to afford anything new). Matrox cards are my favorite catch. Still using a Mystique 220, Millennium, Millennium 2 (*still* a great 2D PCI card in 8M, 250 MHz RAMDAC form), Millennium G200 (AGP and PCI), Millennium G400 and G400 Max. I don't have a G450 because I haven't found a 32M one surplus yet. I was a little disappointed in a G550 that I put in a machine for a client. I'd like to try a Parhelia and a P-series some day. btw, I'm not a gamer, so Matrox cards are #1 in my book. For gaming or real heavy 3D work, I might have to go elsewhere, but Matrox is the best choice for pro work in DTP, CAD, CorelDraw/Illustrator, or Photoimaging from a company still in business, IMHO. Even the old Millennium 2.

[andyadler]

What disappointed you about the G550?

[Wombat]

That it's slower than the G400, and has a crappy EMBM implementation?

[gt40]

Yep, I've got 2 G400's that I will take to my grave

[andyadler]

Do you think much would be gained by moving from the G550 to, say, the P650? I see the latter is an 8X card, etc. Honestly, I don't usually think too much about video -- as long as I can get accurate color reproduction in Photoshop, clear text presentation at 1600x1200, and so on, I'm usually satisfied. But I wonder now if the P650's font smoothing (Cleartype?) and other features might provide better performance, as well as a little improved 3D performance for those rare occasions when I go that route.

[Wombat]

No, the P650 isn't much for 3D anyway. I think you're fine with what you have, especially for primarily 2D work.

[Mcollector]

Originally posted by andyadler
What disappointed you about the G550?

For one, the transparent fish problem with SereneScreen's Marine Aquarium screensaver that I asked about in a separate thread in the Matrox h/w forum. The question has been viewed a number of times, but no one has responded. Maybe there is no fix. A google search shows others have mentioned this problem in other venues besides matroxusers.com. This problem doesn't happen with a G400, G200 or Millennium II. I'm not sure if it is a driver issue, since the drivers are different, or some issue with the card or its video bios. I don't have a G450 to test to see if it does it, too (the G450 and G550 seem to use the same driver, or driver bundle anyway). I expected Matrox drivers and h/w to be much higher quality, based on past experiences. Perhaps their drivers have to go through a number of iterations before they get it right and reach the quality level of the older cards. From reading the comments on this forum, Matrox is apparently cutting back on their graphics s/w development team. I'm wondering if they are going to abandon the regular PC video card market altogether, and just concentrate on imaging and video production specialty products. Matrox shows up at these Jollywood digital video expos, but has eschewed SIGGRAPH for quite a while, apparently. They were the only major video card company that WASN'T at SIGGRAPH 2004. Too bad. I hate a market of just Nvidia and ATI. At least 3Dlabs was there, and *they* are a niche market player. Is Matrox *so* embarrassed by the Parhelia that they don't want to be seen by technophiles? Hire a few extra s/w people and get the P-series drivers and video bios right, and SO WHAT if they just have a small niche in the market? If their image quality is as better relative to the current crop as their older cards were to their contemporaries, they'd make some money and have a following, even if it wasn't as big as ATI and Nvidia.

Another thing is a reboot of the client's system with the G550 often causes a screen split and character corruption of the bios boot messages until the W2000 splash screen kicks in, then all is well. I'm not sure this is the fault of the G550 DVI-D I/F or the Samsung 191T TFT monitor; if you turn the monitor off then back on, the problem goes away and the boot messages look normal. It doesn't always reboot with screen corrupton on the boot messages, but it often does. Again, I don't know if this is the fault of the monitor or the card. I have a FireGL2 card with DVI-D I/F that I could try to see if it does the same thing, but I haven't had a chance.

A third thing was that silly Max Headroom-like "headcasting" technology. While it was somewhat bizarrely interesting from a techno standpoint, who'd want a rigidly still, disembodied, fake-looking head of a real person with only its lips moving staring at you while talking? My wife already thinks I mumble to myself. She'd have me committed if she saw me talking to my computer and it talking back, particularly if it was MY head and face on the screen. But what REALLY disappointed me was that when I got hold of a new G550, it didn't even come with the s/w for headcasting anymore, so I couldn't play with it. It would be great fun to tell some marketroid managers or other pogues that you'd had your memory engrams transferred to the computer, especially if you could do it with a straight face. I'd hoped I'd at least get some generic demo cartoon head I could play with. (Headcasting was a pain in the backside to get working anyway, since one thing you apparently had to do was get a mugshot (front and side) of your head, send it off to some 3rd party vendor, who'd then render it into 3D for you, then send you your 3D-ized head back. Stupid. If you have a scanner, they should have included the s/w for you to do it yourself.)

A call to Matrox about the lack of headcasting s/w elicited a "Oh, we didn't do anything with that technology" response. Well, duh! It was nice that you could make it work in a conference call between 2 computers over a 56K dial up line, but what's the purpose of having it in a presentation or video conference if you can't view facial expressions and nuances, too? What is the benefit over just voice? The only customers I can see who would get enthused about it are egomaniac mangers who majored in business administration and are terribly in love with themselves, marketroids (also terribly in love with themselves), or The Donald and Uncle Saddam. It became moot anyway when businesses, who were allegedly the target market for this outre "technology," started getting high speed internet connections and could do real video conferencing. This is what happens when you are privately held company and owners can pursue their whims or believe whatever bogus marketing research they like, if they even bothered with marketing research.

I wrote Matrox an email about headcasting when it came out, saying what a huge miss I thought it was, how I'd always liked their cards, and how I thought they were going end up like that other mainstream, high end video card manufacturer, Number Nine. That is, out of business. Surprisingly, I got a nice, lengthy email back from some Matrox manager. Still, time proved my assessment correct. I'm sure I wasn't unique.

And oh, btw. Despite all the Matrox cards I mentioned I'm still using (above), I primarily use Mil G400's (when I can get them) and Mil 2's. I may switch Mil.2's to G200 PCIs, especially since I managed to get several at $5 each; also got the SDRAM daughter card upgrades for $4.50 each. Mil G200 AGPs are only for clients who want an inexpensive, high quality 2D card when I can't get G4x0's. Even G200 AGP's are hard to get. Means they are still in use out there! (btw, I use these as upgrades for older PCs, not brand new P4's or AMD 64's.)

And another btw, despite what I say about my disappointments with the G550, I'd *still* use it, but it would be stictly in 2D work (DTP, 2D Drawing, 2D CAD, programming (s/w development)) or photoimaging (Photoshop), but I wouldn't expect the occasional 3D fun. And yeah, G550s may be a bit slower than G400's, but G550's at least have a 230 MHz secondary RAMDAC v. the 135 MHz RAMDAC of the G400's, and they are relatively cheap for a good, new 2D card. If I wanted 3D I'd prefer the old G400 Max, or I'd have to go to another company for something newer, unless Matrox pulls a clean, Parheliaized G400 Max equivalent out of their hat.

[G400SG16mb]

the G450 runs SereneScreen fine

[Mcollector]

Originally posted by G400SG16mb
the G450 runs SereneScreen fine

Is this under W98SE that the G450 works fine? The G550 works fine with SereneScreen under W2K, but has the transparent fish problem under W98SE. Thanks for any info. This would narrow the problem to just the G550, not the drivers.

[Nowhere]

New prme machine has been built...and it still has G400 in it

[diuby]

My dear G400Max

I don't use matrox cards anymore (G200-G400Max) now i use an All-in Wonder 9000pro.
Still have my dear old G400Max somewhere.... Once upon a time matrox made great card...sick! I used to love matrox cards...

[sube]

G400 dual head still in my main rig....but in the secondary rig also

Only my notebook does not have matrox card

[roadie]

I just swapped out a g400max for a PNY 6600gt. I can game again, yay

[a_h]

When I got my new machine 3 month ago, I thought it's time for a change. Terrific power. All my older pcs were lame horses when I got them (either I hadn't the money or I went for something special, o dear...)

So I my new card was an ATI 9800pro.

Hard to believe, but these monthly driver updates are more than I want to care about (so I install just the evenly numbered drivers ;-)).

Of course I use my Millenium, G400 Max and the Parhelia wherever I can, but that's not my main rig.

Cheers, Hannes