#PCI version of Max?
12 messages in this thread
I have recently writted an article for Business Video in the U.K called
Configuring a Graphics System can be hell.
It was about my two year fight with Matrox Animation Express. I know
have a Taxan p90 with 32 megs of ram, MAX, Component output all sitting on a
PCI bus if you want help email me.
Thanks Lee, I would be most interested. What I'd really like is to convince
Matrox to write drivers for NT, and your article written for Business Video and
the readership it addresses, makes the point; these are the kind of clients who
might be interested in their product. And the business community is also the
community most likely to embrace NT as an networking operating environment, so
it makes sense they should write a driver. I think in fact the video world
would embrace it more as well if it was run on NT but at this point that is
only speculation.
I'll contact you as what you've been able to achieve sounds very interesting.
Thanks,
John
John, PMJI,
>>> What I'd really like is to convince __Matrox to write drivers__ for NT,
<<<
Hee…Hee…..Ha..Ha..Ha…Ho..Hoo…Wheeeww! I think I'm going to mess
myself…Hee..Aha..Ha…Ha Haaaaa….Stop it Please..Matrox…Drivers…
NT…..Hoo….Wheeeeee!
But Seriously John…Hee…..Hee….Ha..Ha…I..Can't..Stop!..
Sorry John, I gotta go to the can.
Later…Man….
Whoooeeeee…that's a good one!
Murph'
John,
I've been looking at what DVision has been able to do under NT with the MAX
hardware and think it has real possibilities. Have you gotten your hands on
that?
But you are right -standards conforming drivers for a real operating system
like NT are going to be essential for a product like MAX.
-Paul
Paul,
I did check out the DVision Max but only briefly. A friend of mine is setting
one up and I hope to get a chance to play with it. The offer is open just a
matter of me getting down there. The idea was that it was supposed to be
hardware independent but I guess as Matrox wasn't willing to write a driver
they wrote their own. With Visual C++, I'm thinking that with the SDK I might
be able to handle it. Although it ain't cheap. One more thing I'll be looking
into. I sure wish some of you dealers would rattle thier cage about this. <BG>
Just seems so logical I can't imagine why they wouldn't. But there are some
other interesting projects in the wings at Matrox and they may just feel that
this is not an important item. A Matrox with a Glint chip… that runs on NT
and can handle OpenGL??? Could be… not much use in video but modeling…
mmmm, that would be really nice. Say, have you heard anything about that new
Fujistu board, what it does etc etc.? Just curious as always. <G>
John
John,
I like Matrox's hardware, but they do seem adverse to writing drivers and
supporting 3rd party development. DVision might be too much of a threat to
Matrox Studio. Do you know if Ron Scott ever got the code from Matrox that he
needed to support the ILMPRO!?
As for GL acceleration -I don't know. I'm assuming that everything out there
now will have changed by the time I need it for 3DS. So have I just have ONE
ear to the ground<G>.
-Paul
Paul,
>>DVision might be too much of a threat to Matrox Studio… <<
Could be… I wonder how DVision managed to get the code.
As far as I know QFX went the route of NT to be hardware independent. So if
Matrox doesn't write one, there won't be one. It seems pretty odd as Truevision
is all entangled, and Matrox has an open field all but for that.
John
John,
>>if Matrox doesn't write one, there won't be one
I'm sorry, I was talking about Matrox support for the DOS version of HQFX. Ron
kept asking for the interface code that he needed from Matrox for years. And
this is Matrox's version of the story!
Matrox makes good hardware, but their sales have been hampered by having too
few applications. If there are good NT drivers for the board, that could help
a lot.
As for Truevision -I will have the Avid version of the Targa2000 in a Media
Suite Pro editing system. With PCI and NT the Targa2000 will realize its
potential. I expect this to be very popular with our customers : )
-Paul
Paul,
>> I was talking about Matrox support for the DOS version of HQFX. <<
Ah no, I've had a couple of occasions to discuss this with Ron and it seems it
was a combination of factors. Partly, the fact that his product was an offshoot
of Truevision's and got a lot of support as a result, and Matrox wasn't a
mainstream player like they are today.
But with regard to the Illuminator, I got a call last Thursday from Matrox
Video Products Div., specifically addressing this issue and yes they are
developing a device independent driver as a direct result of their efforts with
regard to the DVision device independent NLE.
So things are looking up.
John
Lee,
>>sitting on a PCI bus<<
I'm confused -Did I drop at stitch in this thread? What do you mean by "on a
PCI bus". I'm familiar with MAX and its system requirements, so I don't see
what the PCI connection is. If there is one, I"d be very interested.
-Paul
Max is very fussy about what kind of motherboard it will use. Matrox recommend
EISA (Extended Industry Standard Architecure) which has now been superceeded by
PCI (Dont know what it means). Anyway PCI is much faster than eisa and I
didn't want to invest in older architecure. Well it works anyway. I will try
to find out the name of my motherboard.
Lee,
I'm still missing the point here. MAX consists of the Studio Xpress card, an
Illuminator-Pro, an optional component output card and the Adaptec AHA-274x
SCSI card. The Studio Xpress card and SCSI card are both EISA cards. PCI is
of course preferable, so are you saying that you aren't using EISA?
This is still Kansas isn't it?
-Dorothy