In the April 23rd article, I believe they were testing the Diamond GT drivers. Which had a reputation of being slow and needed further optimization.
To clarify the comment about the slow ATI and Matrox slow development of product lines, I actually mean that with much fewer cards on the market to support, they can allocate more resorces to work on drivers for all of their products. Diamond has many product lines compared to the rest of the graphics vendors.
"Weren't you saying earlier that ATI and Matrox have an unfair advantage? At any rate, both Matrox and ATI even beat Hercules and #9 to market with the first accelerated drivers and utility suites for Windows 95, and ATI and Matrox also beat the industry with DirectVideo drivers. They DirectVideo on their FTP sites while Diamond support reps were still blaming bad old Microsoft."
Exactly, ATI and Matrox work closely with Microsoft in the development side of video and graphics. The reason is they they are chip manufacturers as well. S3, Cirrus, Alliance, Weitek, etc. belong to the same group and have also work with Microsoft. The optimization of these drivers by Matrox and ATI are improved during the development process. Diamond, #9, and Hercules have to optimize whatever drivers are given to them by the OEM chip manufacturers. This take more development time. If this was Windows 3.1, there wouldn't be this problem.
Your arguments do not convince me that you have any more knowledge regarding the graphics industry than I do. So I'll enjoy eating my omelette, dancing to the Macarena, AND rest assured that I understand the graphics industry that I have followed for years.
Ernie |
