PDA

View Full Version : Vista and Graphics - Is Matrox really that good for text? - Please enlighten me


December 31st 06, 12:25 PM
"John Smith" > wrote in message . ..
> I have been using Matrox cards since the early 1990s. My sole reason is
> their superlative text quality.
>
> I just built a new PC based on the PCI-e spec running Windows Vista. I have
> Vista Enterprise thru my company.
>
> Because I wanted to run the Vista Aero color scheme, I opted for a card that
> has 256 mb of memory - an excellent card from Gigabyte that uses the NVidia
> 7600GT engine - GIGA N 7600GT GV-NX76T256D-RH R
>
> I can only say that compared w/my Matrox 650 and before that 550 and before
> that 450 and before that the Mystique, the text on this card is blurry. Its
> not even close. The only way is was even marginally acceptable was to turn
> on cleartype which I have always disliked.
>
> I just don't get it especially since the Matrix 650 PCIe card w/128mb is
> based on the NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT chipset (according to CNet).

What monitor are you using, and at what resolutions/refresh rates?

John Smith
December 31st 06, 12:54 PM
Dell Dell UltraSharp 2405FPW - 1920 x 1200 - the monitor is listed as
generic PNP in windows since I doubt that Dell has a vista driver.

Running with the Matrox card under XP w/the same monitor had better text,
pristine almost and no issue w/refresh of graphics objects in emails.




> wrote in message
om...
> "John Smith" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> I have been using Matrox cards since the early 1990s. My sole reason is
>> their superlative text quality.
>>
>> I just built a new PC based on the PCI-e spec running Windows Vista. I
>> have
>> Vista Enterprise thru my company.
>>
>> Because I wanted to run the Vista Aero color scheme, I opted for a card
>> that
>> has 256 mb of memory - an excellent card from Gigabyte that uses the
>> NVidia
>> 7600GT engine - GIGA N 7600GT GV-NX76T256D-RH R
>>
>> I can only say that compared w/my Matrox 650 and before that 550 and
>> before
>> that 450 and before that the Mystique, the text on this card is blurry.
>> Its
>> not even close. The only way is was even marginally acceptable was to
>> turn
>> on cleartype which I have always disliked.
>>
>> I just don't get it especially since the Matrix 650 PCIe card w/128mb is
>> based on the NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT chipset (according to CNet).
>
> What monitor are you using, and at what resolutions/refresh rates?
>
>

Lasse Jensen
December 31st 06, 12:59 PM
John Smith wrote:

> I just don't get it especially since the Matrix 650 PCIe card w/128mb is
> based on the NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT chipset (according to CNet).

WHAT? Do you have a link? Can't find it on CNET.

--
Lasse Jensen [fafler at g mail dot com]
Linux, the choice of a GNU generation.

Benjamin Gawert
December 31st 06, 01:24 PM
Since my news server doesn't show the original message (yet) so I have
to put my reply here.

* :
> "John Smith" > wrote in message . ..
>> I have been using Matrox cards since the early 1990s. My sole reason is
>> their superlative text quality.

Well, "text quality" is equal in all gfx cards since the use of gfx card
fonts has stopped with the increasing use of graphical desktops like
Windows 3.0...

The only thing Matrox cards were really good has been the analog signal
quality. But today with flat panels connected vie DVI this is a
no-brainer anymore, and in all other areas Matrox just sux...

>> I just built a new PC based on the PCI-e spec running Windows Vista. I have
>> Vista Enterprise thru my company.
>>
>> Because I wanted to run the Vista Aero color scheme, I opted for a card that
>> has 256 mb of memory - an excellent card from Gigabyte that uses the NVidia
>> 7600GT engine - GIGA N 7600GT GV-NX76T256D-RH R

Nice card, but the analog signal quality is average at best...

>> I can only say that compared w/my Matrox 650 and before that 550 and before
>> that 450 and before that the Mystique, the text on this card is blurry. Its
>> not even close. The only way is was even marginally acceptable was to turn
>> on cleartype which I have always disliked.

You wrote you are using an Dell 2405FPW. Do don't have connected this
monitor via the VGA cable, do you? You should use the DVI connection as
connecting a 24" TFT display via VGA is just silly because it affects
image quality while DVI does not.

And of course you're running the correct resolution (1920x1200), don't
you? Because only the native resolution looks really good on a TFT
display...

>> I just don't get it especially since the Matrix 650 PCIe card w/128mb is
>> based on the NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT chipset (according to CNet).

That's BS. Matrox doesn't use Nvidia chipsets, they use their own
outdated GPUs. But analog image quality has nothing to do with the GPU...

Benjamin

December 31st 06, 01:28 PM
Make sure you're using a DVI cable (not analog) and that
your resolution is native for that monitor. Experiment with
different refresh rates and see if it makes any difference.

"John Smith" > wrote in message . ..
> Dell Dell UltraSharp 2405FPW - 1920 x 1200 - the monitor is listed as
> generic PNP in windows since I doubt that Dell has a vista driver.
>
> Running with the Matrox card under XP w/the same monitor had better text,
> pristine almost and no issue w/refresh of graphics objects in emails.
>
>
>
>
> > wrote in message
> om...
> > "John Smith" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >> I have been using Matrox cards since the early 1990s. My sole reason is
> >> their superlative text quality.
> >>
> >> I just built a new PC based on the PCI-e spec running Windows Vista. I
> >> have
> >> Vista Enterprise thru my company.
> >>
> >> Because I wanted to run the Vista Aero color scheme, I opted for a card
> >> that
> >> has 256 mb of memory - an excellent card from Gigabyte that uses the
> >> NVidia
> >> 7600GT engine - GIGA N 7600GT GV-NX76T256D-RH R
> >>
> >> I can only say that compared w/my Matrox 650 and before that 550 and
> >> before
> >> that 450 and before that the Mystique, the text on this card is blurry.
> >> Its
> >> not even close. The only way is was even marginally acceptable was to
> >> turn
> >> on cleartype which I have always disliked.
> >>
> >> I just don't get it especially since the Matrix 650 PCIe card w/128mb is
> >> based on the NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT chipset (according to CNet).
> >
> > What monitor are you using, and at what resolutions/refresh rates?
> >
> >
>

Conor
December 31st 06, 02:09 PM
In article >, Benjamin Gawert
says...
> Since my news server doesn't show the original message (yet) so I have
> to put my reply here.
>
> * :
> > "John Smith" > wrote in message . ..
> >> I have been using Matrox cards since the early 1990s. My sole reason is
> >> their superlative text quality.
>
> Well, "text quality" is equal in all gfx cards since the use of gfx card
> fonts has stopped with the increasing use of graphical desktops like
> Windows 3.0...
>
********.

> The only thing Matrox cards were really good has been the analog signal
> quality. But today with flat panels connected vie DVI this is a
> no-brainer anymore, and in all other areas Matrox just sux...
>
Except 2D speed as they always have excelled.

--
Conor

"You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart

mart
December 31st 06, 02:25 PM
http://reviews.cnet.com/Matrox_Millennium_P650_graphics_adapter_64_MB/4507-8902_7-31428742.html?tag=sub



Lasse Jensen wrote:

> John Smith wrote:
>
> > I just don't get it especially since the Matrix 650 PCIe card w/128mb is
> > based on the NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT chipset (according to CNet).
>
> WHAT? Do you have a link? Can't find it on CNET.
>
> --
> Lasse Jensen [fafler at g mail dot com]
> Linux, the choice of a GNU generation.

Benjamin Gawert
December 31st 06, 03:54 PM
* Conor:

>> Well, "text quality" is equal in all gfx cards since the use of gfx card
>> fonts has stopped with the increasing use of graphical desktops like
>> Windows 3.0...
>>
> ********.

What an argument. Get a clue first! Gfx card specific fonts are not used
anymore since the days of Windows 3.0...

>> The only thing Matrox cards were really good has been the analog signal
>> quality. But today with flat panels connected vie DVI this is a
>> no-brainer anymore, and in all other areas Matrox just sux...
>>
> Except 2D speed as they always have excelled.

What a BS. The 2D performance of all gfx cards made during the last 9
years or so is around the same. And no, even Matrox is not faster in 2D...

Benjamin

Conor
December 31st 06, 04:37 PM
In article >, Benjamin Gawert
says...
> * Conor:
>
> >> Well, "text quality" is equal in all gfx cards since the use of gfx card
> >> fonts has stopped with the increasing use of graphical desktops like
> >> Windows 3.0...
> >>
> > ********.
>
> What an argument. Get a clue first! Gfx card specific fonts are not used
> anymore since the days of Windows 3.0...
>
No, really? Ever owned a Matrox card?


--
Conor

"You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen
Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart

Benjamin Gawert
December 31st 06, 04:47 PM
* Conor:

> No, really? Ever owned a Matrox card?

I have two Milleniums, one G200, three G450, two G550 and one P650. So
yes, I ever owned a Matrox card, and I know what they can do and what
not. And now?

Benjamin

BigJim
December 31st 06, 05:34 PM
go back to xp
"John Smith" > wrote in message
. ..
>I have been using Matrox cards since the early 1990s. My sole reason is
> their superlative text quality.
>
> I just built a new PC based on the PCI-e spec running Windows Vista. I
> have
> Vista Enterprise thru my company.
>
> Because I wanted to run the Vista Aero color scheme, I opted for a card
> that
> has 256 mb of memory - an excellent card from Gigabyte that uses the
> NVidia
> 7600GT engine - GIGA N 7600GT GV-NX76T256D-RH R
>
> I can only say that compared w/my Matrox 650 and before that 550 and
> before
> that 450 and before that the Mystique, the text on this card is blurry.
> Its
> not even close. The only way is was even marginally acceptable was to turn
> on cleartype which I have always disliked.
>
> I just don't get it especially since the Matrix 650 PCIe card w/128mb is
> based on the NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT chipset (according to CNet).
>
> Am I imagining things here. I am not a gamer. I work primarly w/office
> applications. This is disappointing.
>
> One final thing - in MSOutlook, there is now a 1/2 second hesitation
> w/html
> graphics are rendered. Prior to this w/my old PC, which was a very fast
> AMD
> dual core machine, you never say any rendering - the image graphics
> displayed instantaneously. This is annoying as well.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Why is Matrox shutting down their forums?

Benjamin Gawert
December 31st 06, 05:38 PM
* BigJim:
> go back to xp

The reason being exactly what?

Benjamin

David Vair
December 31st 06, 05:42 PM
You may want to try turning cleartype off to smooth the edges, I have found the text better with it
off. I'm in XP right now but I think the steps for Vista are: Right click the desktop and select
personalize. Then choose the top one on the list, look for the effects button and change the font
smoothing from cleartype to standard.
--
Dave Vair
CNE, CNA, MCP, A+, N+

"John Smith" > wrote in message . ..
> Dell Dell UltraSharp 2405FPW - 1920 x 1200 - the monitor is listed as generic PNP in windows since
> I doubt that Dell has a vista driver.
>
> Running with the Matrox card under XP w/the same monitor had better text, pristine almost and no
> issue w/refresh of graphics objects in emails.
>
>
>
>
> > wrote in message om...
>> "John Smith" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> I have been using Matrox cards since the early 1990s. My sole reason is
>>> their superlative text quality.
>>>
>>> I just built a new PC based on the PCI-e spec running Windows Vista. I have
>>> Vista Enterprise thru my company.
>>>
>>> Because I wanted to run the Vista Aero color scheme, I opted for a card that
>>> has 256 mb of memory - an excellent card from Gigabyte that uses the NVidia
>>> 7600GT engine - GIGA N 7600GT GV-NX76T256D-RH R
>>>
>>> I can only say that compared w/my Matrox 650 and before that 550 and before
>>> that 450 and before that the Mystique, the text on this card is blurry. Its
>>> not even close. The only way is was even marginally acceptable was to turn
>>> on cleartype which I have always disliked.
>>>
>>> I just don't get it especially since the Matrix 650 PCIe card w/128mb is
>>> based on the NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT chipset (according to CNet).
>>
>> What monitor are you using, and at what resolutions/refresh rates?
>>
>>
>

John Smith
December 31st 06, 07:39 PM
1. I have been using a DVI cable from the start.

2. I have been running in native resoution from the start. 1920 X 1200

3. Cleartype has always been a negative for me. It seems to add a bluriness
to text. What appears is happening it that even after you turn it off, some
applications, notably Outlook and Windows Mail (formerly Outlook express)
continue to have vesitages (part of the text in the progam) of cleartype.
This was a bug in betas of IE7 and appears to be present in Vista.

4. Having said all that, the text is worse than in XP. The new default font,
Segoe UI, is simply horrible. It looks like the Apple UI and its ugly. In
cleartype its blurry.You can change it, but vestiges remain.

It may be that the Matrox thing is a red herring. It sounds like Matrox
cards really cannot compete w/ATI and NVidia even aside from games. That is
why I purchased the NVidia based card.



"Benjamin Gawert" > wrote in message
...
>* BigJim:
>> go back to xp
>
> The reason being exactly what?
>
> Benjamin

Benjamin Gawert
December 31st 06, 07:55 PM
* John Smith:
> 3. Cleartype has always been a negative for me. It seems to add a
> bluriness to text. What appears is happening it that even after you turn
> it off, some applications, notably Outlook and Windows Mail (formerly
> Outlook express) continue to have vesitages (part of the text in the
> progam) of cleartype. This was a bug in betas of IE7 and appears to be
> present in Vista.

There is a checkbox in the internet settings that says somewthing like
"use ClearType to display html pages" and it overrides the general
ClearType setting...

> 4. Having said all that, the text is worse than in XP. The new default
> font, Segoe UI, is simply horrible. It looks like the Apple UI and its
> ugly. In cleartype its blurry.You can change it, but vestiges remain.

Yes, the font is different (and I also find it a bit uglier than the old
one) but this is a Vista thing and not gfx card related.

> It may be that the Matrox thing is a red herring. It sounds like Matrox
> cards really cannot compete w/ATI and NVidia even aside from games. That
> is why I purchased the NVidia based card.

I think that the issue you have is simply due to the new Vista font and
not because of the gfx card. In this case you could try to change the
default font to something that is comfortable for you or just go back to
Windowsxp then. A different gfx card won't help you here.

Benjamin

Mr.E Solved!
January 1st 07, 10:13 AM
John Smith wrote:

> I have been using Matrox cards since the early 1990s. My sole reason is
> their superlative text quality.

The "Matrox has better 2D" mantra has as much weight today as Ricardo
Montalban extolling the virtues of fine "Corinthian Leather" in the
then-new Chrysler Cordoba.

There aren't cows on the island of Corinth, and modern 2D is long
standardized across the board. But it has the wonderful familiar ring of
nostalgia.

John Smith
January 1st 07, 11:24 AM
I have been using Matrox cards since the early 1990s. My sole reason is
their superlative text quality.

I just built a new PC based on the PCI-e spec running Windows Vista. I have
Vista Enterprise thru my company.

Because I wanted to run the Vista Aero color scheme, I opted for a card that
has 256 mb of memory - an excellent card from Gigabyte that uses the NVidia
7600GT engine - GIGA N 7600GT GV-NX76T256D-RH R

I can only say that compared w/my Matrox 650 and before that 550 and before
that 450 and before that the Mystique, the text on this card is blurry. Its
not even close. The only way is was even marginally acceptable was to turn
on cleartype which I have always disliked.

I just don't get it especially since the Matrix 650 PCIe card w/128mb is
based on the NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT chipset (according to CNet).

Am I imagining things here. I am not a gamer. I work primarly w/office
applications. This is disappointing.

One final thing - in MSOutlook, there is now a 1/2 second hesitation w/html
graphics are rendered. Prior to this w/my old PC, which was a very fast AMD
dual core machine, you never say any rendering - the image graphics
displayed instantaneously. This is annoying as well.

Any thoughts?

Why is Matrox shutting down their forums?

Cameron Walsh
January 1st 07, 04:22 PM
Mr.E Solved! wrote:
> John Smith wrote:
>
>> I have been using Matrox cards since the early 1990s. My sole reason is
>> their superlative text quality.
>
> The "Matrox has better 2D" mantra has as much weight today as Ricardo
> Montalban extolling the virtues of fine "Corinthian Leather" in the
> then-new Chrysler Cordoba.
>
> There aren't cows on the island of Corinth, and modern 2D is long
> standardized across the board. But it has the wonderful familiar ring of
> nostalgia.

Corinth is a city, not an island, and the peninsula on which Corinth and
other cities is located is only technically an island because of a canal
that was built separating the peninsula from the mainland in the late
19th century. It is possible that leather could be manufactured in
Corinth regardless of whether or not there are cows in Corinth or on the
peninsula (note that there is a breed of cow called "Peloponnesus"
presumably named after the peninsula they were first identified on?)
However, you are correct in as far as the "Corinthian Leather" that was
made so famous by the Chrysler commercials was rumoured to have been
manufactured in America instead.

That said, is it not possible that while cards based on ATI and nVidia
chipsets may comply with the standards for DVI, that Matrox cards exceed
those standards by a greater amount? Whether or not that is true, I'd
imagine any visual differences arising from such implementation
differences would not be noticeable to the hoi polloi.

I hope you enjoyed this quite ridiculous post.

Cameron.

Lasse Jensen
January 1st 07, 04:52 PM
mart wrote:

>
http://reviews.cnet.com/Matrox_Millennium_P650_graphics_adapter_64_MB/4507-8902_7-31428742.html?tag=sub

Now i have seen everything.

--
Lasse Jensen [fafler at g mail dot com]
Linux, the choice of a GNU generation.

Benjamin Gawert
January 1st 07, 09:37 PM
* Lasse Jensen:

> http://reviews.cnet.com/Matrox_Millennium_P650_graphics_adapter_64_MB/4507-8902_7-31428742.html?tag=sub
>
> Now i have seen everything.

Yeah, interesting, isn't it? It's unbelieveable how many sites like CNET
just write some BS without noticing it...

At least the manufacturer Matrox doesn't seem to know that they are
using Nvidia GPUs:
<http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/finent/products/pseries/p650lppcie.php>

Benjamin

January 1st 07, 09:41 PM
"Benjamin Gawert" > wrote in message ...
> * Lasse Jensen:
>
> > http://reviews.cnet.com/Matrox_Millennium_P650_graphics_adapter_64_MB/4507-8902_7-31428742.html?tag=sub
> >
> > Now i have seen everything.
>
> Yeah, interesting, isn't it? It's unbelieveable how many sites like CNET
> just write some BS without noticing it...
>
> At least the manufacturer Matrox doesn't seem to know that they are
> using Nvidia GPUs:
> <http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/finent/products/pseries/p650lppcie.php>

It's especially funny, considering the history. Years ago there
was a mass exodus of programmers from Matrox, and most
of them wound up working for Nvidia.

Mr.E Solved!
January 1st 07, 09:52 PM
Cameron Walsh wrote:
> Mr.E Solved! wrote:
>> John Smith wrote:
>>
>>> I have been using Matrox cards since the early 1990s. My sole reason is
>>> their superlative text quality.
>>
>> The "Matrox has better 2D" mantra has as much weight today as Ricardo
>> Montalban extolling the virtues of fine "Corinthian Leather" in the
>> then-new Chrysler Cordoba.
>>
>> There aren't cows on the island of Corinth, and modern 2D is long
>> standardized across the board. But it has the wonderful familiar ring
>> of nostalgia.
>
> Corinth is a city, not an island, and the peninsula on which Corinth and
> other cities is located is only technically an island because of a canal
> that was built separating the peninsula from the mainland in the late
> 19th century. It is possible that leather could be manufactured in
> Corinth regardless of whether or not there are cows in Corinth or on the
> peninsula (note that there is a breed of cow called "Peloponnesus"
> presumably named after the peninsula they were first identified on?)
> However, you are correct in as far as the "Corinthian Leather" that was
> made so famous by the Chrysler commercials was rumoured to have been
> manufactured in America instead.
>
> That said, is it not possible that while cards based on ATI and nVidia
> chipsets may comply with the standards for DVI, that Matrox cards exceed
> those standards by a greater amount? Whether or not that is true, I'd
> imagine any visual differences arising from such implementation
> differences would not be noticeable to the hoi polloi.
>
> I hope you enjoyed this quite ridiculous post.
>
> Cameron.

I enjoyed this information so much, I will share with you the genesis of
this whole issue! Celebrating the "Fuzzy 2D" of yesteryear, I present to
you this 7 year old article describing the cruddy circuitry of certain
GeForce 2-3 and 4 cards.

http://www.maxuk.net/241mp/geforce-image-quality.html

FTA:

"Many (or all?) nVIDIA GeForce and TNT -based cards have the above
circuit onboard. It is a low pass filter and it's purpose is to reduce
RFI emissions. In many cases it's manufactured with low quality
components and / or designed badly. If 'misdesigned' it basically stops
most of the high frequency information necessary to produce, for
example, sharp text at high resolutions and refresh rates."

Back in those days we also wore onions on our belts, which was the
fashion at the time..

John Smith
January 1st 07, 11:59 PM
"Celebrating the "Fuzzy 2D" of yesteryear, I present to
you this 7 year old article describing the cruddy circuitry of certain
GeForce 2-3 and 4 cards."

I am glad my intial post stimulated such a full and wide ranging ranging
discussion that even delved into the history of video graphics adapters. The
reference on CNET to Matrox using NVIDIA chips looked suspicious to me and
it turns out those were well founded.

I have gotten used to the new card I have and the changes in UI. In
Outlook/Vista 2007/Windows Mail (f/k/a Outlook Express), MS has opted for
what I consider to be an ugly font in its Outlook Bar and other areas. This
is a clear attempt to copy Apple. I have nothing vs. Apple, but MS should
stick w/owns text look and feel. In some instances, the OS and/or MS Apps
insist on foisting cleartype on us despite configuations to the contrary.

For those that answered my intitial post, thanks for all the infor - I
learned alot about graphics cards and it made it easier for me to adapt to
change.

Richard a/k/a John Smith



"Mr.E Solved!" > wrote in message
. ..
> Cameron Walsh wrote:
>> Mr.E Solved! wrote:
>>> John Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have been using Matrox cards since the early 1990s. My sole reason
>>>> is
>>>> their superlative text quality.
>>>
>>> The "Matrox has better 2D" mantra has as much weight today as Ricardo
>>> Montalban extolling the virtues of fine "Corinthian Leather" in the
>>> then-new Chrysler Cordoba.
>>>
>>> There aren't cows on the island of Corinth, and modern 2D is long
>>> standardized across the board. But it has the wonderful familiar ring of
>>> nostalgia.
>>
>> Corinth is a city, not an island, and the peninsula on which Corinth and
>> other cities is located is only technically an island because of a canal
>> that was built separating the peninsula from the mainland in the late
>> 19th century. It is possible that leather could be manufactured in
>> Corinth regardless of whether or not there are cows in Corinth or on the
>> peninsula (note that there is a breed of cow called "Peloponnesus"
>> presumably named after the peninsula they were first identified on?)
>> However, you are correct in as far as the "Corinthian Leather" that was
>> made so famous by the Chrysler commercials was rumoured to have been
>> manufactured in America instead.
>>
>> That said, is it not possible that while cards based on ATI and nVidia
>> chipsets may comply with the standards for DVI, that Matrox cards exceed
>> those standards by a greater amount? Whether or not that is true, I'd
>> imagine any visual differences arising from such implementation
>> differences would not be noticeable to the hoi polloi.
>>
>> I hope you enjoyed this quite ridiculous post.
>>
>> Cameron.
>
> I enjoyed this information so much, I will share with you the genesis of
> this whole issue! Celebrating the "Fuzzy 2D" of yesteryear, I present to
> you this 7 year old article describing the cruddy circuitry of certain
> GeForce 2-3 and 4 cards.
>
> http://www.maxuk.net/241mp/geforce-image-quality.html
>
> FTA:
>
> "Many (or all?) nVIDIA GeForce and TNT -based cards have the above circuit
> onboard. It is a low pass filter and it's purpose is to reduce RFI
> emissions. In many cases it's manufactured with low quality components and
> / or designed badly. If 'misdesigned' it basically stops most of the high
> frequency information necessary to produce, for example, sharp text at
> high resolutions and refresh rates."
>
> Back in those days we also wore onions on our belts, which was the fashion
> at the time..
>
>
>

Cameron Walsh
January 2nd 07, 03:02 AM
Mr.E Solved! wrote:
>
> I enjoyed this information so much, I will share with you the genesis of
> this whole issue! Celebrating the "Fuzzy 2D" of yesteryear, I present to
> you this 7 year old article describing the cruddy circuitry of certain
> GeForce 2-3 and 4 cards.
>
> http://www.maxuk.net/241mp/geforce-image-quality.html
>

Who would have thought FCC regulations would cause manufacturers to
choose to make cruddy products sold at high profit? Hmmm, I wonder if
it's possible to mod monitors this way...

>
> Back in those days we also wore onions on our belts, which was the
> fashion at the time..
>

Heh heh.