Bat Lang,

31-Aug-99 14:30:54, Bat Lang wrote to Andy Roberts
          Subject: Matrox drivers?

 AR>> I've been following this thread with great interest.  In this
 AR>> machine I have an original Matrox with 4MB RAM and the 2.22
 AR>> driver.  It works

 BL> I have the same board, orig. Mill w/4mb RAM, but I am using
 BL> 2.30.089 driver. Have you tried that one. I am using it at
 BL> 1024x768x64k, which is =my= preferred mode on a 17" Princeton EO75
 BL> @ 85hz.

I have not bothered with that driver on this machine because it works
perfectly even at 16.7m colors and any version of NetScape and Java.

The machine I'm having APITA with is a P-II 450 with 256MB RAM with Matrox AGP
G200 with 32MB RAM with the OEM BIOS and the latest BIOS update applied.
On that machine I did try the 2.23 driver and 1024x768x64k, which still locked
up NetScape 4.61b2.  I didn't know there was a 2.30.089 driver.

 AR>> AFAIK 2.23 was the latest driver last week.  But I'm eagerly
 AR>> waiting for a newer and fixed driver so I can enable Java and get
 AR>> all the colors.

 BL> See above. I am also using Java 1.1.8 enabled. What's the
 BL> perceived need/advantage to "all the colors."

My preference for 16.7m colors has nothing to do with Java nor NetScape
directly.  The problem machine is intended for graphics such as from a scanner
using PMView.  That's why it has so much RAM.

 BL> Perhaps I should experiment, but I reasoned that I would pay a penalty
 BL> in the speed of the V.90 graphics 'painting' with Netscape (4.61). Not
 BL> so??

Apples, Oranges and Pears in that statement.  V.90 speed is not going to be
effected by the maximum color setting on your video card.  You will D/L the
same graphics file from the net regardless.  OTOH the 'painting' speed and
NetScape may very well be effected.  But again that is 2 different things.
NetScape has been notorious for not getting on very well at the highest
maximum colors (although it has always worked perfectly for me on my
original Matrox card.)  'Painting' speed is mostly due to the video card and
drivers regardless of the amount of RAM on the video card.  AFAIK video RAM
has nothing to do with speed.  But the additional RAM on the video card allows
it to perform at higher resolutions with more colors.  The Matrox box used to
have a chart on it that showed exactly what the limits were.  The limits are
probably different for each model.  I may be wrong about this, but I have a
feeling if your setting for maximum colors and resolution works at all, then
increasing RAM is useless.  As I see it the advantage to more RAM is pretty
much limited for the smaller monitors like your's and my 17" because we are
not likely to ever set the resolution up so high that we can use all the RAM.
Some younger fellows with very sharp eyes, might use higher settings than we
do, and thus use all the video RAM.  On a 19" or larger monitor with a very
high resolution and colors setting, then that additional RAM is used.

So to answer your question, IMO there is very little penalty in 'painting'
speed for the difference between 64k and 16.7m colors at 1024x768.  My guess
is it is probably a fraction of a second difference.

I suppose if I were to experiment, then I would pick a huge high resolution
picture that has 16.7m colors (most do not.)  Then I would attempt to measure
the time it takes to load from my HD into PMView as compared to NetScape.
Then change the Matrox settings (reboot) and load that same picture into the
same apps again.  In that case the NetScape memory cache will be emptied, when
you reboot OS/2 for the new Matrox settings to take effect.

There is a situation where the high resolution pictures do make a significant
difference in D/L and thus 'painting' speed with NetScape.  If you go to
Olympus.com and look at their digital cameras they have a wide variety of
pictures with various resolutions and sizes.  Of course 99.99% of the time is
consumed in the D/L regardless of your video maximum color setting.

 BL> I sure don't need them ANY slower than they are now. }^:

It's an interesting area of discussion about 'painting' speed.  I've never
seen a comparison chart listing a wide variety of video cards.  My personal
experience was that there is a lot of difference between my old Diamond
SpeedStar and my original Matrox Millennium on the same machine.  Personally I
found it much harder to determine what caused a slight increase in 'painting'
speed between my original Matrox with 4MB and the new Matrox AGP G200 with
32MB RAM, because they are in different machines.  The new Matrox is in a P-II
450MB with 256MB RAM and a Seagate HD that is twice as fast as the Seagate HD
in my P200i with 64MB RAM.  I'm pretty sure CPU speed, RAM and HD speed have
an effect that would have to be separated from the video card performance.

 AR>> And in the case of both Matrox cards and drivers, older may be
 AR>> better.

 BL> Since I have nothing newer than that Mill-4mb, with which I have
 BL> always been happy, I cannot dispute your card assertion, but you
 BL> might want to give the 2.30 driver a try.  Good Modeming!  /\oo/\

I will definitely go and look for that ASAP.

     Thanks and Good Luck,        Andy Roberts
                                  andy@shentel.net
--- Terminate 5.00/Pro*at