Chalnoth said:
It's like giving ATI a "bugmark" score of 23, but not giving comparison scores from other companies.
It is not my place to give out wanton scores. I leave that to bogus benchmarks.
I am reporting problems with ATI boards and which do NOT exist on ANY other board so far. PERIOD.
So, WHY should I waste my time dolling out scores? And while we're at it, which part of
ALL my earlier statements in which I -
CLEARLY - stated that ALL the problems I've had with ATI are
EXCLUSIVE to those boards, was unclear? To me, they were clear enough, to the extent that exclusionary premise therein is enough for any fool to grasp, process and move on. Giving me shit because I didn't point out something an nVidia or Matrox driver is just that ---> giving me shit.
As it so happens, I don't have a SINGLE open issue with nVidia, nor Matrox not anyone else. The one great thing about ATI support is the dev support folks. I can't say enough nice things about Mike and his team. They're VERY VERY responsive and in my experience, no matter WHO the developer is they're always there. They even flat out told me why my problems didn't come first. And the honesty alone was enough for me and I didn't fault them for that. After all, my games are in a niche. But by the same token, I fully expect stuff that USED TO WORK to continue working. I don't want to shudder everytime a new ATI part or driver comes out. Because thats literally what happens. Do you have ANY idea how much time it took to seek out and disable all those ZBIAS checks (for ATI boards) in my code in order to research this MT problem? Only to discover that it was a busted driver? Did I run out and scream at them without first investigating it? Nope. I didn't. I put in the time required and then reported it.
In fact, the last time I had an issue with nVidia...<me checks log>...was back on 04/04/02 (whoa!! that was my birthday!!) and it was related to an incorrect return issue in a driver. They fixed it in under 24hrs. The last problem before that was back on 12/08/01. And in that instance, they had the ALPHAARG in stage one, ass backwards in the driver. Someone must have done one too many cut and pastes in the code.
As for Matrox. Last issue was back on 08/02/01 about a rendering issue in the G550 which turned out to be my fault. Something I'd missed when doing multi-mon for the G4xx cards. And the last time I conversed with them, was when I was bitching at them to ensure that they didn't even think of releasing the Pahrelia unless it supported all industry standard DX8/9 features. They didn't disappointment me and my games all run flawlessly (albeit slower than GF4Ti or 9700) on the Pahrelia board. Of course, Matrox will still be the third place player and from what I know, they have no problems being parked there. More power to them.
There you have it