Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.bhp.com.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!qns3.qns.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.artisoft.com!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Why to not buy Matrox Millennium
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 20:36:22 -0700
Organization: Me
Lines: 209
Message-ID: <31785BB6.99F81FD@lambert.org>
References: <3170348D.4496D9F1@lambert.org> <stephenkDq2BCK.B40@netcom.com> <3176AFE0.28146F7@lambert.org> <stephenkDq3B99.FDq@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (X11; I; Linux 1.1.76 i486)
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.apps:14683 comp.os.linux.development.system:21938 comp.os.linux.x:29889 comp.os.linux.hardware:36887 comp.os.linux.setup:51449 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:748 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:3391 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3234 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:17831
Stephen Knilans wrote:
] >] How would YOU like to buy a car that runs on some material that
] >] only that one company can give you, and that you can't get
] >] elsewhere? That SHOULD bear on any purchase decision.
] >
] >The situation is not analogous. XFree86 is the car, not Matrox,
] >and Matrox is a different octane fuel. Commercial service
] >vehicles can run on that octane, but your XFree86 car can't.
]
] What a DUMB analogy! That card won't run without the proper
] instructions (aka fuel), and MATROX won't let you know what
] those instructions are. Xfree86 uses standard methods, and
] some non-standard if needed, and it works with MOST other cards.
This is stupid. To drive your "instructions are fuel" analogy
into the ground: I suppose I have to reload the drivers for
the card after a certain amount of use so that they don't
get used up?
] >] If matrox went bankrupt, their cards may NEVER work on future
] >] O/Ss! Paradise, and others, could go bankrupt, and their
] >] cards are almost ASSURED of working in ANY future O/S!
] >
] >Is this the sole basis of your purchase decision? Then tell
] >them, not me. The will not have to release specs to satisfy
] >your "whati if Matrox went bankrupt?" scenario, however: a
] >source escrow would be sufficient. They probably already have
] >one if they have a GSA number to allow for government sales.
]
] That is a meaningless assumption. MANY companies have
] succumbed to the fate I mentioned, and MANY have been
] affected by it.
"And THEREFORE Matrox will as well because you say so and
because all us stupid couldn't-pass-a-first-year-logic-course
readers all syllogise by induction to conveniently lend your
argument force which it does not desreve."
] >This is different from your claim of VGA incompatability. Now
] >you are claiming a speed differential -- so what? The speed
] >differential is what you pay for. Part of it is the price
] >of the card itself and part of it is the price of licensing
] >proprietary (non soruce) software for it. Again -- so what?
]
] You have it BACKWARDS!!!!!!!! People pay more for a FASTER
] system, not a SLOWER one! The VM86 code won't make the card
] VGA compatible! It would merely allow one to work AROUND the
] problem, and that would SLOW THE SYSTEM DOWN!
[ ... Scott to Captain Kirk, random capitalization filter is
engaged; Cap'n, I dinno how long this thing is gonna
hold together; I've got it jury-rigged into the shields,
an' who can really tell with this Romulan junk? ... ]
"People pay for a FASTER system, not one that STRICTLY ADHERES to
your bogus definition of what is or is not a VGA card!
[ ... predicted response:
'PEOPLE pay FOR a FASTER system THEY can USE!'
... ]
Preemptive strike: Like one that comes with binary drivers
derived from proprietary documentation, or Matrox would not
be in business today. And they are in business, no matter
how much that fact twists your nipples.
] >If you personally assume that "VGA" means things other than
] >what it is documented as meaning, well, then, I guess you'll
] >eventaully pay the price for such an assinine assumption.
]
] If enough people see this, or fall prey to it, then these
] messages and ones like them. will come from MANY more people.
] At that point, MATROX will pay. Actually, they already HAVE!
] Several here have said it affected THEIR decision, and it
] affected MINE!
If you assume something, and then spend money on the basis
of your assumption, and your assumption was wrong in the
first place ("VGA means a generic driver will make the card
run", etc.), then you will suffer.
Eventually you will learn not to make stupid assumptions.
Failing that, one day you will assume one assumption too
many, run out of money for food, die, and average human
intelligence will go up. And the ghost of Charles Darwin
will dance on your grave, for the species will have been
affected by an evolutionary pressure.
The same as if you made the "simple assumption" that "foam
peanuts are food".
] If you grind that phillips head down to where it looks like
] a flat blade, I GUARANTEE it will work! Likewise, if the
] registers are the same and do the same, then similar code
] will work the same!
]
] Of COURSE a phillips won't work with a flat blade screw,
] BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT!
"Of COURSE a Matrox won't render 3D objects FOR you if you
DON'T call the 3D object RENDERING API"...
"Of COURSE your VGA card does NOT support a STANDARD 3D object
rendering API, or you WOULDN'T need a Matrox CARD!"...
] >Works fine as a standard VGA card, as long as I only select modes
] >supported by VGA using the mode select interface (INT 10) supported
] >by VGA, and draw to memory (which is mapped where VGA requires it).
]
] Frankly, you are only about the second to say this. People
] have stated that they COULDN'T get it to work with XFREE!
"Well, SOME people are more EQUAL than OTHERS"...
] ALSO, diamond made this SAME claim! Guess what folks? My
] Diamond VGA card did NOT work in ANY mode until I had
] the drivers installed. I ACTUALLY had to install them BLIND!
"PROBABLY had NOTHING to do with the FACT that XFree86 on
FreeBSD AND Linux doesn't USE INT 10 VM86() calls to SELECT
video modes because THEY don;t SUPPORT VM96() sufficiently"...
The reason Diamond cards didn't have a documented interface
is well known: their BIOS programmer didn't do the mode select
through a table lookup because he was an EE, not an SE, and
EE's typically do not think of things like that, since the
software is there for the benefit of the card. If they had
hired a software engineer in the first place, then they would
never have had the problem.
And now they release drivers on their web site, and still don't
use table lookups, so bowing to pressure from the likes of you
has destroyed their ability to change PAL's and BIOS to allow
them to add capabilities to their cards without redesigning
them. The reason for the proprietary interface on Diamond,
as any idiot *should* know, is that the only way to latch
good input values on their clock chip input was to give their
PAL appropriate inputs, since it's the PAL output that latches
the values. And the PAL inputs were looked up from a table
in their BIOS when you made an INT 10 mode select call, and
their EE programmer stupidly didn't make their table a standard
format or location, so protected mode drivers could find it
and latch the right PAL inputs. *DUH*... the hazards of the
wrong person for the job.
Just like public brow-beating (Matrox's marketing department)
is not going to pressure an IP (Matrox's legal department)
policy change.
It's only going to make you look too stupid to figure out
the causal loop that caused the policy to come into existance
in the first place.
"I'd BETTER look for my CONTACT lens here UNDER the street
lamp because THE light is better than OVER there where I
actually LOST the thing"...
] >Screaming at a barrier will not remove it; convincing the owner
] >that it is not to his benefit to have a barrier there, will.
]
] Luckily, I saw these messages here earlier, and didn't fall
] prey. So I have no real interest. I am just appaled at
] people like you saying: USE DRIVERS!
Good thing people *exactly* like me (namely me) have not been
suggesting that, then. I've been suggesting you tell Matrox
why patent and copyright law provide better protection for
intellectual property than "secret decorder rings", and that
the Europeans, in fact, eat the same cereal, and have the
same ring they used to "protect" themselves.
That is the message you need to take to the people who made the
policy decision, if you don't agree with the policy decision.
We are all well aware (more well aware than we wanted to be)
that their policy acts against free software. I'm sure Matrox
is well aware of that too (if they didn't start out aware).
[ ... the "saga of the printer" and why "HP doesn't stand for
'Low Priced'" ... ]
Look, I'm sorry you foolishly believed a salesman over printed
specifications, and it cost you 7.1% of what you already paid
to learn the lesson that you should believe only printed
specifications, and that you should interpret them literally
(I hope that is the lesson you learned).
Small price to pay for such a valuable lesson, in my opinion.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.