🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: alt.comp
Article #362

Re: two video cards or one G400 for dual monitor display?

#362
From: 00
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:06
50 lines
3734 bytes
I also have a G400Max but have opted to put my old PCI card in as well
to get the same Multimonitor flexibility that I enjoyed in Win98. My
Hauppauge WinTV card even works in the second monitor now.. although
at max size (800) it drops frames as it maxes out the CPU (PIII
800!).. 

Basically.. a Matrox dualhead in Win2000 is pretty inflexible... get 2
cards for maximum flexibility, if you have the slots...

On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 23:45:00 GMT, "jenga9" <jenga9@home.com> wrote:

>I have a g400maxx under w2k.  It works great, the only thing I don't care
>for is that w2k treats both monitors as one monitor.  My display resolution
>is 2560x1024.  The matrox software has features that deals with some of
>this, the most annoying thing is that any pop-up messages are split between
>monitors and as far as I know there is no way around this. There should also
>be some consideration concerning how similar your monitors are.  W2k only
>recognizes the monitor type for the monitor attached to the primary output
>on the g400.  So as far as I can tell whatever the settings are for the
>primary monitor , the same are applied to the second.  So if your 2nd
>monitor is only capable of 50htz refresh then you restrict yourself to using
>the lower settings on both monitors or causing harm to one.  Win98
>recognized both monitors separately and allowed you to install drivers for
>each. It is possible that this is unique to my hardware/driver combination,
>I don't know.  Matrox currently has 3 beta drivers and one certified driver
>available, so it is possible that one of the newer betas addresses this
>problem.
>
>But yes, to answer your question, w2k is capable everything w98 is as far as
>dual monitors goes.  And using a dual head card is probably the better
>option since you save a pci slot, resources and you avoid the compatibility
>issues (not all cards work together).
>
>For what it's worth,
>Greg
>"NURMS" <viper_07@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8oi4ij$4gk3@imsp212.netvigator.com...
>> can win2000 handle multiple video cards to have multiple display like
>win98?
>>
>> if so, what's the difference between the following option:
>>
>> 1) 2 video card output to 2 monitors in win2000
>> 2) 1 Matrox G400 with "dual head" function to output to 2 monitors in
>> win2000
>>
>> thx for answering
>>
>>
>
Technical Details
Message-ID: <r2pqrscin5sgag9k0u97k2oji2b5l4lu4m@4ax.com>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!not-for-mail
References: <8oi4ij$4gk3@imsp212.netvigator.com> <0Aft5.126919$6y5.85485190@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103e02,f135169dde9e6eb1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103e02,public
X-Google-Thread: f85c2,f135169dde9e6eb1
X-Google-Attributes: gidf85c2,public
X-Google-Thread: f4db5,f135169dde9e6eb1
X-Google-Attributes: gidf4db5,public
X-Google-Thread: f5f89,f135169dde9e6eb1
X-Google-Attributes: gidf5f89,public
X-Google-Thread: fb51b,f135169dde9e6eb1
X-Google-Attributes: gidfb51b,public
X-Google-Thread: 10e274,f135169dde9e6eb1
X-Google-Attributes: gid10e274,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2000-09-11 16:06:41 PST
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!sn-inject-01!not-for-mail
From: 00 <0@00.net>
Newsgroups: alt.comp,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox,hk.comp,hk.comp.hardware,hk.comp.pc
Subject: Re: two video cards or one G400 for dual monitor display?
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:06:42 +0100
Organization: RemarQ http://www.remarQ.com
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <r2pqrscin5sgag9k0u97k2oji2b5l4lu4m@4ax.com>
References: <8oi4ij$4gk3@imsp212.netvigator.com> <0Aft5.126919$6y5.85485190@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.112.41.66
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: 968713600 BDX3OI3ON2942C370C uk26.supernews.com
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@remarq.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534