> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 8:44 PM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: GeForce2 MX Graphics Card
>
>
> >My friend has dual monitors with different resolutions going
> under Windows
> >2000 on the Matrox 450.
>
> Frank have you actually checked out your friends system to see if your
> friend actually is running the two monitors under different resolutions as
> opposed to thinking he is. I think you ought to before making the strong
> statements that you have about the statements in the review being "false."
> Since what the review claims as been experienced by other Win2k as well as
> Win98 users with respect to not only Matrox cards but other cards as well,
> it just might be the case that the statements are true and your friend is
> mistaken in what they thought they actually were able to do with
> their dual
> monitors - even with he Matrox 450 card. That the manufacturer's
> specs may
> say that a card can do such and such does not necessarily mean
> that it will
> do it with all systems, OS. or platforms. Indeed, the Matrox web
> site, as a
> footnote to its specifications the 450 dualhead display
> capabilities, says,
> "* The level of DualHead capability is determined by the
> operating system."
This guy has been a top flight software engineer for 25 years and a PC geek
since 1984. I trust him implicitly to know what he's talking about. I mean,
this is a no-brainer kind of thing. The other false statement in the review
is that the Matrox interface doesn't provide a place for specifying the
resolution of the second monitor independent of the primary. Even the
version of the software that had the bugs in it has this. I know that for a
fact because I have those drivers on my system. But why should you think I
know what I'm talking about anymore than my friend and co-worker? You're
whistlin' Dixie.
Frank Paris
marshalt@spiritone.com
