Difference between revisions of "Talk:Matrox Mystique"
(Created page with "The cards evaluation in the article does not distinguish between Windows and DOS 2D performance. While being good 2D performers in windows all Matrox cards lack important VGA ...") |
RacoonRider (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
It is also a bit unlucky to take the special compaq card version as example photo. | It is also a bit unlucky to take the special compaq card version as example photo. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | If you have a different card to show as a pic, I'm by no means against it. You obviously know more about differencies between DOS and Windows performance of the card, feel free to edit the article. If it's a wiki, let's run it like one. | ||
| + | [[User:RacoonRider|RacoonRider]] ([[User talk:RacoonRider|talk]]) 01:03, 24 February 2013 (EST) | ||
Latest revision as of 01:03, 24 February 2013
The cards evaluation in the article does not distinguish between Windows and DOS 2D performance. While being good 2D performers in windows all Matrox cards lack important VGA features for DOS like support for hardware scrolling that some games use extensivly. The mentioned fact that the card has no known flaws for 2D is a bit misleading in this aspect. It is also recommended to use the latest BIOS for best DOS VESA compatibility as early BIOS versions lack support for certain modes.
Also a traditional excellent 2D performance is not true for DOS as the Impression series e.g. is utterly slow.
It is also a bit unlucky to take the special compaq card version as example photo.
If you have a different card to show as a pic, I'm by no means against it. You obviously know more about differencies between DOS and Windows performance of the card, feel free to edit the article. If it's a wiki, let's run it like one. RacoonRider (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2013 (EST)
