Tyler, for whatever reason you are getting extremely testy about this
issue. I don't think I've said anything to insult you personally in
this thread, but if I have, I apologize.
Anyway, I've pretty much said my piece, so I'll limit myself to just
a few quick points below:
On 11 Aug 2006, at 1:31 PM, Tyler Turner wrote:
Then do a little reading. I found plenty of people
discussing this when I looked at the articles in that
Google search I gave you.
If you gave me a Google search, I must have missed it -- sorry.
Right. And you believe there is consensus out there
among "experts" that 2D performance has been maxed out
on video cards for some time now.
Actually, what I was mainly saying is that, of the cards currently on
the market, there's not much difference in 2D performance between a
$100 card and a $1500 card. I don't think I ever tried to claim there
was no difference in 2D performance between a graphics card
originally released in 2006 and a graphics card originally released
in 1996, or even in 2002.
How about this: Yesterday I sent a letter to Matrox, a
company who has established itself as a leader in
graphic solutions for 2D productivity applications. I
explained that, using my ATI X600 video card with a 2D
application, I was experiencing more slow down with
the hardware acceleration slider turned up than with
it turned down. The response?
"If you are experiencing slowdowns it is most likely
that your card lacks the power to support the features
that it is trying to run with hardware acceleration
turned all the way up."
Yes, and all I was trying to find out from you is what those specific
features were.
Cheers,
- Darcy
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
