I also am using a Dual Head G400 non-Max. While it's a nice card and
works wonderfully under Windows 98, the Linux support is not where I'd
like it to be. I bought xig's AcceleratedX Dual Head version only to find
out you have to use the same resolution on both monitors and the max
resolution is 1280x1024. This is fine for my 17", but rather large on my
22". Actually it's a bit blurry on my 17". Under Win98SE I can run
1600x1200 on the 22" and 1024x768 on the 17" with out any problems. I
hope XFree has this level of configurability, I dont think AccelleratedX
ever will. If I had it to do over again I would buy 2 PCI G200's instead.
Hell, I may still do that. At least then the resolutions could be
independant. If I had two 17" monitors it might not be an issue. It's
good card under linux and a damn fine card under Win98.
On Tue, 2 May 2000, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> Charles Galpin wrote:
> > I'd like to buy a dual head graphics card, but am clueless. I don't play
> > games. I've heard good things about the Matrox G400. What's the difference
> > between the 32meg G400 and the G400 Max. Any other brands worth
> > considering? Linux friendly of course :)
>
> The dual head feature of the G400 is not currently available under
> XFree86. Matrox is, however, paying Precision Insight to develop said
> driver, and should be available Real Soon Now (TM) :)
>
> The G400 Max has a faster ramdac, 360 vs 300 Mhz, IIRC. If you don't
> game, the G400 is probably a few dollars cheaper.
>
> I've a G400 card now, and I love it. Very smooth, fast graphics. I'm
> looking forward to dual head support, too.
>
> MSG
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
> as the Subject.
>
-----
.~.
Ken Kirchner /V\ L I N U X
Asst SysAdmin // \ > Don't fear the penguin <
ShreveNet, Inc. /( )\
^^-^^
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
