Basically, if you've learned one thing from these early reviews: processor speed _still_ matters a great deal. Something I've been telling people over and over, but even I was a litlte surprised at these results.
The Monster Truck/Hellbender comments on a P100 were quite disappointing- cripes, it doesn't sound as if they're beating the Virge that much with these two! After numerous discussions with 3DFX employees, I am a little underwhelmed- we were led to believe a P90-100 would be enough to get 25+ fps on _everything_. And heck, it's not like most of the games were graphical powerhouses. If the Voodoo can't run them all at 30fps, it's a sad comment on PC 3D (hardware and software) and the PC architecture in general. It will be interesting to see how the 3D Blaster fares. Very early I know, but I was a little surprised with the Voodoo's much-touted power, I wouldn't think you would need a P166 just get a consistent 30fps on everything.
A helpful equation to keep in mind? Take any frame rates on a system a rep from a 3D company gives you, and HALVE them. That's your _real_ frame rate. :)
In article <01bbb240$811c7ec0$dc98d4c7@dave>, dave...@interlog.com says...
>A helpful equation to keep in mind? Take any frame rates on a system a rep >from a 3D company gives you, and HALVE them. That's your _real_ frame rate. >:)
Respectfully, lets wait till we here some others reviews before we "Rush to judgement ;)" Anyway, I think its been hinted about that a 133 would probably be the realistic minumum for full use of a 3d accelerator. When I get mine tomorrow (doubtful) or Monday, I will post *very* complete and detailed benchmarks. My machine is a P-200, so I assume Ill be getting full frames from these games. If there is slowdown on this puppy, then I think its time to complain.
Erick Cid <el...@interport.net> wrote in article <534bpb$...@park.interport.net>...
> Respectfully, lets wait till we here some others reviews before we "Rush to > judgement ;)" Anyway, I think its been hinted about that a 133 would probably > be the realistic minumum for full use of a 3d accelerator. When I get mine > tomorrow (doubtful) or Monday, I will post *very* complete and detailed > benchmarks. My machine is a P-200, so I assume Ill be getting full frames from > these games. If there is slowdown on this puppy, then I think its time to > complain.
Actually, looking back at that review the user had a Neptune chipset, and his 256k cache was probably not pipeline burst, not to mention non-EDO memory. That's a P100, but likely quite a slow P100 by today's comparisons. I imagine a good P133 EDO PB cache system should perform significantly better, more so than just the clock speed increase would indicate. Anyone with a decent P133+ system, post your review when you get it!
>>A helpful equation to keep in mind? Take any frame rates on a system a rep >>from a 3D company gives you, and HALVE them. That's your _real_ frame rate. >>:)
>Respectfully, lets wait till we here some others reviews before we "Rush to >judgement ;)" Anyway, I think its been hinted about that a 133 would probably >be the realistic minumum for full use of a 3d accelerator. When I get mine >tomorrow (doubtful) or Monday, I will post *very* complete and detailed >benchmarks. My machine is a P-200, so I assume Ill be getting full frames from >these games. If there is slowdown on this puppy, then I think its time to >complain.
>Erick
OK I don't get it. Why do they call them accelerators if you need a p200 to run game and full speed ?
It seems like they try to much and achieve to little. I want a card that has great graphics and makes a p100 run like its a 200.
Why not just use 256 colors ? It not like a games artist actually uses 32,000 color when they draw. I bet the r3d would fly in 640x480 256 mode and still look great.
I think I'll wait for a true accelerators one that accelerates the 486/100 in my closet or wait until that killer flight sim that I just can't stand not to have appears.
Right now they don't seem to accelerate anything but how fast money drains out of our wallets.
Oh the hell with it I'm going to order one now ;-)
>>>A helpful equation to keep in mind? Take any frame rates on a system a rep >>>from a 3D company gives you, and HALVE them. That's your _real_ frame rate.
>OK I don't get it. >Why do they call them accelerators if you need a p200 to run game and >full speed ?
Because the 3D cards offer other features besides raw speed, they look much better at the same resolution. Realize that resolution isn't everything, which has been the case so far with PC graphics mostly.
>It seems like they try to much and achieve to little. >I want a card that has great graphics and makes a p100 run like its a >200.
A p200 could NOT get but around 2fps with all the same options enabled where the OR3D gets 60-70fps on a P166 with all options enabled. Again, it's about looks, not just raw resolution as well.
>Why not just use 256 colors ? It not like a games artist actually uses >32,000 color when they draw. I bet the r3d would fly in 640x480 256 >mode and still look great.
There is a drastic difference between the two, get the DirectX2.0 demos and play around with the color modes, and you'll see what I mean.
>I think I'll wait for a true accelerators one that accelerates the >486/100 in my closet or wait until that killer flight sim that I just >can't stand not to have appears.
It's actually best if a 3d card is "scalable", meaning the graphics performance scales with the CPU, because the CPU does and will always share the task of rendering complex graphics.
>Right now they don't seem to accelerate anything but how fast money >drains out of our wallets.
:), is true somewhat.
>Oh the hell with it I'm going to order one now ;-)
In article <01bbb288$8ea205e0$dc98d4c7@dave>, "Dave Glue" <dave...@interlog.com> wrote:
> Actually, looking back at that review the user had a Neptune chipset, and > his 256k cache was probably not pipeline burst, not to mention non-EDO > memory. That's a P100, but likely quite a slow P100 by today's > comparisons. I imagine a good P133 EDO PB cache system should perform > significantly better, more so than just the clock speed increase would > indicate. Anyone with a decent P133+ system, post your review when you get > it!
Dave, you know my home system. I rushed over to work after reading these messages at 1 AM, and sure enough the package was sitting on my chair. I've been out of town so I had no idea, but the timing was perfect!
I have the full version of Monster Truck Madness, so I want to comment on that first. Without the 3Dfx card, 640x400 mode is unplayable on my machine. With the 3Dfx card, at 640x400x16 bit mode with all 3D features on it looks really close to 30FPS all around. I don't know how to get a frame rate counter, but it is definitely smooth. I'd say 25-30fps. It beats 640x400x8 handily on my machine. And it looks really good. There are some strange visual artifacts on the horizon, but overall the game looks great and runs *fast*.
Descent 2: Quartzon is also much faster than software at 640x400x16. I can't get the "framerate" code to work, so I don't know the exact fps but it is over 30fps in most rooms so far.
Conclusion: this card is obviously faster than software.
However, there *is* a good Win95 benchmark with FPS on the CD.
1. Copy the r3ddemo\wiz folder from the CD to your hard drive. 2. Make sure you mark all the files you copied as read/write or the demo will not run. To do this, just select all the files right click them, select properties, and turn OFF the read only flag. 3. Double-click on WIZ.EXE, wait til it starts up and you are in a 3D room. 4. Press CTRL+P. 5. it will say "INIT", wait, then show you a FPS rate.
This gives you a good framerate counter which we can compare to see how much effect processor has on this card.
I get 29.9 FPS from the starting point. Interestingly, CTRL+M turns mipmapping on/off, and CTRL+B turns bilinear filtering on/off. Neither one has any real effect on the frame rate.
> Actually, looking back at that review the user had a Neptune chipset, and > his 256k cache was probably not pipeline burst, not to mention non-EDO > memory. That's a P100, but likely quite a slow P100 by today's > comparisons. I imagine a good P133 EDO PB cache system should perform > significantly better, more so than just the clock speed increase would > indicate. Anyone with a decent P133+ system, post your review when you get > it!
Yes. You are correct. My system is on the very low end of the performance spectrum when compared to other P100's (Remember I'm an overclocked P90. The cache is definitely not pipeline). I purchased my system over two years ago when a P90 was the fastest system around. So, by today's standards, I have a pretty pathetic system as far as a Pentium system is concerned.
Anyway, I thought that my system would be a good system to review the R3D for that very reason. After reading my review, there is no reason to believe that their system will perform any worse. Of course, from my perspective, that sucks. ;)
> Descent 2: Quartzon is also much faster than software at 640x400x16. > I can't get the "framerate" code to work, so I don't know the exact > fps but it is over 30fps in most rooms so far.
> > OK I don't get it. > Why do they call them accelerators if you need a p200 to run game and > full speed ? > > It seems like they try to much and achieve to little. > I want a card that has great graphics and makes a p100 run like its a > 200. > > Why not just use 256 colors ? It not like a games artist actually uses > 32,000 color when they draw. I bet the r3d would fly in 640x480 256 > mode and still look great. >
I can tell you right now that my P100 runs faster than a non-accelerated 200 mhz Pentium Pro at 640x480x16 on every demo that came with the card. Plus, the graphics look better. The $300.00 upgrade was definitely worth it to me.
Now all I need to do is save up and GET a PPro to really make this thing fly like an SGI. ;)
Eric Calcagni <calca...@mindspring.com> wrote: >Smoke Crack and Worship Satan wrote:
>> Descent 2: Quartzon is also much faster than software at 640x400x16. >> I can't get the "framerate" code to work, so I don't know the exact >> fps but it is over 30fps in most rooms so far.
>Type "framerate" in the middle of playing a game.
>Why do they call them accelerators if you need a p200 to run game and >full speed ?
It's a good question. Generally, a 3D accelerator requires some minimal performance out of the CPU before you get useful frame rates out of them. On the other hand, it would require a _very_ fast CPU before you could get the same image quality that you would out of most 3D accelerators. I would estimate you would need a 2 GFLOP+ CPU to achieve the same image quality and frame rate you would get out of a 3Dfx Voodoo Graphics chip set.
Voodoo Graphics was targeted for people with a Pentium with a reasonable bus, say a P100 Triton based system. I ran stuff on a P75 with a Neptune PCI chip set for awhile, and Voodoo was always faster than software.
>Why not just use 256 colors ? It not like a games artist actually uses >32,000 color when they draw. I bet the r3d would fly in 640x480 256 >mode and still look great.
There are many good reasone why 3D accelerators don't support 8bpp modes.
>wait until that killer flight sim that I just >can't stand not to have appears.
EF2000? Jane's Longbow? Back to Baghdad? Falcon 4.0?
Sam Paik
-- 408-749-8798 / p...@webnexus.com I speak for xyne KS since I AM xyne KS.
> In article <01bbb240$811c7ec0$dc98d4c7@dave>, dave...@interlog.com says...
> >A helpful equation to keep in mind? Take any frame rates on a system a rep > >from a 3D company gives you, and HALVE them. That's your _real_ frame rate. > >:)
> Respectfully, lets wait till we here some others reviews before we "Rush to > judgement ;)" Anyway, I think its been hinted about that a 133 would probably > be the realistic minumum for full use of a 3d accelerator. When I get mine > tomorrow (doubtful) or Monday, I will post *very* complete and detailed > benchmarks. My machine is a P-200, so I assume Ill be getting full frames from > these games. If there is slowdown on this puppy, then I think its time to > complain.
Eric Calcagni <calca...@mindspring.com> wrote: >Dave Glue wrote:
>> Actually, looking back at that review the user had a Neptune chipset, and >> his 256k cache was probably not pipeline burst, not to mention non-EDO >> memory. That's a P100, but likely quite a slow P100 by today's >> comparisons. I imagine a good P133 EDO PB cache system should perform >> significantly better, more so than just the clock speed increase would >> indicate. Anyone with a decent P133+ system, post your review when you get >> it!
>Yes. You are correct. My system is on the very low end of the >performance spectrum when compared to other P100's (Remember I'm an >overclocked P90. The cache is definitely not pipeline). I purchased my >system over two years ago when a P90 was the fastest system around. So, >by today's standards, I have a pretty pathetic system as far as a >Pentium system is concerned.
>Anyway, I thought that my system would be a good system to review the >R3D for that very reason. After reading my review, there is no reason >to believe that their system will perform any worse. Of course, from my >perspective, that sucks. ;)
>- Eric Calcagni
I used to have an Intel Plato (Neptune ?) motherboard with a P90 and 256K async cache (pre Triton). I upgraded it to an ASUS P55TP4XE motherboard (Triton 1) with 256 k PB cache and that alone made my 3D Bench score go from 83 to 100 (20% increase). When I then swapped the P90 for a P133 my score went from 100 to 125 (another 20%). This seemed to make a big difference to SVGA like Screamer were unplayable in SVGA before the upgrade.
Anyway the point is that the motherboard alone can make a big difference.
I can't wait to get my Righteous 3D but us poor suckers in the UK have to wait until 14 October for it to be released :-(
On Sat, 05 Oct 1996 08:05:36 GMT, sixb...@worldnet.att.net (BP) wrote:
> On 5 Oct 1996 00:57:15 GMT, el...@interport.net (Erick Cid) wrote: > > >In article <01bbb240$811c7ec0$dc98d4c7@dave>, dave...@interlog.com says... > > > >> > >>A helpful equation to keep in mind? Take any frame rates on a system a rep > >>from a 3D company gives you, and HALVE them. That's your _real_ frame rate. > >>:) > >> > >> > > > >Respectfully, lets wait till we here some others reviews before we "Rush to > >judgement ;)" Anyway, I think its been hinted about that a 133 would probably > >be the realistic minumum for full use of a 3d accelerator. When I get mine > >tomorrow (doubtful) or Monday, I will post *very* complete and detailed > >benchmarks. My machine is a P-200, so I assume Ill be getting full frames from > >these games. If there is slowdown on this puppy, then I think its time to > >complain. > > > >Erick > > OK I don't get it. > Why do they call them accelerators if you need a p200 to run game and > full speed ? >
Unaccelerated video may run say 10fps. Accelerated video will set to to say 15fps. This is based on the same clock.
> It seems like they try to much and achieve to little. > I want a card that has great graphics and makes a p100 run like its a > 200.
Why don't you design one such? No hard feelings.
> > Why not just use 256 colors ? It not like a games artist actually uses > 32,000 color when they draw. I bet the r3d would fly in 640x480 256 > mode and still look great.
True. Programmers or rather, graphics artistes rarely uses 32K colors. They may only use 200 colors but think, they are using shades ouside the 256 colors boundary. Only at 32K colors can they get the shade they want and you want. Get the idea?
> > I think I'll wait for a true accelerators one that accelerates the > 486/100 in my closet or wait until that killer flight sim that I just > can't stand not to have appears. > > Right now they don't seem to accelerate anything but how fast money > drains out of our wallets.
It's just that hardware advances does not parallel software requirements.
> > Oh the hell with it I'm going to order one now ;-) > > > > > > > > > > >-- > >-------------------------------------------------- > >Erick Cid > >el...@interport.net > >http://www.interport.net/~elcid > >-------------------------------------------------- > > >
Kai <kai...@msn.com> wrote in article <00001c05+00009...@msn.com>...
> >Now all I need to do is save up and GET a PPro to really make this thing > >fly like an SGI. ;) > >- Eric Calcagni.
> I just did that today - went from a P166/512PB to a PPro200/256, and > due to the 3dfx's coprocessor nature, there was a significant but not > huge improvement. The Righteous Direct3D Control Panel test/demo > went from ~47 to ~58 fps, while regular 2D graphics (Millenium) > nearly doubled in SVGA due to posted writes.
Quick question: are you using fastvid? If not, try it and get back to us?
Tiitus Tamminen wrote: > BP (sixb...@worldnet.att.net) wrote: > : Why do they call them accelerators if you need a p200 to run game and > : full speed ? > The problem is, these cards are designed so that your CPU still has to do > part of the work. If you have a slow CPU, no matter how fast 3D accelerator > you have, the accelerator has to wait for your slow CPU to feed it data. > That means power go unused.
It's the lack of a little slab of silicon known as the geometry processor. As far as I know, not a single user-level 3D card for PCs supports any type of geometry processing, thus leaving your CPU to do all that work. There is, however, the GLINT Delta (from 3DLabs) which does a great deal of geometry processing. However, it's incredibly expensive. Still, I'd hedge my bets that by the middle or end of next year, we should see 3DLabs' 'low end' Permedia paired up with the Delta for about US$400. One more advantage to the Delta is that it's scalable: you can add more than one Permedia (or GLINT 500TX, depending upon which card you bought) for greatly increased performance.
Kai <kai...@msn.com> wrote in article <00001c05+00009...@msn.com>...
> CPU _does_ make a difference with a 3D accelerator. I just upgraded from > a P166/512PB to a PPro200/256 and my Righteous Direct3D test in their > Control Panel page went from 47 to 58 fps...
Your Direct3D test should be much higher than that. See the threads on maximizing the refresh rate.
Gregory Seid <g...@lehigh.edu> wrote in article <3257E117.4...@lehigh.edu>...
> It's the lack of a little slab of silicon known as the geometry processor. > As far as I know, not a single user-level 3D card for PCs supports any type > of geometry processing, thus leaving your CPU to do all that work. There is, > however, the GLINT Delta (from 3DLabs) which does a great deal of geometry > processing.
From what a rep from 3DFX told us her, it's simply geometry setup portion- something the Rendition and 3DFX already do. Geometry set-up is but one part of the pre-rendering stage. it's not a true geometry processor.
>However, it's incredibly expensive.
Actually no, the Delta version is only $100 more than the non-Delta version.
"Colin Barnowe" <cbarn...@darkwing.uoregon.edu> hat geschrieben:
> Kai <kai...@msn.com> wrote in article <00001c05+00009...@msn.com>... > > >Now all I need to do is save up and GET a PPro to really make this thing > > >fly like an SGI. ;) > > >- Eric Calcagni.
> > I just did that today - went from a P166/512PB to a PPro200/256, and > > due to the 3dfx's coprocessor nature, there was a significant but not > > huge improvement. The Righteous Direct3D Control Panel test/demo > > went from ~47 to ~58 fps, while regular 2D graphics (Millenium) > > nearly doubled in SVGA due to posted writes.
> Quick question: are you using fastvid? If not, try it and get back to us?
To use Fastvid on the Voodoo is not that easy. If you don't supply any parameters, Fastvid searchs for the LFB (linear frame buffer) of your 2D card. It will completely ignore your Voodoo.
What you have to do is to make out the memory range of the Voodoo and set Fastvid parameters accordingly.
It is still unknown if Voodoo is compatible to Write Combining.
I don't think Write Combining will have that much of effect on the Voodoo because after the textures have been loaded up there is not much bandwidth used, unlike 3D games on 2D cards.
- Andreas
---
Andreas "Goonie" Schildbach schil...@informatik.tu-muenchen.de Ride more roller-coasters!
I first want to say how rewarding it is to read all your reviews after having worked on the design of Voodoo Graphics (the chipset on the Orchid Righteous 3D board) for over two years. I am one of the founders of 3Dfx and one of our goals was to deliver the highest quality graphics possible to the PC gamer. It was and still is a very risky proposition because of the cost sensitivity of the marketplace. But your reviews help convince me that we did the right thing.
I thought I would share with you a little bit about what is inside the 3Dfx Voodoo Graphics chipset. There are 2 chips on the graphics board. Each is a custom designed ASIC containing approximately 1 million transistors. Although this number of transistors is on the order of a 486, it is a lot more powerful. Why? Because the logic is dedicated to graphics and there’s a lot of logic to boot. For example, bilinear filtering of texture maps requires reading four 16-bit texels per pixel (that’s 400 Mbytes/sec at 50 Mpixels/sec) and then computing the equation red_result=r0*w0+r1*w1+r2*w2+r3*w3 where r0:3 are the four red values and w0:3 are the four weights based on the where the pixel center lies with respect to the four texels. This is performed for each color channel (red, green, blue, alpha) resulting in 16 multiples and 12 additions or 28 operations per pixel. At 50 Mpixels per second that is 1,400 Mops/sec. The way this is designed in hardware is you literally place 16 multipliers and 12 adders on the chip and hook them together. And this is only a small part of one chip. There are literally dozens of multipliers and dozens of adders on each of the two chips dedicated only to graphics. Each chip performs around 4,000 million actual operations per second, of which around one third are integer multiplies. These are real operations performed - if you were to try to do these on a CPU (or a DSP) you must also do things like load/store instructions and conditions. In my estimation it would take about a 10,000 Mip computer (peak) to do the same thing that one of our chips does. This is about 20 of the fastest P5-200 or P6-200 chips per one of our chips. Not exactly cost-effective. So if you want to brag, you can say your graphics card has approximately the same compute power as 40 P5-200 chips. Of course, these numbers are more fun than they are meaningful. What is meaningful in graphics is what you see on the screen.
Now of course, if you were writing a software renderer for a game, you wouldn’t attempt to perform the same calculations we perform on our chip on a general purpose CPU. You would take shortcuts, like using 8-bit color with lookup tables for blending, or performing perspective correction every ‘n’ pixels. The image quality will depend on how many shortcuts you take and how clever you are. Voodoo Graphics takes no shortcuts and was designed to give you the highest quality image possible within the constraint of 2 chips. As your reviews have shown, it is evident that you can see the difference in quality and performance.
Now I am sure the subject of triangle setup and geometry calculations will come up sooner or later in this newsgroup. Let me make a preemptive strike and answer your questions before you ask them. There is no geometry acceleration on the board, where geometry is defined as geometric transformation and lighting. In the Wizard’s tower demo you see lighting being applied to texture maps through the use of a ‘lighting map’, which is another texture map that contains the results of off-line radiosity calculations. This is not traditional lighting in the OpenGL sense, but is nonetheless a very powerful method of performing static lighting. It is becoming more popular with games and personally, I think its great! It requires bilinear filtering AND high fill rates, both of which the R3D card has.
Now back to triangle setup. The Voodoo Graphics chipset performs about 2/3 of triangle setup in hardware. When designing Voodoo Graphics I carefully studied exactly what triangle setup our design required and we placed things that were hard for a Pentium to perform in hardware and left things easy for a Pentium to perform out of the hardware design. Our triangle engine is also very efficient in that it requires less setup than most (I worked 9 years at SGI and have a lot of triangle engine experience). The net result is that the 1/3 of triangle setup we perform on the Pentium is not many cycles at all. That is why our triangle numbers are so high. With an efficient design, you can afford to use the Pentium to perform some of your triangle setup. With an inefficient design, you cannot. I know this is a very controversial subject, so I will stop right here.
I hope this answers some of your questions in advance. Thanks for buying the board and I hope you enjoy it. As for the flight sims, I am waiting for one too, and am anxiously awaiting to see what our chips can do. I wrote the original SGI flight simulator and hopefully, I won’t have to write another one :-}
In article <3257E117.4...@lehigh.edu>, Gregory Seid <g...@lehigh.edu> wrote: > Tiitus Tamminen wrote: > > BP (sixb...@worldnet.att.net) wrote: > > : Why do they call them accelerators if you need a p200 to run game and > > : full speed ? > > The problem is, these cards are designed so that your CPU still has to do > > part of the work. If you have a slow CPU, no matter how fast 3D accelerator > > you have, the accelerator has to wait for your slow CPU to feed it data. > > That means power go unused.
> It's the lack of a little slab of silicon known as the geometry processor. > As far as I know, not a single user-level 3D card for PCs supports any type > of geometry processing, thus leaving your CPU to do all that work. There is, > however, the GLINT Delta (from 3DLabs) which does a great deal of geometry > processing. However, it's incredibly expensive. Still, I'd hedge my bets > that by the middle or end of next year, we should see 3DLabs' 'low end' > Permedia paired up with the Delta for about US$400. One more advantage to > the Delta is that it's scalable: you can add more than one Permedia (or > GLINT 500TX, depending upon which card you bought) for greatly increased > performance.
Did you read my post comparing 3dfx-enhanced Descent 2 framerates on a P5-100, P5-133, and P5-166?
The frame rate at the start of level 1 without moving the ship was 30.0 on all those machines. The non-accelerated versions came in at 14.5, 17.25, and 18.75 respectively.
Gary Tarolli <taro...@3dfx.com> wrote in article <32583987.5...@3dfx.com>...
> I hope this answers some of your questions in advance. Thanks for > buying the board and I hope you enjoy it. As for the flight sims, > I am waiting for one too, and am anxiously awaiting to see what our > chips can do. I wrote the original SGI flight simulator and hopefully, > I won’t have to write another one :-}
> Kai <kai...@msn.com> wrote in article <00001c05+00009...@msn.com>... > > >Now all I need to do is save up and GET a PPro to really make this thing > > >fly like an SGI. ;) > > >- Eric Calcagni.
> > I just did that today - went from a P166/512PB to a PPro200/256, and > > due to the 3dfx's coprocessor nature, there was a significant but not > > huge improvement. The Righteous Direct3D Control Panel test/demo > > went from ~47 to ~58 fps, while regular 2D graphics (Millenium) > > nearly doubled in SVGA due to posted writes.
> Quick question: are you using fastvid? If not, try it and get back to us?
I'm guessing that the direct 3D tunnel demo is not very processor intensive and relies greatly on the 3D card maybe a real world app would see a more dramatic increase with the rightous involved?
Actually.. now that I think about it.. that shouldnt matter.. it might be the way the tunnel test was coded.. I'm gonna hit send anyway.. hehehe
In article <32583987.5...@3dfx.com>, Gary Tarolli <taro...@3dfx.com> wrote: > I hope this answers some of your questions in advance.
It sure does, and thanks for the post. It's not often a company head honcho actually takes the time to write such an extensive thank you note on Usenet.
|
