What do you guys think about ATI's new solution for bezel management?

[ellover009]

I was just looking at some of the pictures and it's nice to see ATI implement some type of bezel management, I just think they could have used a more elegant solution like Maxtor's triple head 2 go. One instance I could see it as a disadvantage is because mouse can hide behind bezel, item's behind bezel are no longer visible until you move your character ect, imagine playing Modern Warfare 2 online or any other FPS, ppl that get behind the bezel or if someone is hiding on the bushes and the bushes are simply behind the bezel then it turns the bezels into blind spots.
All they needed to do was shift the pixels vertically and re-size side images so that all 3 images fit in nicely together.
These are good examples of maxtors solution.
http://www.matrox.com/graphics/surro...product/bezel/

http://www.matrox.com/graphics/surro...hite_Paper.pdf

I like their solution a little better when it comes to bezel management and they been doing multi-screen solutions since 2001.

I could be wrong since I actually have to see how it plays out on final release, but that's what I could analyze from the pictures and the articles.

 

[kllrnohj]

You already posted this, and somebody already pointed out that you are wrong.

Matrox's solution is the same damn thing as ATI's - there is only one form of bezel management. If anything, ATI's is superior as it doesn't add black bars on the side. Bezel management is defined as hiding things behind the bezels - that is what it is *supposed* to do (gives the illusion of the bezels blocking a contiguous world)

You're "shift the pixels vertically" statement doesn't make any sense, by the way.

 

[ellover009]

I thought by reading the maxtor's pdf and looking at the articles on the new bezel management from ati that they were different.