ATI Rage 128 MAXX. ATI quite notoriously showed the middle finger to their customers with this one.

I kinda remember that one. Beefy card at the time, but flawed.

Matrox M3D/any PowerVR PCX2-based card. Would have been nice to have at least Win2K support on it.

The Rage Fury Maxx can run with Win2k but only one GPU operates. Can't help but wonder how they didn't foresee that compatibility problem.

https://web.archive.org/web/20020213193052/ht … seedycrocadile/

Rendition Verité 2100 comes to mind.
It may have Win2k drivers, I'm too lazy to look it up.
We used to have trouble getting these to work on XP machines and back then people didn't even want 9x anymore because they considered it too old. Even if they got it for free 🤣

Armand Karlsen wrote:

...was wondering what were the last/newest graphics cards that had official driver support for only up to Windows 98; i.e., no Win2k, XP, and above?

Which of the following scenarios are you interested in finding an answer for:

a)the last graphics card which only had manufacturers-supplied drivers for no OS later than Win98 AND newer operating systems did not supply their own drivers?
or
b) the last graphics card which only had manufacturers-supplied drivers for no OS later than Win98 AND newer operating systems did supply their own drivers?

stock windows xp always seems to have a compatible display driver for even 1 or 2mb onboard gpu's. while windows 98 typically doesn't have a lot of built in drivers.

I think it would be very difficult to find a gpu that only had windows 98 drivers , it would need to be very old and just barely needed a windows 98 driver like a sub megabyte card , maybe an old isa or vlb card that got one last update for windows 98.

and or , the card would need to be so obscure that xp didn't have a default compatible driver.

The Voodoo2 *nearly* became a Win9x-only card as early Win2k drivers were looking uncertain about secondary 3d device support (which evidently screwed the aforementioned MAXX over)

In the end they didn't have full functionality (No D3D for W2k V2)

the thing with xp drivers is that they doesn't have full compatibility or performance
for example, in most if not all drivers, there is lack of support for openGL
sure you can use the integrated D3D to OGL wrapper in some cards, but the performance is crap
in other cards, while they have 3D rendering support aswell as Direct3D support, the driver simply uses them as a framebuffer or an accelerated 2D card
that's why i don't think that integrated drivers should take account

The integrated drivers not providing OpenGL support was a huge dick/business move.

I remember puzzling for a day why Quake wouldn't run besides the card having been "properly" installed - they could at least hinted at it via "Note: D3D only - for "extened" functionality acquire drivers for OpenGL by a vendor of your choice".

amadeus777999 wrote:

The integrated drivers not providing OpenGL support was a huge dick/business move.

I remember puzzling for a day why Quake wouldn't run besides the card having been "properly" installed - they could at least hinted at it via "Note: D3D only - for "extened" functionality acquire drivers for OpenGL by a vendor of your choice".

yeah, in some way it makes sense because they already had a "good enough" API, they don't want competition on its own operating system, but that was a bummer for consumers that didn't know that

feipoa wrote:

Which of the following scenarios are you interested in finding an answer for: […]
Show full quote

Armand Karlsen wrote:

...was wondering what were the last/newest graphics cards that had official driver support for only up to Windows 98; i.e., no Win2k, XP, and above?

Which of the following scenarios are you interested in finding an answer for:

a)the last graphics card which only had manufacturers-supplied drivers for no OS later than Win98 AND newer operating systems did not supply their own drivers?
or
b) the last graphics card which only had manufacturers-supplied drivers for no OS later than Win98 AND newer operating systems did supply their own drivers?

I was thinking about manufacturer-supplied drivers rather than OS-supplied drivers, so I suppose more a than b. I wouldn't count the half-assed way the built-in XP drivers (as mentioned in a couple of the previous replies) were done, for example.

ATI MACH64VT. 😀 1MB and 2MB versions. up to win95 during that time when it came out. Later OS versions had support, BUT not all
benefits were used with them.

In fact its drivers for win3.x were best, while for further platforms it was a cropped down version. Its software with hotkeys worked better for win3.x platform as it made useful addon to swap with only one key combination the screen resolutions and desktop size. All of which is not not common with the later video card drivers unfortunately. The nVidia drivers can switch between different desktops only.

weldum wrote:

the thing with xp drivers is that they doesn't have full compatibility or performance for example, in most if not all drivers, t […]
Show full quote

the thing with xp drivers is that they doesn't have full compatibility or performance
for example, in most if not all drivers, there is lack of support for openGL
sure you can use the integrated D3D to OGL wrapper in some cards, but the performance is crap
in other cards, while they have 3D rendering support aswell as Direct3D support, the driver simply uses them as a framebuffer or an accelerated 2D card
that's why i don't think that integrated drivers should take account

I can say first hand that Matrox's Win9x drivers are faster than the Win2k/XP drivers. The last fully D3D/OGL enabled 2k/XP driver for their G200/4x0 cards is slower in games than the Win9x counterpart. For example, AnandTech's test of the G450 under Q3A at 800x600x32 on a P3-550MHz machine running Win98se delivered 43fps whereas my own test on a P3-933MHz machine at the same resolution under WinXP SP3 resulted in only 32fps (Matrox G400/G450 Quake III Performance)