XCOM: Not compatible with Win XP.

[DarkhoIlow]

I knew this would happen eventually that's why I finally gave in into switching my OS to windows 7.This was like a year ago.

I haven't looked back since.

 

[Athinira]

Gaming on a PC nowadays using windows XP is like still using VHS'es in computer terms. Nostalgic yes, but in no way practical at all. Like trying to run Crysis using a Pentium 4, with 512 MB of Ram or something.

Sorry but you are comparing apples and donkeys here, XP is actually still the OS that runs faster and with less resources wasted, not to mention the immense backwards compatibility.

"Less resources wasted" - You might actually go look up performance tests between Windows 7 and Windows XP. They perform about equal (sometimes XP runs better, sometimes Win7 does), and Windows 8 outperforms both while Vista underperforms.

 

[RazielXT]

Although not supporting XP, which is still a widely used OS despite what the other guys in the thread may think, is still a dick move. Just look at the statistics.

Actually not only is that link half year old, also thats probably general survey of all users = company pcs etc. PC survey on Steam gives much better overview of average pc gamer, and it states 75% of users have Win7, 9% Vista and 1+% Win8. Thats quite big majority.

 

[Pakkie]

Not sure if this has been brought up yet but from a market/profiting standpoint supporting XP makes a lot of sense, I personally use 7 myself but according to steam hardware survey (which I'm gunna assume is a pretty accurate portrayal of PC Gaming as a whole), 12% of people still use XP.

This might seem small but when you consider that XP support wouldn't be that hard to implement (especially on a unreal engine 3 game that already supports DX9/10/11) and the fact that the MAC community makes up less than 3% of steam, yet developers still choose to support that on varying cases an easy 12% boost in your potential sales is nice.

HW Survey: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

 

[Denamic]

if my old pc hadnt of finally crapped itself i would still be using XP. it works perfectly fine as of a month ago on most modern games, its still only a minority that arent covering xp.

windows 7 is a decent enough one to get though. pretty stable and solid and ill probably be using it in 10 years

Pretty stable?
I have been using 7 since beta, and I have never once had a singe stability issue.
Which is more than I can say with XP, as countless lockups and crashes happened. Hell, Vista was more stable than XP. Come to think of it, I never had stability issues with Vista either. The only 'crash' I've had in 5 years of 99% uptime was when one of my RAM sticks died and caused BSoDs.

 

[Pakkie]

Gaming on a PC nowadays using windows XP is like still using VHS'es in computer terms. Nostalgic yes, but in no way practical at all. Like trying to run Crysis using a Pentium 4, with 512 MB of Ram or something.

Sorry but you are comparing apples and donkeys here, XP is actually still the OS that runs faster and with less resources wasted, not to mention the immense backwards compatibility.

"Less resources wasted" - You might actually go look up performance tests between Windows 7 and Windows XP. They perform about equal (sometimes XP runs better, sometimes Win7 does), and Windows 8 outperforms both while Vista underperforms.

That's true on more modern and faster PCs but not on older hw, Windows 7 wont run on under 512mb of ram (and minimum is actually 1gb, according to MS) but XP will run on about 128 (minimum is 64) and still be pretty usable. That's one example but the same applies to pretty much all other factors such as proc speeds.

Any decent Hardware past around 2005/2006 runs similar on both as you describe though.

 

[tangoprime]

Perhaps there are more of those out there who are very reluctant to upgrade from XP (Best. Windows. Evar.), but now games seem to running out of our reach.
XCOM won't be compatible with Win XP, and we will most likely see more of this in the future.

This irritates me.

Yes, XP was awesome, and we all loved it. A decade ago. This is like getting irritated that new software doesn't work on Mac OS 9.2

 

[teh_gunslinger]

I'll upgrade from XP to something else when you can offer me something else worth using, thank you very much!

Well I WAS sitting on the fence about getting the new XCOM, but I guess this puts the tin lid on it.

64 bit, security, more RAM (related to the 64 bit), DirectX 11 and stability to name a few things.

 

[Jandau]

Yet you seem to have the 45$ (assuming digital copy) to buy Xcom if it could run on XP. Sorry not buying the "I cant afford it". You just dont want to pay it.

Besides you seem to be forgetting there is more than just "will it run it" problems. XP will be able to use 4gb of ram. If you are running service pack 3 about 2 of those will be used on the OS. 2gb of ram is border "Being in the way of making the game run well".

I've got a gaming budget of around $30-40 per month (on average). Some of the money for XCOM might come from a friend (let's say $10) who'll be playing the game on my account once I'm done with it. So yeah, I can afford a game. But it would require me to suspend all gaming purchases for at least 5 months to buy W7, then save up for a month or two to buy the game itself. There are other games I'd like to play, I'd rather play them.

You argument about my system specs is kinda pointless and shows that you're just looking for any excuse to be a dick. I can run Skyrim and Borderlands 2 on mid settings with a smooth framerate, which looks roughly as good as on the console. I sincerely doubt XCOM would offer a greater hardware challenge than those games...

Well... this is the escapist forums after all, so what did you expect?

My advice for you is to either wait for a mod that fixes compatibility issues(unlikely) or just look for other games.
There are the original X-com games for example, if you haven't tried them already. There is also the UFO series and UFO:Extraterrestrials or UFO: Alien Invasion, which are the closest you can get to the original X-com experience(arguably even moreso than the new XCOM). EDIT: forgot Xenonauts

You could also try Jagged Alliance 1/2(2 preferably with the 1.13 mod), Silent Storm and 7.62 mm. Maybe Fallout Tactics or the Close Combat series.
There is really no point to be sad about not being able to play the new XCOM when there are so many (better) alternatives that you could play.

Although not supporting XP, which is still a widely used OS despite what the other guys in the thread may think, is still a dick move. Just look at the statistics.

Well, this IS The Escapist forums (of which I've been a part for quite a while), so I expected better. As for XCOM, I do hold out some hope for a compatibilty patch. Some of the "Vista and above" games are artificially set to exclude XP and can be run on XP with no problems (like Halo 2), perhaps XCOM will turn out to be one of them.

I played most of the major tactics games on the PC over the years, though most of the "spiritual sequels" to the original XCOM are terrible, and stuff like Xenonauts has yet to come out.

And yes, XP still has the biggest market share. While the ratio would likely look different if only gaming systems were taken into account (and not grandma's PC on which she plays Farmville ), there's still a fairly sizeable segment of the population using XP.

 

[Athinira]

That's true on more modern and faster PCs but not on older hw, Windows 7 wont run on under 512mb of ram (and minimum is actually 1gb, according to MS) but XP will run on about 128 (minimum is 64) and still be pretty usable. That's one example but the same applies to pretty much all other factors such as proc speeds.

Any decent Hardware past around 2005/2006 runs similar on both as you describe though.

Win 7 actually runs fine (although rather slow) on 512 MB's of RAM. So does Windows 8 since it uses even fewer RAM. I just spent the last 3 weeks at work (I'm an IT-consultant) putting Windows 7 on old laptops, many of which only have 512 megs of RAM.

And that is Win 7 Ultimate. Several people have tried out the Starter Edition of Windows 7 on machines with 256 megs of RAM (this requires a bit of thinkering since Windows 7 refuses to install on machines that lowend without some fiddling), even stating they are seeing better performance than when using XP. Ultimate has also been run on machines with 256 megs, although i doubt the performance is that great. I haven't tried it though, so i wouldn't know )

 

[teh_gunslinger]

You do know that time wont stop after Xcom right? The 5-10 years may begin right now. New games are future tense. Not past. You are pulling in Skyrim as an example when you need to be pulling in Elder scrolls 6.

We are back to the whole problem of foresight again.

Sure, but what games? When are they coming? Foresight is lovely when you have tons of money. But when you're gaming on a tight budget, you need to prioritize. I mentioned Skyrim and the other games as an example that XCOM isn't a part of a growing trend, it's an isolated incident. Sure, that will likely change at some point, but not for a while yet.

I could start saving up for forseeable future, get no new games or anything and then at some point buy a new OS, likely sometime mid next year. And then have all the games that come out in the next year or two be XP compatible, meaning I would have been better off spending the money on an OS later and enjoying games in the meantime.

I'll upgrade when I start seeing a significant percentage of games I want not support XP. So far, it's one game (XCOM). When a third or half of the games I want to play refuse to work on my OS, then I'll start saving for a new one. I'm not demanding that XCOM be made to work on XP, I'm not raging at the developers, I'm just slightly sad about it.

I'd love to have the money to buy W7 right this moment, but I don't. I'm sorry you can't seem to understand the situation I, and a lot of other people are in, but at least try not to be condescending about it and assume we're idiots...

It's certainly not an isolated incident.

Shattered Horizon
Just Cause 2
Battlefield 3
Dirt: Showdown
F1 2012
Need for Speed The Run
Sleeping Dogs
War of the Roses

Edit:
I forgot some upcoming ones:
Hitman Absolution
Dragon Age 3
Metro Last Light
Black Ops 2 (I think)
Medal of Honour Warfighter
Company of Heroes 2
Assassins Creed 3 (I seem to recall)

Those are the ones from the top of my head. While it may not be a majority of games, it's coming soon enough (the faster the better).

 

[Hargrimm]

Well, this IS The Escapist forums (of which I've been a part for quite a while), so I expected better. As for XCOM, I do hold out some hope for a compatibilty patch. Some of the "Vista and above" games are artificially set to exclude XP and can be run on XP with no problems (like Halo 2), perhaps XCOM will turn out to be one of them.

I played most of the major tactics games on the PC over the years, though most of the "spiritual sequels" to the original XCOM are terrible, and stuff like Xenonauts has yet to come out.

And yes, XP still has the biggest market share. While the ratio would likely look different if only gaming systems were taken into account (and not grandma's PC on which she plays Farmville ), there's still a fairly sizeable segment of the population using XP.

Hmm, the fix might not be as unlikely as I thought.
#1472 [http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/firaxis-making-xcom-enemy-unknown.68316/page-59#post-2300148]
#8

 

[suitepee7]

ok then...

well to add discussion value myself rather than just stating an opinion, yeah it does kinda suck, but you can't expect XP to be catered to forever. it was going to happen enetually

 

[Vegetunks9000]

If you want to be able to play games on a decade old OS, you're gonna have a bad time.

See ya pizza'd when you should have french fried.

 

[tippy2k2]

Hell, throw out the XP issue and could a five year old computer even run XCOM?

My 7 year old computer ran Crysis, so I'm going to go with yes. Easily.

snipped the rest

Seriously? That's pretty impressive. Now again, I'm not a PC gamer so excuse my ignorance here:

From what I heard from the interweb, Crysis was supposedly the benchmark of PC gaming when it came out (was your computer 7 years old at the time or is it seven now? If it's seven now, that's not as impressive since Crysis is 5 years old).

Anyway, my question is: How much does it cost for you to keep that thing updated enough to run modern games? It just seems like at some point, it would be much cheaper for you to just buy a new rig (which would come with the new Windows) than it would be to sink money into the old system.

 

[Pakkie]

-snip-

Win 7 actually runs fine (although rather slow) on 512 MB's of RAM. So does Windows 8 since it uses even fewer RAM. I just spent the last 3 weeks at work (I'm an IT-consultant) putting Windows 7 on old laptops, many of which only have 512 megs of RAM.

And that is Win 7 Ultimate. Several people have tried out the Starter Edition of Windows 7 on machines with 256 megs of RAM (this requires a bit of thinkering since Windows 7 refuses to install on machines that lowend without some fiddling), even stating they are seeing better performance than when using XP. Ultimate has also been run on machines with 256 megs, although i doubt the performance is that great. I haven't tried it though, so i wouldn't know )

Ahh, I wrote that wrong I meant to say it will run on 512mb xD, I have an old 512mb laptop running ultimate behind me now, haven't tried starter but I could see it working on 256mb of ram.

 

[Andrew_C]

Yet still be able to afford Xcom.....

So, maybe he's been saving since they announced it?

It's an amazing concept. What you do, is you don't spend all your money every month, but you set a bit aside so you can buy something expensive you really want later. It may be illegal in the States though, because it's socialist and anti-consumerist.

Big words for such for such a non-point.

So he is saving since the announcement, couldn't have applied the same concept to the OS?
Especially since Win XP mainstream support stopped 3 years ago and extended support will end 2014.

So it's OK to condescend to XP users but not to the condescenders?

By the way, I totally agree that he should just bite the bullet, miss a few games and save up to buy Win 7 instead, because on 08/04/2014 he's going to be up shit creek without a paddle

I'd also love to know why he just can't buy an OEM copy of Windows 7

 

[TelHybrid]

...wow. People still use XP?

 

[Jandau]

Yet you seem to have the 45$ (assuming digital copy) to buy Xcom if it could run on XP. Sorry not buying the "I cant afford it". You just dont want to pay it.

Besides you seem to be forgetting there is more than just "will it run it" problems. XP will be able to use 4gb of ram. If you are running service pack 3 about 2 of those will be used on the OS. 2gb of ram is border "Being in the way of making the game run well".

I've got a gaming budget of around $30-40 per month (on average). Some of the money for XCOM might come from a friend (let's say $10) who'll be playing the game on my account once I'm done with it. So yeah, I can afford a game. But it would require me to suspend all gaming purchases for at least 5 months to buy W7, then save up for a month or two to buy the game itself. There are other games I'd like to play, I'd rather play them.

You argument about my system specs is kinda pointless and shows that you're just looking for any excuse to be a dick. I can run Skyrim and Borderlands 2 on mid settings with a smooth framerate, which looks roughly as good as on the console. I sincerely doubt XCOM would offer a greater hardware challenge than those games...

No it is your lack of knowledge that jumps to conclusions.

The Tekkit Pack for Minecraft can have a greater demand on your memory than Skyrim. Again you need to understand your medium before start throwing out examples. If your only option is "It needs to run Skyrim and Borderlands 2" then you shouldn't be bothered when those limitations are biting you in the ass.

My examples were meant to illustrate that my computer can run current AAA games regardless of whatever limitations you care to bring up. Look, you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing at this point, and it's not something I'm particularly interested in doing.

The fact of the matter is that I will be passing up on XCOM due to a lack of XP compatibility (unless a compatibility patch/mod is released somewhere) and I'm hardly the only one. I do not feel that a single game is enough to justify what is for me a major expenditure and therefore will not be upgrading to W7 any time soon.

But sure, go ahead and argue about moot points, straw men and whatever else you care to drag into this...