See ya pizza'd when you should have french fried.Pinkamena said: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.Pinkamena said:If you want to be able to play games on a decade old OS, you're gonna have a bad time.
Seriously? That's pretty impressive. Now again, I'm not a PC gamer so excuse my ignorance here:Joccaren said:My 7 year old computer ran Crysis, so I'm going to go with yes. Easily.tippy2k2 said:Hell, throw out the XP issue and could a five year old computer even run XCOM?
snipped the rest
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.Athinira said: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.Pakkie said:-snip-
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)
So it's OK to condescend to XP users but not to the condescenders?Draech said:Big words for such for such a non-point.Andrew_C said:So, maybe he's been saving since they announced it?Draech said:Yet still be able to afford Xcom.....
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.
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.
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.Draech said:No it is your lack of knowledge that jumps to conclusions.Jandau said: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 $10) who'll be playing the game on my account once I'm done with it. So yeah, I can afford a game. But it would require me to suspend all gaming purchases for at least 5 months to buy W7, then save up for a month or two to buy the game itself. There are other games I'd like to play, I'd rather play them.Draech said:Yet you seem to have the 45$ (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".
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...
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.
You don't claim that websites not supporting extremely old versions of flash is "Limiting the market" why? It's outdated.NiPah said:Or just not get XCOM, smart move on limiting the market for a game that has limited appeal already. I do agree that no one cares, now if it was a game that people cared about then people would actually complain.Saviordd1 said:Who...cares?
Seriously, just get Windows 7
Heres a an argument for you.Jandau said:-snip-
Bam. Right here.ResonanceSD said:XP was released in October 2001.
What do you want them to do?
Win 8 is the Vista Cycle. Win 9 is the XP Cycle. Think of it that way. You can safely jump from XP -->7-->9? without worries. Going from ME--> vista --> Win X will just make you cry.ascorbius said:How many people here are looking forward to windows 8? and having the "Get with the times Man!" comment when a similar thing happens...? Just sayin'
You could take another route, Windows 8. MS are doing new copies of it dirt cheap for a limited time when its released for people using older operating systems, such as XP and 7. Its a hell of a lot cheaper than buying a copy of 7. I think its like £25. Not sure what currency you use (Aus dollar or USD) but its still a crapload cheaper.Jandau said:Yes. I can wait for it to be on sale and maybe share the cost with a few friends. I'll probably end up paying $20-30, depending on how good a sale I can find and how many people pitch in. Buying W7 Professional would wipe out my gaming funds for 5-6 months. I was looking forward to XCOM and I'd love to play it, but I'm not up for paying several hundred dollars for it.Draech said:Yet still be able to afford Xcom.....Jandau said:To the people who ask "Why don't you upgrade" with the same condescension of suggesting people might want to start wiping their arses with toilet paper instead of dry leaves, the cheapest I can get the most basic W7 Home edition in my country is around $180, with the Professional and Ultimate editions going above $200 and as high as $400-500. Now, to you this might seem like a small amount. To me it isn't. I'm using a 5-year old PC and my gaming budget is VERY tight. I buy all my games discounted, I trade with my friends, we share Steam accounts, and even then it's not much fun. For the amount of money that some of the more advanced versions of Windows cost I could almost build a solid PC...
Now, I understand that people might find it absurd that someone is complaining about such an old system not being supported, but please don't be douchebags to those of us who might not be thrilled at the idea of dropping down roughly $200 to get more or less the same functionality we have on the XP.
Actually... it requires Vista/7, XP support won't be provided on release. And just looking at the system requirements, the recommended minimum specs are 4 GB of RAM (XP can only use a maximum of 4 GB) and a DirectX 11 Graphics Card (XP can only use DirectX 9).Jandau said:It's coming out on the same day as Dishonored (another game I'm looking forward to), which will happily run on XP.