Battlefield 3 no XP support

QlimaxUK said:
not really its a HP Photosmart 1315, ok it is 'OLD' but it has GOOD printing Quality!
Click to expand...

A thirty second google and I've found people using that printer on 64 bit windows 7 using alternate drivers. I'd bet the same would be true of the scanner if I could be bothered to look. ;)

QlimaxUK said:
nand i find that 2 GB of RAM it still more than enough for any game out now and it will take many years untill they start making games then 'cannot' work on 2 GB so..
why do i need an 'upgrade'???
Click to expand...

After a quick look at the front page of the Steam store, I can see plenty of games that list 2gb ram as minimum requirements, with plenty having more than that recommended. I would have thought very few people would be interested in trundling round at minimum spec due to an limitation that can easily and cheaply be overcome..

You say that it will take years until they can make games that can't work with just 2gb. I disagree, there's plenty of games that are pushing it at that already, particularly when you start modding them.

Seeing that you can get 4gb ram easily for under £25, I think you'd be mental to think 2gb is fine for a gaming machine these days.
 
Last edited:
QlimaxUK said:
its not like now with the artificial limitations forced onto windows XP to try and make us upgrade, if windows 7 was really 'that good' they wouldn't need to go to extreme measures like this to pull us away from XP
Click to expand...

What artificial limitations? XP doesn't support DirectX above 9, to support higher than DirectX 9 you also need to support the WDDM driver model which XP also doesn't support, why should Microsoft go through all the effort to try and make XP support DirectX 10/11 and also WDDM when it's obsolete and isn't even supported other than for security patches, which will stop in 2014.
 
Broken Hope said:
What artificial limitations? XP doesn't support DirectX above 9, to support higher than DirectX 9 you also need to support the WDDM driver model which XP also doesn't support, why should Microsoft go through all the effort to try and make XP support DirectX 10/11 and also WDDM when it's obsolete and isn't even supported other than for security patches, which will stop in 2014.
Click to expand...


SURE??? :cool:


ok i have not tryed it myself due to fear of virus's but this shows that much 'effort' is being put in to getting DX10 on XP.
 
QlimaxUK said:
and i find that 2 GB of RAM it still more than enough for any game out now and it will take many years untill they start making games then 'cannot' work on 2 GB so..
why do i need an 'upgrade'???
Click to expand...

2GB has long been inadequate for gaming at decent levels of visual quality.

As for why you'd need (or want) to upgrade, for me it's largely down to how much nicer Vista/7 are to use. XP is a solid OS but interfaces, features and usability have come a long, long way since then and once you've used Win7 for a while, going back to XP makes you realise what a mess it is. It won't seem that way now because you're used to XP and know where everything is and what everything does, but the point still stands.

Apple don't seem to have this problem. Even when the next version of the OS brings few noticeable improvements, people still flock to buy it.
 
TBh 2GB is a MINIMUM any gaming PC should have. 4Gb is probably the 'recommended' spec for any gamer and as Ram is about as cheap as it's ever likely to get (this weeks deal, 2x2GB Corsair XMS3 DDR3 £30?!?!) there's no real excuse if you're still only running 2GB and if you haven't made the jump to DDR3 then you really need to look at your whole machine if you plan on getting BF3, not just upgrading to Windows 7!
 
Devs can't win can they? They write something using an old DX9 engine with tweaks and everyone moans how lazy they are and how PC gaming is being held back by consoles blah blah blah. Then a dev makes PC the lead platform, writes a brand new engine based on DX10/11, tries to push PC gaming forwards and morons like some of the people in this thread moan that their 10+ year old OS isn't supported! JESUS!! It's these people harping on about XP and shouting 'evil MS why should I upgrade' who are holding PCs back, not consoles - they are why both PC hardware and software has its full potential compromised in order to run legacy support for 10+ year old architectures. Why has my mobo got a PCI slot?!! AAARRGGGHHHHH.

OK may have lost it there - composure regained :)
 
i think its just the simple fact is they could add direct x9 support very easily as it is a very similar engine and the reason they haven't we don't know .

they can spin all the moving forward and other tripe but unless you know why they did it then all other writings is just pure guess work.

by not including dx9 they have lost possibly 20 percent of the pc market straight away :eek: that's a very large reason and i would indeed like to know why and how this decision was made to risk such a high amount in sales.

i think its simply down to support and issues maybe out weighing sales ( man power times money spent solving said issues ) not the spin that they are advancing.

no big games company like ea or activision would throw that amount of sales out the window just for the gamers love :p
 
~>Dg<~ said:
i think its just the simple fact is they could add direct x9 support very easily as it is a very similar engine and the reason they haven't we don't know .
Click to expand...

I think the whole point is that's not the case. As far as I understand it DX10 is a major re-write based upon completely different architecture with the specific purpose of being free of legacy shackles. A fresh start so to speak. That's why it's not easy to get DX10 running on XP and not easy to 'simply add' DX9 support to a game based on a totally new DX10/11 engine.
 
Dg -But they are advancing...
You have had 2 new direct x iterations since dx9, and 2 new operating systems.

Graphics cards are now dx11, not dx9, they are moving on.... this isnt some marketing tripe, to continue to support an old api is counter productive, things have to move on dude, get over it.

Progress is good, especially in a market so saturated with re-using the same engines for multiple games.
 
Last edited:
Davepen yeah i get the advancing thing but the thing is how do you know that is the whole reason why dx9 was not added ;)

your taking what dice have said as gospel games companies never lie :p

it may well be down to advancement but nobody only dice know if its the real reason.

could be problems with the newer engine running in dx9 which would cause more problems than its worth to ratio of sales money earned from dx9 customers so its not worth adding it for that sole reason . i think this is the real reason its not added and not the cause its advancement lark.

you would not alienate 20 percent of your customer base with out very very good reason.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
snip
Click to expand...

But the thing is, those 20% are lagging behind , massively(also where are you getting 20% from?). I could understand it if they said they were not supporting vista/DX10, but they are not.

Assuming people are using XP still, they are using a 10 year old operating system, which needs to be upgraded. Sure its stable, but Windows 7 is infinitely better, and actually allows you to make use of DX10/11 cards.

Even if they are not using XP, but have a DX9 graphics card, I highly doubt that even if DX9 was supported, that the card would have the power to run BF3, can you even name a PC gamer that still uses at DX9 card??

I mean sure, cater for as many different types of hardware/api as possible, but you have to draw the line somewhere as if you continue trying to support hardware/software this old you're going to spend resources that would be better used making the game better and advancing technology.

You cant even buy a DX9 card anymore, unless you really hunt for it or go on ebay, and why would you? Even if you did get one, you wouldn't have the power to run BF3, even if it did support DX9.

Fact is, Windows XP doesn't support DX10 or DX11, if you are still using it, you have to expect to not be able to run the latest and greatest games, is that so hard to grasp?

I don't believe what they say as gospel, its just common sense :)
 
Last edited:
The main point to take away I think is that the pc version would not in any case run ok on a dx9 card.
They are too slow, the console versions will be modded down and will run without a full os as usual because millions own that exact hardware config where as dx9 cards vary so its much harder to improvise a shortcut

In theory they could write it in machine code, bypass dx9 limitations, preload without windows filesystem and access all hardware directly with proprietary code. It would run great and it'd take a genius team a decade to write

They used to do amazing innovation and inventive code in the 8 bit and 16 bit computer days but then again like consoles the config did not vary between machines.
Now we live in the world of bloatware and power which has doubled every 2 years so many times, its about style more then substance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom