Some people do it just to be different. Their only argument beyond the cost will be 'why should I upgrade, this works perfectly fine'. Not anymore it doesn't if you want to play the latest games
Battlefield 3 no XP support
- Thread starter Nightglow
- Start date
Some people do it just to be different. Their only argument beyond the cost will be 'why should I upgrade, this works perfectly fine'. Not anymore it doesn't if you want to play the latest games
Agree.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,344
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
XP uses a lot less memory. I could boot it with as little as 100meg used, this was useful when running BF2 on a half gig machine
However BF3 will benefit from 4gb or more, it needs 64 bit. I think it makes more sense to upgrade then complain
However BF3 will benefit from 4gb or more, it needs 64 bit. I think it makes more sense to upgrade then complain
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 11,255
- Location
- Newbury
XP uses less memory true enough, Windows 95 less, and DOS even less again.
It's progress.You can buy 4gb ram for less than £25 now if you had too, but without a 64 bit OS, you can't use it.
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 2,121
- Location
- Chester
Here's my two cents.
I don't care if you can't run BF3. I can.
If you don't like it, do something about it.
I don't care if you can't run BF3. I can.
If you don't like it, do something about it.
See, there you're wrong.
Every process in Windows XP is limited to using 2GB RAM, that itself is a bigger limitation than the 4GB of total memory.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,344
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
32 bit apps cant exceed 2gig in size but they can use more via texture memory.
BF2 will use more then 2gb with some mods, I have a 1gb graphics card and it still needs main memory also hence it will show over 2gb usage
BF2 will use more then 2gb with some mods, I have a 1gb graphics card and it still needs main memory also hence it will show over 2gb usage
Not true - it was utter tripe.
I have a machine that ran like an absolute dog on vista, but runs like a dream on 7.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 11,549
- Location
- Bucks
Xp? Seriously guys move on.....win 7 is xp on crack.
I believe you believe it does.
It doesn't change the fact that Windows 7 is Windows Vista with a new GUI, you having problems with Vista doesn't mean much outside of the fact that you had problems with it. Said problems could have been down to many different reasons, like mentioned earlier on in the thread where nVidia drivers were completely unfit for purpose when Vista was released.
A major release title drives upgrades? Who'd have thought. i finally got a DVD drive when Bf2 was only being released on DVD. Thankfully I'm ahead of the curve this time, but seriously guys, get with the program and get away from a 10 year old operating system that MS have tried to stop support for several times only for businesses that refused to go to Vista are still using.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 10,113
- Location
- Gibraltar
And don't forget the upgrade to broadband too, as it wasn't an option to use dial up in bf2. Also the gc requirements for bf2 were quiet high needing a farily new gc series to make it work.
I am all for a high min spec for bf3.
but i didn't like the side effects!!! (AERO)
Turn Aero off?
Failing that buy some aero's and nom them?
well not just aero, the whole interface/look of it with NO option to 'switch' back to an XP look.. and they also changed all the control panel settings layouts
I remember sounding like that before I upgraded to 7, then I upgraded and wondered why it took me so long to do it.
Just let go.
Well just to follow on from my earlier comment I completely understand and see why they won't support it but I'm just wondering why XP gets so much stick but being outdated piece of crap that some people are trying to make it out to be. There are still plenty of people left who can't max out games in DX10/11 still and in regards to RAM few games still utilise that much over 4GB. I mean of course if I was sticking the latest graphics card and packing my system full of RAM and SSD then yeah that would be silly but otherwise it's still a perfectly usable piece of software
The OS stood the test of time pretty well and fact that it's still supported to this date after its release is a testament to that. I am infact using Windows 7 on my main machine as I got a cheap upgrade copy through the student scheme but I've noticed little change to my everyday use and only upgraded as I was told that I would be blown away, something that failed to materialise. Don't get me wrong it's a good OS but I still use XP on my laptop and bar flashier interface I've seen little difference for what I need my computer for.
The OS stood the test of time pretty well and fact that it's still supported to this date after its release is a testament to that. I am infact using Windows 7 on my main machine as I got a cheap upgrade copy through the student scheme but I've noticed little change to my everyday use and only upgraded as I was told that I would be blown away, something that failed to materialise. Don't get me wrong it's a good OS but I still use XP on my laptop and bar flashier interface I've seen little difference for what I need my computer for.
You can have that perception, but for me not being ram limited is a means not an end. If there was a game that required a 64bit OS with 4 or 8 gig of RAM but used that to create a world of unparallelled detail, or some advanced AI routines or scaling then I'd understand it. But if a game instead provides the same or less detail than other games on a 32-bit OS then all it provides are higher system requirements. I know some people really dig that stuff but when I build a sstem I don't want to have to upgrade it just to play the same kind of thing I could play before. Buying a new £700 system to enable me to play a game that looks worse than some of the games my old "obsolete" one could run feels like extortion.