Battlefield 3 no XP support

just been on BFBC2 on win 7, the FPS seems to be better now (matching XP) so now im upping the settings, I put the res up from 1024x768 to 1280x1024 and it looks a lot better but FPS takes a big hit so i had to lower the detail down to medium to get a more playable FPS, so i think it may be upgrade time....

my specs:
Q6600 (will not upgrade this!)
2 GB RAM 667 (planning to get 4 GB)
400 + 160 GB sata drives (win 7 is on the 160 but all my steam games are on the 400 on a partition)
Palit GTS250 1024MB (don't want to upgrade this I like the card and its NEWeerrrrr than the rest of my stuff)

thinking about getting a new HDD (maybe 500 GB) will it boost performance if windows 7 is installed to a better drive? it will still be sata and will be partitioned with Win 7 installed on 100 GB part or less with steam installed on other part..

so any advice?
I will still use XP for 'most things' but windows 7 will become my 'new games OS'
 
I seriously doubt a new HDD will change anything.

Your RAM and graphics card seem some what lacking thought for BF3, but then again you do play at low resolution.
 
QlimaxUK said:
just been on BFBC2 on win 7, the FPS seems to be better now (matching XP) so now im upping the settings, I put the res up from 1024x768 to 1280x1024 and it looks a lot better but FPS takes a big hit so i had to lower the detail down to medium to get a more playable FPS, so i think it may be upgrade time....

my specs:
Q6600 (will not upgrade this!)
2 GB RAM 667 (planning to get 4 GB)
400 + 160 GB sata drives (win 7 is on the 160 but all my steam games are on the 400 on a partition)
Palit GTS250 1024MB (don't want to upgrade this I like the card and its NEWeerrrrr than the rest of my stuff)

thinking about getting a new HDD (maybe 500 GB) will it boost performance if windows 7 is installed to a better drive? it will still be sata and will be partitioned with Win 7 installed on 100 GB part or less with steam installed on other part..

so any advice?
I will still use XP for 'most things' but windows 7 will become my 'new games OS'
Click to expand...

The hard drive will make pretty much zero different. But as Longbow said, RAM and graphics definitely!

Rack said:
The only thing that bothers me is that it works on a 360, there's really no reason why it would need Win7.
Click to expand...

It need Windows 7, because if they have ported the engine to use DX11 for PC gamers, why put in DX9 support?

PC gamers complain enough that developers don't do enough for PC gaming. And when they do, we still complain.
 
Last edited:
just thinking.. is it better to use windows update to install the drivers for my GPU or is it better to use nvidia's website? same for my motherboard chipset drivers, i am using windows 'own' drivers which installed 'with' the fresh install and i don't get the ? in device manager so i left it, but should i use the latest drivers anyway?
 
QlimaxUK said:
just thinking.. is it better to use windows update to install the drivers for my GPU or is it better to use nvidia's website? same for my motherboard chipset drivers, i am using windows 'own' drivers which installed 'with' the fresh install and i don't get the ? in device manager so i left it, but should i use the latest drivers anyway?
Click to expand...

Nvidia ALWAYS for the GPU drivers. All drivers from manufacturer. Always get the latest drivers you can possibly get.
 
I want the 28Nm GPUs out on the market before I upgrade.

Still life in my 4850 yet!

However, XP is archaic now...
 
kenmare said:
I hate the search function on 7, xp was so so much better.
Click to expand...

orderoftheflame said:
The annoying dog that takes ages to do anything? 7's far better. :p
Click to expand...


But I don't always remember what the name of my file is, and XP allowed you to quickly sift through by size, name, location etc

Maybe I'm just not searching right on 7? :p

Either way, that's the only real thing I prefer from XP.
 
kenmare said:
But I don't always remember what the name of my file is, and XP allowed you to quickly sift through by size, name, location etc

Maybe I'm just not searching right on 7? :p
Click to expand...

Apparently so. :p ;)

7search.jpg
 
Longbow said:
It's on the Xbox because..

1) Big demand, barely anyone uses XP, but lots use the Xbox.
2) It will be limited on the Xbox.

If you're going to upgrade in a year anyway, why not do it now?
Click to expand...

You may as well ask why not throw that money into a big fire. Next year I can get something twice as powerful for the same price and something that will take another year before I have to upgrade it. I'll also get the option of Win8 so I don't have to worry about upgrading OS in 2014 when people ask me why I'm using a 4 year old OS and shouldn't expect to be able to run 360 ports on less than a 16gig oct core with a 4gig graphics card.
 
madindehead said:
PC gamers complain enough that developers don't do enough for PC gaming. And when they do, we still complain.
Click to expand...

So the argument is we complain when we get nothing, but then they shoot us in the face and we still complain? That... sounds pretty reasonable to me, or at least not contrary. To be honest I think PC gamers are a bit entitled when they ask for larger levels and better graphics but giving us higher system requirements isn't exactly he gift that keeps on giving. Okay there's a few loons who spent £2 on a PC and want it in some way to be justified and would be entirely happy with a version of Pac-Man identical to the original so long as it needs 2 GTx 590s but that's not a segment that should be supported.
 
orderoftheflame said:
If you think the PC version of Battlefield 3 is a 360 port, you've got a severe misunderstanding of the development process it's gone through.
Click to expand...

No, technically Battlefield 3 is ported to the 360 but it's a bit anomolous in that regard, most games as horrifically optimised as that are ports. That's why I'd predict the game that needs me to upgrade my Ivybridge or Bulldozer based future system is a 360 port.
 
Rack said:
No, technically Battlefield 3 is ported to the 360 but it's a bit anomolous in that regard, most games as horrifically optimised as that are ports. That's why I'd predict the game that needs me to upgrade my Ivybridge or Bulldozer based future system is a 360 port.
Click to expand...

Wrong. BF3 has been designed for the PC first.
 
QlimaxUK said:
so any advice?
I will still use XP for 'most things' but windows 7 will become my 'new games OS'
Click to expand...


This is how it will start (trust me on this, I’ve been there). First you’ll probably stick to games only, then in a week you will suddenly need to do something whilst you’re in Win 7 so you will install what ever you need rather than reboot into XP. You’ll do this for maybe a week or so more before you realise that actually you quite like the W7 experience as everything actually does work and feel as nice and comfy as it did for you in XP.

Within a month you will have fully migrated to Win7 and taken all your installs with you. Sometime in the future you will boot in XP for some reason or another and realise two things.

1. Its been 6 months since you were last in that old looking desktop
2. How much better your entire PC experience is under Win7

I have a pair of raided raptors doing nothing atm with XP installed on because of the above scenario.
 
Last edited:
Rack said:
So the argument is we complain when we get nothing, but then they shoot us in the face and we still complain? That... sounds pretty reasonable to me
Click to expand...

They're not shooting us in the face. If you hadn't noticed from this thread people that share your opinion are a tiny minority.

Chucking out some limited peice of rot that can run on stoneage machines like yours only benefits developers for so long. It's moved to a point where dropping the bottom end of the market to cater for the top end that want something more special is possible and profitable.
 
What the XP supporters don't realise is how much extra work it is to support XP if you don't do it from the start, you need to write an entire new render path, new shaders for DX 9, plus all the testing and troubleshooting, all to support a minority of customers on an OS that isn't even fully supported by Microsoft any more.

Windows 8 is out next year, seriously it's time to drop XP.
 
orderoftheflame said:
They're not shooting us in the face. If you hadn't noticed from this thread people that share your opinion are a tiny minority.

Chucking out some limited peice of rot that can run on stoneage machines like yours only benefits developers for so long. It's moved to a point where dropping the bottom end of the market to cater for the top end that want something more special is possible and profitable.
Click to expand...

Let's be honest, this is not a representative forum so will absolutely be skewed towards people that are happy to upgrade their system every 18 months.

If even half of that were true I could understand your position but the top end are being catered for only in terms of the fact their machines will run it. In terms of what the game is putting out then if Crysis is stoneage Battlefield 3 is positively pre-historic.

The only logic I can think of is that if games demand 4 gig even if they use 2gig of it to store "Mary had a little lamb" 800 million times then that will push people to upgrade which will later bring games that ACTUALLY use 4 gig. This is hopelessly self-defeating though because we'll only then get games that use 4 gig for the game and anoher 4 to store "Mary had a little lamb" 1.6 billion times. You should be demanding games that are competently optimised because if Battlefield 3 ran at 1600fps on your system rather than 40 it might not appear like you are getting any benefit from the machine, but it would be a lot closer to actually happening. You might even get to use ubersampling or some other visual ephemera you appear to prize so highly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom