Battlefield 3 no XP support

Just so no one is any doubt, I will paste the chart here, so no one has to go looking for it:

hws_graph_pc_dx.gif
 
Tefal said:
You know thats a dx10+ card + windows 7

n terms of cards it's

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/106/cardsp.png
Click to expand...

Score one for pedantry? It's clear he was talking about DirectX 10/11 systems, you need both for BF3.

madindehead said:
If you have that attitude about upgrading your PC, you will never upgrade.

Because next year when you go to buy, you could get something twice as powerful for the same money the year after, so you might as well wait another year to upgrade right?

We aren't getting screwed over this, since they KNOW that most PC gamers use Vista/7. Not a big deal to upgrade now is it...It's a much better OS for one. And Windows 7 x64 is stable as a rock, not like dodgy XP x64.
Click to expand...

Most as in 62% of whom 10% have the cards to actually run this bloated pile. If it were a significant majority I'd be more lenient.

It's possible you're right as regards PC upgrades, if this trend of requirements constantly increasing without anything to show for it in terms of software continues indefinitely then I'm done. I'm not spending a thousand pounds on a new system if all that gets me is the ability to play games that neither look nor play any better than the ones I already have. I don't expect that to be the case though. I expect Relic and Arenanet and Blizzard and Valve to make games that look vastly superior to Battlefield 3 on systems half as powerful. If and when they arrive then I'll upgrade. Before then, well I'm not spending £300 on Battlefield 3.
 
Windows XP is 10 years old now, which is absolutely eons in computer time :p Why on earth would anyone into their tech still be using it :confused: Ok, fair enough when Vista was released and turned out to be a steaming pile of horse cack, I can understand people hanging on to XP. But we have had a quality modern alternative in Win7 for quite some time now!
 
Last edited:
IvanDobskey said:
Windows XP is 10 years old now, which is absolutely eons in computer time :p Why on earth would anyone into their tech still be using it :confused: Ok, fair enough when Vista came out and turned out to be a steaming pile of horse cack, I can understand people hanging on to XP. But we now have a quality modern alternative in 7!
Click to expand...

Sopistry, sophistry, sophistry. How old XP is is 100% irrelevant. 7 is 2 years old that's the important stat.
 
Rack said:
without anything to show for it in terms of software continues indefinitely then I'm done. I'm not spending a thousand pounds on a new system if all that gets me is the ability to play games that neither look nor play any better than the ones I already have. I don't expect that to be the case though. I expect Relic and Arenanet and Blizzard and Valve to make games that look vastly superior to Battlefield 3 on systems half as powerful. If and when they arrive then I'll upgrade. Before then, well I'm not spending £300 on Battlefield 3.
Click to expand...

But BF3 does look better than other games.

It will have a lot more content in it compared to other games, large maps, lot's of plays, tanks, explosions etc happening..... which requires more resources, such as 4GB of RAM.

And Windows 7 is £70.
 
Longbow said:
But BF3 does look better than other games.

It will have a lot more content in it compared to other games, large maps, lot's of plays, tanks, explosions etc happening..... which requires more resources, such as 4GB of RAM.

And Windows 7 is £70.
Click to expand...

Any of those more so than Crysis which ran fine on 2gig?

Win 7 may be £70 but the 6850, new mobo, i5 and 4gig ram all cost money. If I were upgrading now, BF3 is the only thing to take advantage of them for a while.
 
Yes more so than Crysis.

So you're not only opposed to upgrading your OS, but you're also opposed to upgrading your hardware?

At a guess, the system you describe would cost about £500? And wouldn't probably be okay for 2-3 years. This is how PC gaming is, I'm not sure why you are bitching. If you don't want to spend £500 every few years, than buy an Xbox.
 
Longbow said:
Yes more so than Crysis.

So you're not only opposed to upgrading your OS, but you're also opposed to upgrading your hardware?

At a guess, the system you describe would cost about £500? And wouldn't probably be okay for 2-3 years. This is how PC gaming is, I'm not sure why you are bitching. If you don't want to spend £500 every few years, than buy an Xbox.
Click to expand...

For the whole lot it's probably about a grand, I'd go a bit above that because that system is only just current; it would be outdated by xmas. In the past I've been happy to spend that on a new system because it meant a substantial upgrade, now it just feels like a new games tax.
 
LOAM said:
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.
Click to expand...

this. I can't 'THIS' any bigger.

I Dual booted XP and Seven for several months. For the first few days it was habit to do XP, then i started using windows 7 more. Within a month it was always windows 7 then suddenly it was 'Goddamn I hate the 'choose an OS' boot screen which delayed me getting into windows 7. Once you're there and using seven you'll realise how ANCIENT windows Xp really is and you won't look back.
 
Rack said:
For the whole lot it's probably about a grand, I'd go a bit above that because that system is only just current; it would be outdated by xmas. In the past I've been happy to spend that on a new system because it meant a substantial upgrade, now it just feels like a new games tax.
Click to expand...

Seriously tell me if you're trolling because I'll stop now.

The system you describe will cost around £500, a quick browse around OcUK I get a price of £545.91. That's for graphics card, mobo, CPU, RAM, power supply and OS. The other things you don't need as you are upgrading, not buying a completely new system.

Not sure why you saying about new hardware anyway? Because all you need is Windows 7 to play BF3 right? Since you talk about your system running other games with no problems. And it's only EA forcing you to upgrade to a new OS for sake of it right? :rolleyes:
 
Really astonished this thread has grown to 12 pages, who wouldve thought people in the pc games forum didnt know xp couldnt do dx10. Sheesh
 
Longbow said:
Seriously tell me if you're trolling because I'll stop now.

The system you describe will cost around £500, a quick browse around OcUK I get a price of £545.91. That's for graphics card, mobo, CPU, RAM, power supply and OS. The other things you don't need as you are upgrading, not buying a completely new system.

Not sure why you saying about new hardware anyway? Because all you need is Windows 7 to play BF3 right? Since you talk about your system running other games with no problems. And it's only EA forcing you to upgrade to a new OS for sake of it right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I mentioned at the start it wasn't such a big deal BF3 needed Win7 because it also needs a 6850 and I don't think anyone on a card like that is still on XP. But I've diverged from there in saying they really should have done an optimised version that runs on something a bit more reasonable and a big part of that is a decent DX9 version considering what resource pigs Vista/Win7 are.

As for the system I came to about £650 for that lot including a decent motherboard and PSU. But the spec I'd considered was about 80 more to go up to 8 gig, 6950 and i5 2500k, and put the depreciation on all that at about 33% in between now and the next time I need a system like that. The rest of the money was on a new case, SSD cooling etc that had nothing to do with BF3.
 
Eames said:
Really astonished this thread has grown to 12 pages, who wouldve thought people in the pc games forum didnt know xp couldnt do dx10. Sheesh
Click to expand...

its not about that its the fact is some people have very capable pcs which run fine on xp and are being forced to upgrade just to playbf3 forget all the bs inbetween its that.

whether you like w7 more is irrelevant to them . if they have no problems why would they want to upgrade if they happy.

bf3 could quite happily run in xp if they made it so just like bfbc2.

yes i am on w7 before you ask :p
 
Rack said:
and a big part of that is a decent DX9 version considering what resource pigs Vista/Win7 are.
Click to expand...

You realise that XP is a resource "hog" compared to 95...

Making use of what it has available is not "hogging" it. 7 runs perfectly fine on my single core netbook with 1gb ram.

Vista was an abomination. Tarring 7 with the same brush is retarded though.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom