Technical Requirements?

[deanej]

Vista wasn't bad. It got a bad rap from a press that was biased against it due to Microsoft's delays in getting it out and a horribly buggy beta (virtually all the reviews were based on the beta) and a press/public that had gotten comfortable with XP (the first time in history that people had gotten comfortable with an OS) and had forgotten XP's problems at release, which were far worse than Vista's. There's no reason to get it now, though, simply because 7 has virtually no flaws that aren't shared with Vista. Vista's perception was also hampered by loons who tried to upgrade from obsolete computers and ran into problems that resulted from trying to run a modern OS an an ancient computer. Microsoft did the right thing by not allowing to people to perform an upgrade installation of 7 from anything but Vista; it prevented a lot of negative press that would have resulted in people making bad decisions to upgrade when they shouldn't.

XP is ancient. It would have fallen out of support years before it did, but Microsoft caved to pressure and extended its life. That said, Vista will never become big, simply because it was leapfrogged by 7, as normally happens to an OS but never happened to XP.

 

[civ_king]

Vista wasn't bad. It got a bad rap from a press that was biased against it due to Microsoft's delays in getting it out and a horribly buggy beta (virtually all the reviews were based on the beta) and a press/public that had gotten comfortable with XP (the first time in history that people had gotten comfortable with an OS) and had forgotten XP's problems at release, which were far worse than Vista's. There's no reason to get it now, though, simply because 7 has virtually no flaws that aren't shared with Vista. Vista's perception was also hampered by loons who tried to upgrade from obsolete computers and ran into problems that resulted from trying to run a modern OS an an ancient computer. Microsoft did the right thing by not allowing to people to perform an upgrade installation of 7 from anything but Vista; it prevented a lot of negative press that would have resulted in people making bad decisions to upgrade when they shouldn't.

XP is ancient. It would have fallen out of support years before it did, but Microsoft caved to pressure and extended its life. That said, Vista will never become big, simply because it was leapfrogged by 7, as normally happens to an OS but never happened to XP.

It was the manufacturers sticking it on machines with to little RAM for it to run, and the craplets

 

[Songkok]

It always make me wonder how do they run vista on a laptop with 500mb RAM. nice work, manufacturers...

 

[civ_king]

It always make me wonder how do they run vista on a laptop with 500mb RAM. nice work, manufacturers...

LOL, my desktop came with 2GB RAM in 2004

 

[conception]

LOL, my desktop came with 2GB RAM in 2004

My 2006 laptop with 500 megs was released before Vista but I was supposed to be able to take it back and get a free vista upgrade. Not taking it back was the best move I ever made, as I'm typing this on it now and it still flies surfing the internet and executing similar tasks.

My vista pc desktop (which I actually got when a friend didn't want it anymore) is so slow running I could take a shower before its ready to even open a web browser. I'd say by far the biggest problem with vista was that it was incredibly resource inefficient. It may have looked fine and run nice on machines that were fast for their time, but as another use alluded to, many of the machines it was being shipped on simply had no hope of being able to run effectively. A good OS has to be designed with the typical machine it will be carried on in mind. Vista failed at this, and you can blame it on the manufacturers of the computers, but when these companies were trying to design systems that would be affordable, they had little way of knowing just how much of a jump XP to Vista would be in terms of resources.

Interesting to have this dialogue in a thread about technical requirements, because all the talk we've heard of Civ V was that it would have a lot of scalability to be run on systems that weren't top of the line. If a game developer can do this, it's pretty said that the makers of Vista couldn't.

 

[aMoralAtheist]

I don't get a bunch of you people saying he needs a quad or even in one posters case, a hexacore. 6-9 GB or Ram? Really?

Put it this way man, you want 4GB of RAM (It is PLENTY) I have 4 gigs in my system and I run anything I want maxed out. Of course thats because of other components, but my point is 4GB is all you really need.

Also, I would say a dual core 2.8 or better will be plenty. For the desktop amd athlon 240 or 250 would be great. Video card, a 5770 is good, but a 4850 should cut it for this game and save some cash.

Personally I just built for about 950 the following desktop.

Amd Phenom II x4 3.2GHz
4GB DDR3 1600
Gigabyte 890GX Motherboard
ATI 5850
500 GB HDD
Blu-Ray combo drive (plays Blu-Ray burns DVD/CDs)
750 Watt PSU

 

[civ_king]

I don't get a bunch of you people saying he needs a quad or even in one posters case, a hexacore. 6-9 GB or Ram? Really?

Put it this way man, you want 4GB of RAM (It is PLENTY) I have 4 gigs in my system and I run anything I want maxed out. Of course thats because of other components, but my point is 4GB is all you really need.

Also, I would say a dual core 2.8 or better will be plenty. For the desktop amd athlon 240 or 250 would be great. Video card, a 5770 is good, but a 4850 should cut it for this game and save some cash.

Personally I just built for about 950 the following desktop.

Amd Phenom II x4 3.2GHz
4GB DDR3 1600
Gigabyte 890GX Motherboard
ATI 5850
500 GB HDD
Blu-Ray combo drive (plays Blu-Ray burns DVD/CDs)
750 Watt PSU

Civ IV consumed GHz and RAM like Joey Chestnut consumes food

 

[conception]

Honestly, there's not that much reason to fret about technical requirements if you're getting something new. My machine is newer and can run a lot of newer games phenomenally with only integrated graphics. I really have no concerns at all about running civ V with flying colors on this system.

 

[deanej]

My 2006 laptop with 500 megs was released before Vista but I was supposed to be able to take it back and get a free vista upgrade. Not taking it back was the best move I ever made, as I'm typing this on it now and it still flies surfing the internet and executing similar tasks.

My vista pc desktop (which I actually got when a friend didn't want it anymore) is so slow running I could take a shower before its ready to even open a web browser. I'd say by far the biggest problem with vista was that it was incredibly resource inefficient. It may have looked fine and run nice on machines that were fast for their time, but as another use alluded to, many of the machines it was being shipped on simply had no hope of being able to run effectively. A good OS has to be designed with the typical machine it will be carried on in mind. Vista failed at this, and you can blame it on the manufacturers of the computers, but when these companies were trying to design systems that would be affordable, they had little way of knowing just how much of a jump XP to Vista would be in terms of resources.

Interesting to have this dialogue in a thread about technical requirements, because all the talk we've heard of Civ V was that it would have a lot of scalability to be run on systems that weren't top of the line. If a game developer can do this, it's pretty said that the makers of Vista couldn't.

Even XP needs 1GB of RAM to run well. A computer with less should never have been sold to begin with. It's not Microsoft's problem that the manufacturers trick consumers into buying way underpowered systems.

 

[timtofly]

I don't get a bunch of you people saying he needs a quad or even in one posters case, a hexacore. 6-9 GB or Ram? Really?

Put it this way man, you want 4GB of RAM (It is PLENTY) I have 4 gigs in my system and I run anything I want maxed out. Of course thats because of other components, but my point is 4GB is all you really need.

Also, I would say a dual core 2.8 or better will be plenty. For the desktop amd athlon 240 or 250 would be great. Video card, a 5770 is good, but a 4850 should cut it for this game and save some cash.

Personally I just built for about 950 the following desktop.

Amd Phenom II x4 3.2GHz
4GB DDR3 1600
Gigabyte 890GX Motherboard
ATI 5850
500 GB HDD
Blu-Ray combo drive (plays Blu-Ray burns DVD/CDs)
750 Watt PSU

4 gb of ram is the bottom line for vista and 7 just like 1 gb was for XP. XP vanilla could not even handle more than 3 gb. XP was a lot more stable and effecient longer than it's predecessors. I can remember paying $100.00 for one meg of ram. Now you can get 4 gigs for that amount. We are still paying the same for the bottom line, and that is good, but it is still the bottom and we cannot expect more than what we are willing to pay for. Software has always been a little bloated for the bottom line, but it is do-able. When hardware catches up, and things are smooth for awhile, software pushes things forward again with its new version of "bloat".

 

[deanej]

No, 2GB is the bottom line with Vista, provided you have a good system otherwise. My laptop has 3GB of RAM and it worked fine with Vista. Unless you're doing something really taxing, 4GB is fine for now. I can't even conceive of how you could use much more, but the most recent game I've played besides Secret Files: Tunguska is civ4.

 

[aMoralAtheist]

4 gb of ram is the bottom line for vista and 7 just like 1 gb was for XP. XP vanilla could not even handle more than 3 gb. XP was a lot more stable and effecient longer than it's predecessors. I can remember paying $100.00 for one meg of ram. Now you can get 4 gigs for that amount. We are still paying the same for the bottom line, and that is good, but it is still the bottom and we cannot expect more than what we are willing to pay for. Software has always been a little bloated for the bottom line, but it is do-able. When hardware catches up, and things are smooth for awhile, software pushes things forward again with its new version of "bloat".

WRONG.

2GB is the barest for it be tolerable, and 3 is most for the average user. 4 is plenty. I run BattleField Bad Company 2 maxe dout at 1080p over 60 frames, with Win7 Pro, Kaspersky, steam, msn, yahoo IM, AIM, X-fire, and vent all running....I think 4GB is plenty for some time.

 

[civ_king]

Even XP needs 1GB of RAM to run well. A computer with less should never have been sold to begin with. It's not Microsoft's problem that the manufacturers trick consumers into buying way underpowered systems.

Actually after all the service packs it only really needs 512 Megabytes

WRONG.

2GB is the barest for it be tolerable, and 3 is most for the average user. 4 is plenty. I run BattleField Bad Company 2 maxe dout at 1080p over 60 frames, with Win7 Pro, Kaspersky, steam, msn, yahoo IM, AIM, X-fire, and vent all running....I think 4GB is plenty for some time.

You are right about Windows 7

 

[timtofly]

For someone who was trying to agree, I sure got shot down. LOL I did not say the "minimum" that would be tolerable and taxed. I was saying the bottom line as in comfortable. The only reason why vista did not ship with 4 gig systems is that the market was still unloading 1 gig pairs of ram or 2 gigs single limiting the system to one channel. The only reason there was a 3 gig setup was because intel experimented with 3 channels.

 

[deanej]

Not to mention the fact that you can't even access 4GB of RAM on a 32 bit system. Vista does perform comfortably below 4GB, unless you're doing something taxing. My laptop has 3GB of RAM and performed great with Vista.

 

[Shurdus]

Not to mention the fact that you can't even access 4GB of RAM on a 32 bit system. Vista does perform comfortably below 4GB, unless you're doing something taxing. My laptop has 3GB of RAM and performed great with Vista.

On a 32 bit system you can indeed use more than 4GB, but you need to make a program high-adress aware. It requires a little tweaking, but it can be done.

Of course Vista does perform comfortable below 4GB. 4GB is actually a lot of ram. Any program performs fine with that amount of ram, except maybe some calculating and graphic creation programs that specialists use and servers.

 

[civ_king]

And you need PAE to use more than 4GB on a 32bit