min specs are in the FAQ, but it can CURRENTLY run way under-spec, pretty sure this is going to change a bit though

Are you running on Highest textures? If so, that's the problem. Turn them down to Low with that video card and system RAM.

I went xp because I had a disc lying around. If that's illegal, sue me... or actually don't, I really have no need to pay protection money to microsoft right now. I feel no compunctions because the new computer is replacing the previous user of that copy of xp. Plus, it runs better without all that DRM stupidity they packed Vista full of. Still, os is your call, and it is definitely a complicated trade-off. Same with 64 and 32 bit, its complicated. I had those choices made for me, because I had a copy lying around. XP runs stuff faster, but microsoft's going to figure out a way to make you run vista or its successor eventually. Also, check out some sites to see if your favorite games work on a 64-bit os, and if they all do, go with that, because they are faster and more secure (especially in the case of xp x64, because nobody bothered writing viruses for it and its also based on the most stable microsoft kernel (Yes, there is a 64 bit version of xp, and it's rather good, just a bit more expensive)). Also, you can then go with 4 gigs of ram and see it all instead of 3.25 like I do, or if you saved the cash on the video card, you can get 8 gigs and still save money over the gtx. G.skill makes an 8 gig bundle of what I was recommending for 300 bucks, but if you want to spend more, you can get some ram with slightly better timings. See here for all the 8 gig packages newegg carries, they're all pretty good deals for slightly different products.

Oh, and sorry, when I was talking about my old desktop, I wasn't trying to run any aa, and i have a 512 meg 6800, so its got a good bit more video card than yours.

Ironically, most of the people bashing Vista these days are the ones who aren't running it. Most of the Vista users I've heard back from have no issues with it at all.

Because, for about 1400 bucks, I can make a computer that'll probably stay relevant for four or five years instead of buying two or three cheaper computers, and have significantly more performance now. If you buy stuff for price/performance, you can get a really solid computer that'll last a long while for a reasonable price.



And I thought that the lack of recent Vista horror stories was because the people who wanted to do stuff Vista wouldn't let them do went back to xp. I will upgrade eventually, but I built my computer when Vista was going through some really nasty teething troubles. I also just disagree with some of the stuff microsoft is doing with the drm. There is a reason why I love stardock so much, apart from the games.

When I can play the game again, after the tech folks have reset my downloads, I will check the textures. I had the resolution turned to the lowest possible but I am not sure I did anything with the textures.

My computer just sent me a message stating the virtual memory was not at what they recommended. Ir was a Dell warning. They suggested like 1038mb. I have 1 gb of ram.

Ron stated 200 to 500 mb, the article I found recommended 1x to 1.5x the ram. It was running the best ever on the 500mb, should have left it alone at that but this could have been just caused by the defragging. Should I set the minimum and maximum to the same figure?

Any thoughts?

I'm going to purchase the new computer and will follow the recommendations in the thread, thanks so much.

If this works, you can run dx10 on XP eventually. I'm thinking of getting XP x64 edition, which will break the 4 gb limit, and seeing if that demo will work properly in x64 xp, and if it does work, ill just wait for the full version. I'll see how it goes after I back up my data. Also, mucking around in your maximum pagefile settings can and will screw up your performance hard at the very least if it goes wrong, and it will.

Yarlen,

Setting the texture to low fixed most of the delay issues. Really miss the detail though, just more justification for a new machine.  

Anyone playing the game on Vista and any issues?

Kosh,

Does the video card RAM get spread over the 4 processors? My existing video card shows as a description in a pull up window 1/2 the video ram being allocated to each of my dual core intel processors. I would not think the video ram would be allocated this way. Otherwise with software perhaps not utilizing Quad core processor dual core could be faster if the video ram was divided by 2 instead of 4. Again, I don't think video ram works this way but before I pull the trigger and purchase a new computer I thought I would ask.

Thanks so much

That won't ever work.

I was able to complete a beta4 game. It did crash twice when an ai planet was taken over by another ai culture, but the game was easy to reload

Here is what eventually worked for me.

I took Ron's advice and defraged my hard drive. This dramtically effected the load time of the game and made it run smoother. I had forgotten to ever do this on my home computer.

I took Yarlen's advice and swithed to low texture instead of high texture. This allowed the game to load right up and I could start to play right away, no lag time. I sure missed the detail though.

Then I took Kosh401 and xthetenth suggestions and ordered a new computer.

Thanks everyone