Galileo Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 I am irked. I cant stand when people feel they are entitled to great performance when they have sub-par hardware. I feel for Squad when they constantly get bombarded with performance questions and the poster is running windows 95 with 1gb of ram and integrated graphics (exaggeration). I know most people like that are probably ignorant to the fact that their hardware is bad but geeeeez. I have seen a few more lately due to the 1.1 prerelease.....1.1 wont fix your hardware capabilities people. Sorry for the rant. I just saw 3 or 4 back to back posts like this and I got upset. back to HYPING! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimePeriod Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 If you are running win95 and 1 gb of ram in 2016 then the issue is not the hardware, nor the game. It's you! You are the problem. Yes, you! Personally. You and only you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo Posted March 31, 2016 Author Share Posted March 31, 2016 1 minute ago, TimePeriod said: If you are running win95 and 1 gb of ram in 2016 then the issue is not the hardware, nor the game. It's you! You are the problem. Yes, you! Personally. You and only you. It was an exaggeration but seriously if someone is running that they need help lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arsonik Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Do bear in mind this game was available for purchase by 2013, could have been earlier if I'm not mistaken. It's not unreasonable to expect it to run on 2013 hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandaman Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) It ran on on my 2009 machine up until I replaced it in January (all versions between 18.3 to 1.0.5) yes it got a bit slow to load up towards the end, and suffered from the usual part count issues, but it was far from unplayable. Edited March 31, 2016 by pandaman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basto Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) You guys are making me want to dust off one of the dinosaurs in my closet and try and fire up windows 95. But I should point out that 1GB of RAM was completely unfathomable in that time. (The minimum RAM for win95 was 4MB with 8MB recommended). Hard drives were barely reaching that size when win95 came out. I do agree with your point though Edited March 31, 2016 by Basto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deddly Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) It could also be a simple question of education. There are still a great number of people out there who think a 4 ghz Pentium PRO will outperform a modern 2.4 ghz i7 in single-threaded processes because ghz. Then again, it could be a due to the fact that their hardware can run games with more impressive graphics without issue and at a faster framerate than KSP. They may not realise the amount of processing power required for physics. Or another possibility could be that they were able to run older versions of the game OK, but newer versions don't run as well anymore. The key to helping someone come around to your way of thinking is to first of all understand their way of thinking. Edited March 31, 2016 by Deddly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 14 minutes ago, TimePeriod said: If you are running win95 and 1 gb of ram in 2016 then the issue is not the hardware, nor the game. Look, I'm just saying, but Windows 95 can't run KSP. I've tried running it in Windows 2000 and it didn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewcumber Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 I think this is a problem in PC gaming in general, with people whinging that games are poorly optimised and can't be run on max settings on mid range hardware from a year or two ago. Maybe lots of people have discovered PC gaming through games like Minecraft a couple of years ago, then built their first PC a couple of years ago (no doubt without doing a clean OS install in all this time) and are no disappointed it can't run games at maximum settings anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoctorDavinci Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 There is an old saying ... people who THINK they know are the worst type of people to have around as they will tend to refute anything you say just so they can feel like they were right Take the 'salt tears' thread for example ... There were many forum users who think they know what's up spouting stuff about subjects they had only a rudimentary understanding of (at best). Even after having pertinent information supplied to them, it was ignored and the conversation kept going around in circles. People having a sense of entitlement is the bane of our society these days ... First world problems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worir4 Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) OP lies, I have Windows 1997 with 512mb RAM and I can play KSP with 60FPS. Edited March 31, 2016 by worir4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal_vager Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 This could be seen as something of a troll thread guys, and while there have been people who have asked about running KSP on Windows 2000 at least, it's not nice to make fun of people on old computers. I'm afraid I'll be closing this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts