Wake-up call: when the publishers give "minimum specifications", it doesn't mean "minimum specifications to get the title screen to display", it means "minimum specifications to play the game to its conclusion, however painful it might be at times whilst the harddrive thrashes to keep up with the virtual memory requirements or the GPU overheats trying to produce more than single-digit framerates, etc."
There is a big difference between coaxing a game to work, and actually enjoying playing it. In DOS, and in Win3.1 up through even 98SE, games were in an adjustment phase, and it was sometimes a challenge to get them to run at all. It was fun ... kinda ... but not nearly as much as counting the new gray hairs I get while my (now ancient) 533 mhz Dell boots up. It's a dinosaur, but worth keeping around for those games that don't recognize newer hardware (Audigy and USB joysticks come to mind). But while it 'might' run some of the newer titles, I'd have no right to expect it to, or to complain if it didn't. Not to mention that watching loading screens and hearing it straining while the graphics crawl across the screen would be torturing both of us. It wasn't built for that.
If the average computer user doesn't know what's in the machine he bought, or what those numbers mean, that I can forgive. I even understand impulse buying. But nowadays, if a game doesn't run the way I think it should, it isn't that hard to figure out why, especially if the developer played as fair as Obsidian did.