For those who were asking about some system specs:

 

Intel Pentium 4 3.2 ghz

Intel P45 Chipset

4 GB RAM

GeForce 9800 GT

 

 

 

 

Well, your problem isn't really XP vs 7, it's everything else.  Your CPU isn't even in the same generation as the minimum required which is a Core i3.  I think your graphics card is actually a bit better then the minimum though.

 

 

True.   Hard to believe my computer was once modern.  

Edited March 28, 201510 yr by TCJ

Have you considered to use Linux? PoE runs under Linux. I am doing tha and it works perfectly. Generally Linux's system requirements are a bit lower than Window's. So on your aged computer it might be a good choice. And it would cost you nothing. But it depends. Are you running any software that desperately requires Windows? Any hardware that does not work with Linux? If not I would recommend switching to Linux. I am using it for over 10 Years now and am barely missing anything (just a few games...). You could also run a dual-boot system if you have enough space on your harddisk. So you would only boot Linux to play PoE and use Windows for everything else. Although I would recommend to do everything internet-related on Linux as well as this would not expose your WinXP computer to risks any more. GoG writes PoE it runs under Ubuntu 14.04 and Mint 17 so you could use anyone of these. I recommend Mint 17. I am even running PoE under Arch Linux without any problems.

Have you considered to use Linux? PoE runs under Linux. I am doing tha and it works perfectly. Generally Linux's system requirements are a bit lower than Window's. So on your aged computer it might be a good choice. And it would cost you nothing. But it depends. Are you running any software that desperately requires Windows? Any hardware that does not work with Linux? If not I would recommend switching to Linux. I am using it for over 10 Years now and am barely missing anything (just a few games...). You could also run a dual-boot system if you have enough space on your harddisk. So you would only boot Linux to play PoE and use Windows for everything else. Although I would recommend to do everything internet-related on Linux as well as this would not expose your WinXP computer to risks any more. GoG writes PoE it runs under Ubuntu 14.04 and Mint 17 so you could use anyone of these. I recommend Mint 17. I am even running PoE under Arch Linux without any problems.

 

I have never used Linux before.   It sounds tempting to try, but given dated computer I have, not only with XP, but with everything else, I think I'm going to end up trying to upgrade before the year is out rather than use another operating system to drag another few years of life out of this machine.    Meanwhile, I might just see what PoE does on my current computer.    Like I said, I've been wanting to upgrade for awhile now but one thing after another keeps coming up. 

 

I appreciate the advice though.  Thanks! 

I have never used Linux before. It sounds tempting to try, but given dated computer I have, not only with XP, but with everything else, I think I'm going to end up trying to upgrade before the year is out rather than use another operating system to drag another few years of life out of this machine. Meanwhile, I might just see what PoE does on my current computer.Like I said, I've been w anting to upgrade for awhile now but one thing after another keeps coming up.

Based on my experience, your system will likely run Pillars OK - your graphics card is probably going to be the limiting factor if it has 512MB GPU RAM (and very much so if it only has 256MB). If so, disabling anti-aliasing (hit ~ to access the console, press Return, type msaa 0 and press Return again) should help.

 

"Upgrading" Windows or changing to Linux is a big step, and may mean considerable cost if you have a lot of legacy hardware or software. XP does need third-party software to secure it, but so do later versions - and Linux (paradoxically) is rather lacking in that department.

 

It "should" work on Windows XP, but we didn't extensively test it because Microsoft doesn't officially support the OS anymore...

Thanks for the update - I run WinXP on my gaming system (Core i7 920, 24GB RAM, 2 x 580GTX graphics) and was concerned at its omission from the system requirements.

 

As for those wondering why I and others are sticking with WinXP:

• Lower memory/CPU usage (typically 200-500MB less than Win7);
• More configurable thanks to XPLite and nLite - Win7 has 7Lite, 8 has nowt;
• Windows Product Activation can be more easily "managed";
• Easier to secure (using software like Process Guard and System Safety Monitor - neither available now but no equivalent exists for Win 7+, nor likely to due to MS' restrictions on kernel modification on 64-bit systems);
• No GUI disasters like TIFKAM - XP's UI changes are generally a downside compared to Win2K but are almost all optional;
• Supports old hardware (the Microsoft Force Feedback 2 joystick and Microsoft Strategic Commander gamepad won't work on 64-bit systems);
• No 64-bit stupidity like requiring separate Program Files folders for 32 and 64 bit applications or storing 64-bit code in Windows\System32 while having 32-bit code in Windows\SysWOW64

Some issues are due to (Microsoft's kludgy implementation of) a 64-bit OS, but running (and paying for) a 32-bit version of Win8 seems to be asking for insult on top of injury. A switch to Linux would make more sense but there's very little in the way of application-aware firewall software which I would consider essential for online security (the closest would be TuxGuardian which has not been updated since 2006 and doesn't really offer the security options available from Windows products like Outpost or Look'n'Stop).

 

 

Uh, I hate to point out what should be obvious, but with 24GBs of ram you don't need to worry about it...   The most I'm aware of any game in history requiring is 8GB's at the absolute.  98% of computer games in existence use < 4GBs of ram.  Besides, if you are running 32-bit Windows XP you can only address 3GBs of it--so you are *wasting* 21GBs of ram, if you are being honest and not just "cute" with your remarks.  Seriously, guy, with hardware like yours running XP makes as much sense as you telling me you are booting up from MS-DOS every day... (Run DOSbox--that makes much more sense than sticking with XP.)

 

Get real, guy.  There are *no* "advantages" to running XP as your primary OS.  Hang it up--that's a losing sentiment.  Compared to Win8.x/10 today (and Win10 would be *free* for you had you been sensible and updated to Win7 years ago!), Win XP is a Swiss-cheese smorgasboard of security holes, exploits and malware...and Microsoft is no longer doing security patches for it.  WinXP is Dead, guy...   Go ahead, here's a hanky, have a good cry--and grab yourself a cheap copy of Win8.1 Pro (I paid Microsoft $40 direct for mine) so that you can upgrade to Win10 x64 later this year when it ships, for free...!  I bought Win 8.0 for $39.99 from Microsoft, and because I did I got Win8.1 for free, and I'll get Win10x64 for free, too.  Look, this *game* cost me more than Win8 Pro cost me, and Win10 will cost nothing if you are smart enough to upgrade.

 

Frankly, if you don't upgrade your OS you might as well just pitch out most of your hardware because it's useless.

Uh, I hate to point out what should be obvious, but with 24GBs of ram you don't need to worry about it... ...Besides, if you are running 32-bit Windows XP you can only address 3GBs of it--so you are *wasting* 21GBs of ram...

Sorry, but you're overlooking PAE which allows 32-bit OSes to address up to 64GB (though with a 4GB/process limitation) - compare that to the 16GB limitation of 64-bit Win7 Home Premium. In my case, I've got 18GB (not 24GB, my mistake there) of which 8GB is allocated to a ramdisk and 6GB to a caching utility.

Get real, guy. There are *no* "advantages" to running XP as your primary OS. Hang it up--that's a losing sentiment. Compared to Win8.x/10 today (and Win10 would be *free* for you had you been sensible and updated to Win7 years ago!), Win XP is a Swiss-cheese smorgasboard of security holes, exploits and malware...

Most reported vulnerabilities are application issues (Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Adobe Flash/Reader) and can be dealt with by removing the software and using an alternative (Opera/Firefox, VLC Player, Sumatra PDF reader). With XP, you can remove IE and WMP completely and be cured of all past and future issues with them. With Win7/8 you can't.

 

The most secure system is a minimal system where you only have the features you need and with XP (plus the software I note above) you can customise XP to reach that ideal far better than with Win7/8. Furthermore, Win7/8 add a great deal more code which means more scope for future problems.

Frankly, if you don't upgrade your OS you might as well just pitch out most of your hardware because it's useless.

Funny, because my hardware (X5650 Xeon, Gigabyte X58 motherboard, 18GB RAM, 2 x Nvidia 580GTX, 6 128GB Samsung SSD's in RAID 0 plus a few 2-3TB hard disks) works just fine, whereas with Win7/8 I'd lose access to some valued peripherals. But then I guess I have the edge in speaking from experience.

Edited March 29, 201510 yr by AstralWanderer

If your cpu doesnt support win7 how can it support poe?

 

Jesus xp support ended last year, that should have been your queue it was time to go hard or go home, most of the customers i worked with in tech support did the same (going to 8 to their dismay)

 

 

 

It "should" work on Windows XP, but we didn't extensively test it because Microsoft doesn't officially support the OS anymore...

Thanks for the update - I run WinXP on my gaming system (Core i7 920, 24GB RAM, 2 x 580GTX graphics) and was concerned at its omission from the system requirements.

As for those wondering why I and others are sticking with WinXP:

• Lower memory/CPU usage (typically 200-500MB less than Win7);
• More configurable thanks to XPLite and nLite - Win7 has 7Lite, 8 has nowt;
• Windows Product Activation can be more easily "managed";
• Easier to secure (using software like Process Guard and System Safety Monitor - neither available now but no equivalent exists for Win 7+, nor likely to due to MS' restrictions on kernel modification on 64-bit systems);
• No GUI disasters like TIFKAM - XP's UI changes are generally a downside compared to Win2K but are almost all optional;
• Supports old hardware (the Microsoft Force Feedback 2 joystick and Microsoft Strategic Commander gamepad won't work on 64-bit systems);
• No 64-bit stupidity like requiring separate Program Files folders for 32 and 64 bit applications or storing 64-bit code in Windows\System32 while having 32-bit code in Windows\SysWOW64

Some issues are due to (Microsoft's kludgy implementation of) a 64-bit OS, but running (and paying for) a 32-bit version of Win8 seems to be asking for insult on top of injury. A switch to Linux would make more sense but there's very little in the way of application-aware firewall software which I would consider essential for online security (the closest would be TuxGuardian which has not been updated since 2006 and doesn't really offer the security options available from Windows products like Outpost or Look'n'Stop).

 

The reason they have different folders is because of requiring 32bit because otherwise everyone would piss and moan that none of their $10k programs made for windows 3.1 that they are virtualizing through a vm, through a vm, through a vm because they're too much of a cheap miser to just ****ing buy a new program that works on a new os. (i see this all the time at work)

Edited March 30, 201510 yr by Gvaz

If your cpu doesnt support win7 how can it support poe?

 

Jesus xp support ended last year, that should have been your queue it was time to go hard or go home, most of the customers i worked with in tech support did the same (going to 8 to their dismay)

 

 

 

1.  In theory, it should (32 bit).   If you read the earlier posts it might help your understanding of the situation.  

 

2.  That's not my name.   You may want to refer to me as TCJ.  

 

3.  XP support ended last year, sure.   Unfortunately, Microsoft didn't hand me a check to pay for a new computer at that time so unlike some fortunate people, I have to save money for it.   Further saving money is often slower than one would like it to be, especially with certain necessary expenses that come up.   Typically transportation, a place to live, tools for work, and paying taxes are significantly more important than getting a new computer for gaming purposes.    Leisure isn't at the top of my priorities.   So if a person is capable of running out and purchasing a new computer (or just building one) on a whim, that's fine, but it's rather ridiculous to expect every person to do the same.

 

Also, if you happen to have a spare $750 that would go a long way in helping me out. 

Edited March 30, 201510 yr by TCJ

 

Uh, I hate to point out what should be obvious, but with 24GBs of ram you don't need to worry about it... ...Besides, if you are running 32-bit Windows XP you can only address 3GBs of it--so you are *wasting* 21GBs of ram...

Sorry, but you're overlooking PAE which allows 32-bit OSes to address up to 64GB (though with a 4GB/process limitation) - compare that to the 16GB limitation of 64-bit Win7 Home Premium. In my case, I've got 18GB (not 24GB, my mistake there) of which 8GB is allocated to a ramdisk and 6GB to a caching utility.

Get real, guy. There are *no* "advantages" to running XP as your primary OS. Hang it up--that's a losing sentiment. Compared to Win8.x/10 today (and Win10 would be *free* for you had you been sensible and updated to Win7 years ago!), Win XP is a Swiss-cheese smorgasboard of security holes, exploits and malware...

Most reported vulnerabilities are application issues (Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Adobe Flash/Reader) and can be dealt with by removing the software and using an alternative (Opera/Firefox, VLC Player, Sumatra PDF reader). With XP, you can remove IE and WMP completely and be cured of all past and future issues with them. With Win7/8 you can't.

 

The most secure system is a minimal system where you only have the features you need and with XP (plus the software I note above) you can customise XP to reach that ideal far better than with Win7/8. Furthermore, Win7/8 add a great deal more code which means more scope for future problems.

Frankly, if you don't upgrade your OS you might as well just pitch out most of your hardware because it's useless.

Funny, because my hardware (X5650 Xeon, Gigabyte X58 motherboard, 18GB RAM, 2 x Nvidia 580GTX, 6 128GB Samsung SSD's in RAID 0 plus a few 2-3TB hard disks) works just fine, whereas with Win7/8 I'd lose access to some valued peripherals. But then I guess I have the edge in speaking from experience.

 

 

PAE as a workaround for 32-bit systems really stinks if you haven't noticed... It's not to be compared with flat addressing...obviously, if PAE was "just as good" that's what we'd all be using...but it's not so we aren't.  It's a kludgy work-around for 32-bit systems, that's it.  That's what it's always been--which is why I'd forgotten about it...

 

"Reported vulnerabilities"...  I'm not talking about web browsers...WinXP is Swiss Cheese...you've obviously been smokin' something good lately...  THese rationalizations are quite amusing...  As of Vista, the entire OS security model in Windows changed...even device driver models (which is why Vista/Win7/ drivers won't run on XP.)  It was (is) a from-the-ground-up change--fundamental.  XP is obsolete.

 

As far as your devices go, now I *know* you're smokin' something...  Guy, those device drivers you speak so highly of are years out of date--you are probably missing a ton of capability that you know nothing about because it's not exposed under XP by your drivers (and never will be.)

 

Either that, or you're simply BS'ing about all of this...(which if you are I have to admit is pretty funny.)

Hi TCJ.

 

I'm in the same boat as you are, as I saw it would run on XP so I bought a copy. I'm running a 32 bit version of Windows XP, 4GB RAM, Intel Duo 2.4 ghz processor, and the GeForce 9800 GT 1GB card.

 

It works... but... when I try to go to the first town, it crashes to the desktop during the transition. I haven't looked to see if there's a fix for this, as I've just started playing today. I haven't seen one just skimming the boards yet.

 

 

If anyone knows of such a fix, I'd appreciate it. (And no, I can't buy a new system either as money is an issue too.)

 

--Corgano

Hi TCJ.

 

I'm in the same boat as you are, as I saw it would run on XP so I bought a copy. I'm running a 32 bit version of Windows XP, 4GB RAM, Intel Duo 2.4 ghz processor, and the GeForce 9800 GT 1GB card.

 

It works... but... when I try to go to the first town, it crashes to the desktop during the transition. I haven't looked to see if there's a fix for this, as I've just started playing today. I haven't seen one just skimming the boards yet.

 

 

If anyone knows of such a fix, I'd appreciate it. (And no, I can't buy a new system either as money is an issue too.)

 

--Corgano

 

Ah.  Misery loves company, as they say. 

 

I've been reading around the forum and I've seen numerous mentions of 32-bit having problems.   As of yet, I haven't even installed PoE because with the bugs and everything it's probably better that I wait and then install after some fixes.  For one, it seems the program will crash for sure at certain areas (as you have experienced) and secondly, with a slower internet connection less downloading is much better.   Unfortunately, as nearly almost everyone agrees, it's probably going to be best to just bite the bullet, scrounge up some spare change and upgrade the PC.

PAE as a workaround for 32-bit systems really stinks if you haven't noticed...

Really? Well, Im getting double the performance from my Ramdisk than someone else with a near-identical configuration but running on 64-bit Windows, so 64-bit must stink more then.

It's not to be compared with flat addressing...

No, because it is flat addressing - just using a 36-bit address bus rather than just 32.

Guy, those device drivers you speak so highly of are years out of date--you are probably missing a ton of capability that you know nothing about because it's not exposed under XP by your drivers (and never will be.)

"Not working" is a capability I neither need nor want. Did you even bother looking at the link I posted?

It works... but... when I try to go to the first town, it crashes to the desktop during the transition. I haven't looked to see if there's a fix for this, as I've just started playing today. I haven't seen one just skimming the boards yet.

If you mean Gilded Vale, then that does work for me. I'd suggest you look at your PoE folder - there should be a subfolder PillarsOfEternity_Data and in that an output_log.txt file. Review that for any reported errors.

I'm in the same boat as some others here.  I'm running PoE on the same system that I built for NWN2, and it still is running Win XP SP3.  I understand that I could upgrade to windows 7 or 8, but I am very reluctant to sink $100 or so for a new OS (not to mention time) into this machine when the wife and I are talking about buying a new computer toward the end of this year.  I'm aware of the potential security holes, and I usually keep the machine off of the internet.  That's why I bought the gog.com version of Pillars.

 

PoE has been running pretty well for me, except that I am running into the 32-bit transition bug with decent frequency.  It usually strikes when loading the Gilded Vale map.  I just make sure to quicksave before each transition; thankfully, the game loads pretty quickly, so it's only a minor annoyance.  I'm hopeful that the developers can fix that problem with the patch that is supposed to drop this week.

-B

*Crosses fingers* Hoping that this will be addressed soon as I didn't see anything for it in the latest patch.

 

 

--Corgano

We're looking into something that should reduce the memory used when transitioning scenes. Might help those who are hitting the 32 bit crash. Could get into a future patch sometime by the end of the month. Don't quote me in it though

YAY!  And.... more YAY!!!

 

Very glad to hear that. Then I can start playing the game again. For as much as I've played, I really do like it and am hopeful this will fix the 32-bit transition CTDs. Can't wait till then. Thanks for the heads-up. 

 

 

Thank You,

--Corgano

I have to agree. The game WON'T run on 32 bit systems. I have not read all the topic. I have XP Pro 32 and i will systematically crash entering Gilded Vale (or loading a save in Gilded Vale and some other places), as everyone who try to run PoE on a 32 bit system (XP or 7). Well, there are workarounds. They may not run well with every hardware. And modifying some things may not be recommanded. Don't know if i'm allowed to put here this link, but here it is: it's a way to allow 32 bit systems to manage up to 3GB memory. I did this, and now PoE runs just well in Gilded Vale. Have a look to this, but be carefull, even though itt is a quite simple tweak (just adding a line in a short .ini file allowing you to choose to launch regular XP 32 or a 3GB XP 32 when powering your computer).

 

http://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/autocad/troubleshooting/caas/sfdcarticles/sfdcarticles/How-to-enable-a-3GB-switch-on-Windows-Vista-Windows-7-or-Windows-XP-s.html

Edited April 9, 201510 yr by Abel

I have to agree. The game WON'T run on 32 bit systems. I have not read all the topic...

Doing so would have shown your situation, though regrettable, was not universal. I've had no problems so far on WinXP SP3 with or without the /3gb setting.

...it's a way to allow 32 bit systems to manage up to 3GB memory. I did this, and now PoE runs just well in Gilded Vale. Have a look to this, but be...

That info may be useful to some posters, but anyone adding the /3GB switch to boot.ini should also consider the /userva=2900 option (see Microsoft KB: How to use the /userva switch with the /3GB switch... for more) to avoid possible issues with /3GB on its own.

 

However PoE shouldn't be using that much memory on your system (I see it reaching 1.5GB maximum). It might be worth you installing Process Hacker and enabling the "Virtual Memory" column (this shows the memory requested by a process and will therefore show which ones hit the 2/3/4GB ceilings). There must be something on your system (third party software maybe?) causing your processes to use much more memory and it could be that Process Hacker can identify the problem (you'll need to look at the DLL lists).

 

The reason for doing this is that you'll encounter similar problems with other Unity games, and you may find even the /3GB switch doesn't help if you have other software significantly increasing process memory usage. For example, I find that Dreamfall Chapters book 2 requires /3GB /userva=2900 to run a particular cutscene without crashing - if your system setup is adding 500MB+ to every process then even this would not be enough for you.

Edited April 9, 201510 yr by AstralWanderer

Just wanted to say that I tried the /3GB switch setting and it worked! I was able to finally make it to the Gilded Vale! YAY!    No more of   Yes!  Thank you for that suggestion Abel, I never would have found that on my own. Seems fine and stable so far on my system.

 

I'll look further into the userva=2900 if I have any other problems or cutscene crashes. Thanks for the post AstralWanderer.

 

 

Thanks again,

--Corgano

Just wanted to say that I tried the /3GB switch setting and it worked! I was able to finally make it to the Gilded Vale! YAY!

Good to hear that worked for you, but checking the output_log.txt file as suggested earlier would have shown the problem as well (the end of that file should contain an "unable to allocate memory" error).

 

The suggestion made to Abel above regarding system setup might apply with your system also - other Unity games are likely to be more demanding than PoE and even the /3GB setting may not help if you have third-party DLLs that greatly increase memory usage.

I'll look further into the userva=2900 if I have any other problems or cutscene crashes. Thanks for the post AstralWanderer.

You're welcome, but the /userva setting actually reduces maximum per-process memory (in this case, from 3072MB to 2900MB). However, as noted in the linked Microsoft article, it reduces the likelihood of the Windows kernel running out of space in its Paged/Non-Paged Pools or for System Page Table Entries.

Edited April 9, 201510 yr by AstralWanderer

The fact is i'm not so great when it comes to handle Windows things. I just checked: without the web browser openend, my memory usage is a few above 200MB. Don't seem to be much of a big deal. I said that everyone had this problem because i found dozens of reports on the net with this 32 bit problem, and you're the first i see to tell PoE runs well with a 32 bits system. So i figured out that the extreme most part of 32 bits OS users would have this very problem.

 

Still, i guess your post is very useful. It could help people who can't fix the problem with just the 3GB thing. Making my former post had just one purpose: bring solutions to people with the same problem i had. Hope that with yours on top, it will help most people.

WinXP user here with 4GB of RAM installed.

 

I also faced the crash issues when trying to enter Gilded Vale. Found mention of the /3GB switch fix here.

 

Unfortunately the /3GB switch does not work for me. In fact, with this switch the game doesn't even load at all. So you could say the /3GB switch made it worse! I also did try with and without the /userva=2900 switch - no diff the game doesn't load.

 

At least without the /3GB switch I could start the game and play it, except that it would crash when getting to Gilded Vale.

 

I hope a fix can be found by the devs.

...Unfortunately the /3GB switch does not work for me. In fact, with this switch the game doesn't even load at all. So you could say the /3GB switch made it worse! I also did try with and without the /userva=2900 switch - no diff the game doesn't load.

Welcome to the forums Poenewbie,

 

Could you attach a copy of your output_log.txt file (see MUST READ... for where this is) ideally both with and without /3GB enabled? That would allow others here to check whether something else, other than memory, might be causing your problem.

 

When you say the game "doesn't load" with /3GB, what exactly happens? (any error reported, do you reach the main menu, etc).

 

...Unfortunately the /3GB switch does not work for me. In fact, with this switch the game doesn't even load at all. So you could say the /3GB switch made it worse! I also did try with and without the /userva=2900 switch - no diff the game doesn't load.

Welcome to the forums Poenewbie,

 

Could you attach a copy of your output_log.txt file (see MUST READ... for where this is) ideally both with and without /3GB enabled? That would allow others here to check whether something else, other than memory, might be causing your problem.

 

When you say the game "doesn't load" with /3GB, what exactly happens? (any error reported, do you reach the main menu, etc).

 

 

Hi, I'm now attaching the log file without /3GB.

 

output_log.txt

 

And below is the log file with /3GB.

 

output_log.txt

 

With /3GB enabled, after I double click on the icon to launch the game immediately a popup message box appears saying the game has crashed. I don't even get to the Obsidian intro screen.

Interesting - the second /3GB logfile reports a DirectX9 initialisation error that exactly matches that in this thread. The fix for that - installing the DirectX End-User Runtime (June 2010) - shouldn't be necessary for your system, but re-installing it shouldn't do any harm either.

 

The first shows no errors though - did you actually encounter a crash or not? (a file post-crash is what is needed, just to clarify). A DirectX diagnostics report might be handy too.

Edited April 30, 201510 yr by AstralWanderer