I've only posed the question if this game supports XP even if it does not so officially. The "it is hard for me to imagine that a former DX9 game really would require a system " was not meant like "it surprises me" but more like "there should be a good chance to". Maybe this was not the way I should have written it. Given that still many, many games do support XP and given that I recently played a game on XP which does not officially support this OS and given that even the devs told that the reason they did not include XP was only because they did not have tested it on this OS I found that to be a valid question.

Regarding the being "surprised why a remastered version of a game does not support its old OS anymore (or at least the next one) does seem to be a different question for me and you explained the "why" to me pretty well. I guess my confusion came with the statements from the devs regarding the kind of remastering they'd do (just fixing a bit here and there, some light effects, new music and HD textures - not even changing the backgrounds because it is the way the game was supposed to be and it would be too much to change). Because of these statements I thought that such a "minor remastered" game would automatically run on its old OS (notice that I don't speak of a targeted OS - it's more like "why shouldn't it run"?).

Yes, that was just lost in translation. Sorry, I thought I thought I understand English pretty well - but sometimes things like these happen.

I don't know where you got this idea from but its not until recently that games have required 4gbs of ram. And those are games like Crysis 2 & 3, Assassin's Creed, Watch Dogs etc. Obviously very high-tech games that you can see actually use those resources.

I've ran win 7 with 2gb of ram for a long time also and ran all games fine, and that includes the original Crysis.

There's no excuse why this game should Require 4gbs of ram. And when you add in the fact that this remastering of a game that's reaching nearly twenty years old is crashing and having other issues on systems that meet the insane requirements paints a whole picture that tells of sloppy management.

It will probably work below 4 GB just like crisis. But it would be advised to have 4 GB and i'm suprised there are people still below 4 GB I often get 2-4 gb of memory full just with open browser tabs. Having below 4 GB or still the 32 bit windows 7 is like when vista came out and having 512 mb - 1gb of memory.

Yes the stuff probably still gets sold but you will probably even get performance loss when you are just doing text editing and a bit of browsing the internet.

It will easily work below 4gb that's what I'm trying to say.

Regular GB usage is dependent on what you have running. I can average about 1.2 gb usage if I wanted to on Win 7. You just have to just turn off almost everything but it will work. In addition to my gaming pc that had 2gb of ram, I had a laptop with Win 7 that only had 2gb ram so I know this quite well.

I could get much higher 3d intensive games than anything like Grim Fandango playing on it quite well too. Games like Unreal 2 and Quake 3 era games even. And that was even using its crappy integrated laptop graphics.

I'm not going to argue any further. I just find it disturbing that people would rather Defend this company's sloppy service instead of the customers who are getting the short end of the deal with this. You are free to believe that they tried their best and their interests wasn't swayed by the other version or whatever. I've made my case.

Life is Strange pc game is for win 7 and above.
Someone hex edited the Lifeisstrange.exe .so it now works on winxp.
It involved changing two tiny no's.
I have played life is strange on winxp and it's great.
How the hell he knew what two numbers to change is beyond me :)
Maybe someone who knows how to hexedit could try it for the grimfandango.exe

sidenote:
posready updates for winxp

http://win2kgaming.prophpbb.com/

Time to upgrade your ancient piece of junk I think! ;)

Hey! good link.
Thanks Cyker

I would call that the explorer and search function of Win7 - absolutely garbage. There is a REASON why I use XP and it is not money.

USE
xsearch

xsearch is a great little program that searches really fast .
I think the first time it might take a bit longer,but after that it's real quick.

There's another one called 'Everything' ,but i prefer xsearch.

And there's some good explorer replacements available too.
Some of them are a bit hard to find hidden away on sourceforge and other places.
I have about 5 different ones and i 'm testing 'Zabkat Explorer2 ultimate' atmo.
You can adjust it in the settings to look like winxp explorer.

Adding to your points of bad things in win7 ,i hate the constant high cpu usage as it runs the trustedinstaller.exe and that other one related to netframework i think.

What a putz.

Sorry, kid, but you're incredibly naive and, clearly, easily manipulated. You're essentially a slave to Microsoft's marketing department.

WIndows XP runs just fine on modern hardware... quite a bit better than Windows 8 runs on older hardware. And it can run stuff that Win8 can't run (or won't run). I have multiple machines, running multiple versions of various OS's. And right now, the one which remains overall most useful remains XP SP3.

If MS did what they OUGHT to do, and regularly updated the kernel, rather than adding and replacing shell items and "bundled applications" while calling that a "new operating system," well... you might have a point.

But I'll bet you can't find a single REAL (ie, not merely parroting stuff someone at MS's marketing team tells you you're supposed to believe) item which is truly an improvement, which is DEPENDENT on the OS upgrade.

FYI, I do have Win7 on my HTPC and on my netbook. I have Win8 on a fairly high-end laptop. And I retain WinXP on my primary working machine, because, for that machine, WinXP is the best solution for what I'm doing with it.

Every couple of years, MS puts out a GOOD operating system upgrade... though even with that, they seldom get it right the first time (XP was a disaster at first, and wasn't really useful 'til SP2). Vista was a debacle. Win7 was pretty decent, except for the forced "requirement" (which, despite MS's claims, was easily bypassed). And while Win8's kernel is quite solid, the UI is a disaster of biblical proportions, which even MS has had to admit to at this point.

And yet, every time MS says "hey, kiddies, here's the new version... if you don't get it, you're not cool!" the truly dumb people flock to that, without the slightest comprehension of what they're being "fans" of, and in order to seem "truly cool" to themselves, mock anyone who doesn't hop right on that latest bandwagon.

Oh, yes, this is nothing new. Heck, when WinME came out, the "fanbois" were there to tell everybody to abandon their Win98SE and WinNT4.0 installations. When Vista came out, these same "fanbois" were there to mock anyone who stuck with XP. And when Win8 came out, these same children though that they were just the KEWLEST by mocking those who didn't immediately dump Win7.

All without the slightest comprehension of what a computer actually does, how it works, what an operating system really is, or... well... ANYTHING except for MS's marketing copy.

A bit late i know :) but i meant to say you should have a blog site with other clever hex edits like this all in one place .

That Life is Strange hex-edit is very useful and it would be cool to know of others .

I think i've done one or hex-edits in my whole life :)

I usually look at the output and have no clue where to even begin.

I always wonder how do some people find these things ?
How does one know that editing something in a huge line of gobbledygook will have a certain effect.
People who do this have my respect .

SOOOO COOL !!!
I agree with that statement and it's a freakin necro posting, but nonetheless..

The fact that with 'updated' games simply needing a hex edit of two bytes to start working again,
says all about the MS policy..
They force people to update, by making irrelevant changes to compilation software..

And yes, I still use Win XP SP3, for most my gaming, despite needing Win 7 for newer games..
I wonder just how much of ALL software would still run under Win Xp,
if compiled with the older compilers..like 90% maybe ?

Anyways, finally someone else seeing the trend and knowhow behind it..

Game on not-fan-boi-of-MS-BS-man...
Cy laterz..