I'm not trying to flame or hack on anyone or anything like that. And, yeah, it was a funny comment.

But, I'm just saying 90% of consumers are not "computer experts" they don't know that the first 100 sectors of RAM are taken up by the FAT (for example, or whatever the hell it is now, or even if windows uses a FAT anymore .. I don't even know) and that their "windows 7" OS with "Radeon ATI" takes up 20% of their base memory & cache (for example). Only people that know a lot about computers or hard core gamers would interpret "available RAM" as "RAM that is leftover unused after the required system resources are met".

Most everyone else on earth would look in their computer control panel (for example in my system: control panel-> system memory-> installed memory -> 8GB ), and think: 'gee I have 8GB of available memory for use in my computer (which is in fact corrcect), so I can buy games that use up to 8GB in specifications'. In other words: I have 8GB of memory available to use. I'd be willing to bet $20 that over 90% of the people of planet earth would interpret things this way, thus I have 8GB of "available" RAM for software application usage when I go shopping.

Personally, I don't think the game is playable at 1GB of "available" RAM based on this thread and another similar one. I think the game should reasonably start at 2GB as far as what the box' specifications should state, so I agree with you. I just believe the box requirements would lead 90% of consumers to believe that their 1GB of RAM system would work with this game, so I sorta feel for whoever started the thread at the same time.

I know from personal experience that never again will I buy a "new" game for an older system that just barely match minimum specs. It's one of those things you just learn once the hard way and them remember, so you don't make the same mistake again.

LOL, I always make a point of looking at the box specs after I made the mistake of buying a "Mac" game for my "Windows" system about 20 yrs ago.

I'm really surprised I've never done that.  Because I do stupid shit all the time...

cpl-rk.  My apologies.  By no means am I a computer expert either.  I also learned the hard way.  Bought a game that clearly stated on the box "does not support video card blah blah blah.  I tried and tried to get them game to work, finally sent my email to support and they basically said "hey dumb @$$, can you read."  I emailed back, evidently not.

My main concern with OP, was that he wanted to crank up the graphics.  Even without the OS thing, the poster is barely making specs.  They should realize they are going to have to turn em down a bit.  I am pretty sure they are basing the cloth map for minimum specs.

Again, apologies.  But the comment still makes laugh just thinking about it.

I think this is another place where stardock messed up since most of my game boxes list recommended total system ram not available ram.They should have put it at 1.5 gb system ram on the box.  That's why most boxes also show different ram requirements for xp and vista since vista used more ram and the amount listed on the box would be "system" not "available".

I've seen games with minimum and recommended.

I thought it was industry standard to list 'minimal reqs' as 'being able to run game on lowest settings'. In case of EWoM, cloth map only. Minimal reqs = minimal settings, quite obvious.

Civ 5 requires 2GB of ram. Ive tried to run it on 1 GB system and it just shuts down with an error.

Hahaha, I missed the part where he said he would just get CiV5 instead.  Try and older game, bud, like Civ4 or GalCiv2.

Stopped reading after "1 GB of Ram"

You missed a lot. We discussed that in depth since the back-of-the-box minimum system requirements state 1GB "available" RAM

I don't even think the original poster is still here.