PDA

View Full Version : starcraft II on PPC systems




otis123
May 22, 2007, 09:35 PM
do you think blizzard will make it intel only? it seems like it would be easier to do, but would they leave us out in the cold for not having a x86 processor?



rbarris
May 22, 2007, 10:04 PM
do you think blizzard will make it intel only? it seems like it would be easier to do, but would they leave us out in the cold for not having a x86 processor?

Regarding PowerPC, it's a pretty safe bet that SC2 will not be able to run on a G3 or G4, so that leaves the G5 type systems.

The game is graphically intensive enough that it will likely require the benefits of multi-threaded OpenGL, which isn't available on G5 until Leopard ships, and will not benefit single-processor G5 machines. So, single processor G5 iMacs and towers are probably no-go.

So, this leaves us with tower (dual core) G5 PowerMacs running Leopard, as probably the lowest PowerPC system we could support with SC2.

Note that SC2 is not shipping this month or anything like that, as was pointed out in interviews online, we have a lot of content yet to complete, and we have not yet made any permanent choices about which hardware will be supported. No release date has been announced.

We'll be watching the hardware surveys on WoW over the coming months to see what the breakdown of Mac hardware is and what the trends are. Obviously Intel is growing very rapidly this year among that user base.

ReanimationLP
May 22, 2007, 10:10 PM
The Blizzard man has spoken!

That must have been a hard secret to keep in for so long.

I was figuring G5-only too personally.

shu82
May 22, 2007, 11:04 PM
Come on, I refuse to believe that my year old 1.67 G4 PB won't run it. I am not saying at full effects, but it will run. It will work!!!!!!

fingers to ears.....lalalalalalalalalalala

rbarris
May 22, 2007, 11:31 PM
Come on, I refuse to believe that my year old 1.67 G4 PB won't run it. I am not saying at full effects, but it will run. It will work!!!!!!


As I recall that was one of the models with the 0.5MB L2 single core CPU and 167MHz memory bus?

whooleytoo
May 23, 2007, 07:05 AM
So, this leaves us with tower (dual core) G5 PowerMacs running Leopard, as probably the lowest PowerPC system we could support with SC2.


Don't forget the dual CPU, single core G5s which were out before the dual-core G5s.</complete pedant mode>

Which is what I have, though I'll probably be starcrafting on a MBP.. or a light-powered MacTablet Supreme depending on when SCII actually ships!

Barham
May 23, 2007, 09:39 AM
Don't forget the dual CPU, single core G5s which were out before the dual-core G5s.</complete pedant mode>

Which is what I have, though I'll probably be starcrafting on a MBP.. or a light-powered MacTablet Supreme depending on when SCII actually ships!

LOL

and /vote for light-powered MacTablet as the spokesmachine for SCII when it ships

But seriously, imagine an rts with full touchscreen support.


Also, I'm glad to hear from 'rbarris' (the horse's mouth as it were) that my MacBook Pro will be able to run SCII. I was a bit worried for a sec.

Now, how well will it actually run? That is the question.

Sdashiki
May 23, 2007, 09:53 AM
So is this a re-vamped super version of the WC3 engine or something from scratch?

Id like to say its just an improved WC3 but I see nothing to prove that.

If that is the case, wouldnt the hardware requirements be on par with WC3s?

5 years can make a lot of difference in computing power, but do you really think we will need the latest and greatest just to get it to run?

Catfish_Man
May 23, 2007, 11:21 AM
So is this a re-vamped super version of the WC3 engine or something from scratch?

Id like to say its just an improved WC3 but I see nothing to prove that.

If that is the case, wouldnt the hardware requirements be on par with WC3s?

5 years can make a lot of difference in computing power, but do you really think we will need the latest and greatest just to get it to run?

There's certainly a lot going on there (physics using the havok engine for example) that isn't happening in WC3.

~Shard~
May 23, 2007, 11:25 AM
I'll be buying a new MBP once they're updated in the next month, as well as a new iMac once they receive their overhaul and once Leopard is released this fall, so I should have nothing to worry about. I might go for the upgraded video card option though just in case... ;) :cool:

shu82
May 23, 2007, 12:12 PM
Ok maybe not the PB, but the mini should work right?

rbarris
May 23, 2007, 12:13 PM
So is this a re-vamped super version of the WC3 engine or something from scratch?

Id like to say its just an improved WC3 but I see nothing to prove that.

If that is the case, wouldnt the hardware requirements be on par with WC3s?

5 years can make a lot of difference in computing power, but do you really think we will need the latest and greatest just to get it to run?

System requirements have not yet been announced, but this engine is much more hardware intensive than Warcraft III or WoW - for example the minimum Pixel-Shader 2.0 requirement.

mattscott306
May 23, 2007, 12:15 PM
When do the minimum requirements normally get announced?

rbarris
May 23, 2007, 12:16 PM
Ok maybe not the PB, but the mini should work right?

I'm sorry which model of Mini are you referring to ?

If the G4 Mini, very unlikely.

If the Intel Mini, not yet determined if integrated graphics can be supported.

thejadedmonkey
May 23, 2007, 12:24 PM
If the Intel Mini, not yet determined if integrated graphics can be supported.

I knew it was worth it to spend the extra $1000 for no good reason:D

Actually, I think you'd have a LOT of people upset if their Macbook can't run it.. especially the people who just bought a new one after the update last week.

shu82
May 23, 2007, 01:40 PM
yea, I was talking about the CD mini in my sig. I have a gig of ram. If you rule out the GMA 950 then no macbook will run it as well.

AoWolf
May 23, 2007, 02:06 PM
As our blizzard friend pointed out this game is not coming out right away. Worry about system requirements when it goes to beta.

yellow
May 23, 2007, 02:12 PM
Really quite enjoy the tagline: "Hell, it's about time." :)

Chone
May 23, 2007, 04:34 PM
I knew it was worth it to spend the extra $1000 for no good reason:D

Actually, I think you'd have a LOT of people upset if their Macbook can't run it.. especially the people who just bought a new one after the update last week.

Angry at Apple for putting such a crappy graphics chip in the MacBook in the first place that is... even a X1300 mobility chip would be far better than that GMA 950.

Rocksaurus
May 23, 2007, 05:20 PM
I don't see how it could run on a MacBook... Even with multithreaded GL i don't see how he can say that the last rev Powerbook, which has a mobility 9700 would perform worse due to the graphically intense nature of the game than a GMA950. If it's graphically intense, the 9700 should have an easier time with it and make up for the slower single processor to at least be able to RUN it... No?

EDIT
PS- rbarris - I've heard rumors floating around that SC2 has been in development for FIVE years. I'm not sure I believe this... How long has it been in development..?

asphalt-proof
May 23, 2007, 08:31 PM
I thought the game was coming out 4 quarter in '09. If that is the case, then we have over 2 years beforeseeing this game. Meaning that last iteration of the G5 will be over 3 years old. I would be surprised if Blizzard spent a lot of time and money making sure a 3 year old proc was supported.

Earendil
May 23, 2007, 11:13 PM
Ugg.... I still consider my laptop a halfway decent gaming rig. No full blown graphics on the latest FPS games, but with 2 gigs of ram, and a 64mb video card, I would hope that I don't get eliminated from the runnings, even if the low end, just because I've got a G4 not an intel.

I mean, one can upgrade RAM easily enough, even he graphics card in most cases, but not the proc from a G4/G5 to an Intel...

bobber205
May 23, 2007, 11:22 PM
Hey Blizzard guy.

You do know there's tons of fans that would pay 100 dollars right here and now to get the game now (in beta form of course), don't you? ;)

~Shard~
May 24, 2007, 12:52 AM
Hey Blizzard guy.

You do know there's tons of fans that would pay 100 dollars right here and now to get the game now (in beta form of course), don't you? ;)

Heh heh - somehow I just don't think that's likely to happen... :o ;)

ReanimationLP
May 24, 2007, 04:34 AM
Hey Blizzard guy.

You do know there's tons of fans that would pay 100 dollars right here and now to get the game now (in beta form of course), don't you? ;)

Pff. Screw the 100 bucks. I'll sell my SOUL for a copy. :D

Nermal
May 24, 2007, 04:51 AM
PS- rbarris - I've heard rumors floating around that SC2 has been in development for FIVE years. I'm not sure I believe this... How long has it been in development..?

I saw a quote from Rob either here or on IMG where he stated that they started development shortly after Frozen Throne, so late 2003 if my memory serves me correctly.

QCassidy352
May 24, 2007, 06:43 AM
I thought the game was coming out 4 quarter in '09. If that is the case, then we have over 2 years beforeseeing this game. Meaning that last iteration of the G5 will be over 3 years old. I would be surprised if Blizzard spent a lot of time and money making sure a 3 year old proc was supported.

Q4 '09? I highly, highly doubt that they've announced the game 2 years in advance of release. that would also put the total development time at 7 years. :eek: I think early '08 is more like it.

Ugg.... I still consider my laptop a halfway decent gaming rig. No full blown graphics on the latest FPS games, but with 2 gigs of ram, and a 64mb video card, I would hope that I don't get eliminated from the runnings, even if the low end, just because I've got a G4 not an intel.

your laptop was released in 2003, and the processor is about 3 generations old (G5, core duo, core2duo). You can't seriously expect 4 year old (and probably more like 5 by the time this comes out) laptops to play the newest games.

Will_reed
May 24, 2007, 07:39 AM
So what people are saying is I have from now until starcraft 2 comes out to upgrade from 17 inch 1.67 ghz PB to macbook pro of some kind.

G5 only yikes I mean it looked good but it didn't look THAT good.

Rodimus Prime
May 24, 2007, 07:42 AM
knowing blizzard SCII is years away. I remember WW3 was announced several years before it came out.

If SCII is out in the next 18 months I would be very very surprised and honestly I expect 2+ years before we will see it.
I going to say it will be a safe bet no PPC computer will be able to run it.

statikcat
May 24, 2007, 08:06 AM
Well from the looks of the gameplay movies and such.. it sounds like the bulk of remaining work is probably the compaigns. Of course some more unit tweaking for balance. I give it Oct/Dec of this year to Q1 2007.

Will_reed
May 24, 2007, 08:27 AM
surely blizzard has the funds to finish the game before the end of the year.

And if it doesn't run on ppc g4 it better look a hell of a lot better than it did in the game play videos.

Counterfit
May 24, 2007, 11:00 AM
Ugg.... I still consider my laptop a halfway decent gaming rig. No full blown graphics on the latest FPS games, but with 2 gigs of ram, and a 64mb video card, I would hope that I don't get eliminated from the runnings, even if the low end, just because I've got a G4 not an intel.

I mean, one can upgrade RAM easily enough, even he graphics card in most cases, but not the proc from a G4/G5 to an Intel...

I figure you and I are both screwed. You, less so.

rbarris
May 24, 2007, 11:35 AM
There are some peripheral issues that we have to weigh as well, for example let's say the coding and testing was all done and we had it running on a dual-G5 system with Leopard - the added effort of keeping it tested and working on PowerPC is then multiplied by all of the subsequent updates to the title.

This effort is one we're happy to bear on WoW because we still have a significant number of players on WoW running PowerPC systems all the way down to G4 territory. However, a large percentage of that PowerPC demographic might not be able to run SC2 playably due to CPU, OS, RAM, VRAM, or GPU limits, so a similar argument is more difficult to make for that game.

Another effect that factors in - there aren't any faster PowerPC systems coming. In contrast the percentage and absolute number of Intel Macs continues to rise as does their speed and graphic capabilities, same way the Windows PC installed base does.

It's something we have to put a lot of thought into, I hope this illustrates the tradeoffs we have to consider.

ijimk
May 24, 2007, 11:50 AM
There are some peripheral issues that we have to weigh as well, for example let's say the coding and testing was all done and we had it running on a dual-G5 system with Leopard - the added effort of keeping it tested and working on PowerPC is then multiplied by all of the subsequent updates to the title.

This effort is one we're happy to bear on WoW because we still have a significant number of players on WoW running PowerPC systems all the way down to G4 territory. However, a large percentage of that PowerPC demographic might not be able to run SC2 playably due to CPU, OS, RAM, VRAM, or GPU limits, so a similar argument is more difficult to make for that game.

Another effect that factors in - there aren't any faster PowerPC systems coming. In contrast the percentage and absolute number of Intel Macs continues to rise as does their speed and graphic capabilities, same way the Windows PC installed base does.

It's something we have to put a lot of thought into, I hope this illustrates the tradeoffs we have to consider.

I understand your delema and just hope if possible to continue support for PPC macs. It is a pretty sticky delema but i would hope in bliizard fashion the final product will be a beautiful game (which we know it will be) that is able to be run on 2-3 year old systems as well. Granted maybe not at full resolution but definately playable... just a wish. rbarris PM sent.

RustyM
May 24, 2007, 12:36 PM
I understand your delema and just hope if possible to continue support for PPC macs. It is a pretty sticky delema but i would hope in bliizard fashion the final product will be a beautiful game (which we know it will be) that is able to be run on 2-3 year old systems as well. Granted maybe not at full resolution but definately playable... just a wish. rbarris PM sent.

While I'd rather not buy on a new box either, Blizzard should drop PPC support if the SCII could really only run well on Dual G5s (with a high end card option?). I suspect it's a relatively small percentage user base.

Besides, Blue finally announced StarCraft II (!!!). The least we could do is buy an Intel. :D

2.5 Dual G5, 3.5 GB Ram, 6800U

Earendil
May 24, 2007, 01:47 PM
Q4 '09? I highly, highly doubt that they've announced the game 2 years in advance of release. that would also put the total development time at 7 years. :eek: I think early '08 is more like it.


And people said I couldn't compare Blizzard to Microsoft ;-)


your laptop was released in 2003, and the processor is about 3 generations old (G5, core duo, core2duo). You can't seriously expect 4 year old (and probably more like 5 by the time this comes out) laptops to play the newest games.

Talk about bending your arguments to make a point. Above you said that you "highly, highly doubt [they would]...announce the game two years in advance". Than say in your next paragraph to me that "Probably more like 5 by the time this comes out", putting it at two years out.

I don't expect my computer to play the latest games, especially not in its original spec. But it's not at its original spec.
And after watching the game play video I see nothing really graphically specially compared to games that have been out for some time. Don't get me wrong, it's very pretty and cool looking, and what I hope to see in SC2 isn't great graphics as much as a revolutionary game.

Also, having the camera over head limits the amount of drawing (polygons/information) the computer has to do in a single frame (unlike an outdoor FPS). Also, a lot of the "graphics" appear to be special effects, which can be toned down for older systems.

Yes, it would be more work. But I don't see it as "impossible", or even near it. Blizzard could do it if they wanted, the question is whether they will. And if we were talking about a starving gaming company just trying to break even, I'd be all for doing what's best for the company. However, let's be honest, Blizzard isn't broke, not even close...

Earendil
May 24, 2007, 01:51 PM
your laptop was released in 2003, and the processor is about 3 generations old (G5, core duo, core2duo). You can't seriously expect 4 year old (and probably more like 5 by the time this comes out) laptops to play the newest games.

And on another note, very few games released out of the industry rely on top of the line hardware to run. Even fewer games would need top of the line hardware if they weren't rushed/had shoddy programing.

If Blizzard wants to make a top of the line game that requires computers made by Apple in the last year (and we must ignore half of they line up, due to graphics cards), than I better see a helluva lot better graphics and game dynamics that just a flying camera and some pretty paint that casts shadows.

rbarris
May 24, 2007, 02:02 PM
Again, a lot of this is up in the air. As I said, G3 and G4 are not going to happen. G5 might happen, but likely only on dual core or dual proc systems with Leopard.

Intel systems with integrated graphics is also very much up in the air, we have a lot of work left to do on the game and we will just have to see how that goes.

Rocksaurus
May 24, 2007, 02:12 PM
Well I guess since I am 90% sure I'll be building a rig once this game comes out anyway none of this is *too* bothersome to me... I will just feel bad for my friend who really wants this game (who doesn't?) running his dual 2.5 G5 w/ a 6800 in it and 4 gigs of RAM if there's no PPC support - not that I blame you guys for dropping PPC, it's bound to happen.

I know it's been said a lot before, but thank you, rbarris. Being able to talk to a Blizz employee directly is sooooo nice. Keep us in the loop. ;)

Eric5h5
May 24, 2007, 04:26 PM
Also, having the camera over head limits the amount of drawing (polygons/information) the computer has to do in a single frame (unlike an outdoor FPS).

Not really. The limited view distance is offset by frequently having a lot more on-screen objects in an RTS, and each object has a cost beyond the number of polygons it uses. i.e., it's usually slower to have 10 objects with 1000 polygons each than it is to have 1 object with 10000 polyons.

--Eric

Earendil
May 24, 2007, 05:28 PM
Not really. The limited view distance is offset by frequently having a lot more on-screen objects in an RTS, and each object has a cost beyond the number of polygons it uses. i.e., it's usually slower to have 10 objects with 1000 polygons each than it is to have 1 object with 10000 polyons.

--Eric

I'm not sure if that's true, but it's very plausible. However, Unit detail seems like one of the easiest things to "tone down" as a preference. If you're looking down a valley with a few different hills in the distance, water effects, sky effects, and 10 baddies coming at you all firing weapons, this appears "harder" to tone down because you have a number of separate objects to render, some of which today (sky and water for exmp) use random generators, not pre defined 3D models. Throw in the rapid panning and movement that happens in FPSs and you have the reason why they are the most system intensive, on average, of the gaming genres.

Now, I'm no expert on game dev, so please don't think I'm claiming to be :)
But I'm in CS, and have read a lot about game Dev, and it just seems to me that toning down a game's graphics draw isn't *that* hard. So far I haven't seen anything from SC2, outside of graphics, that inherently cost more proc/3Dcard time that say SC or WC3. What you have appears to be higher detailed models. On second thought, haven't a true physics engine will eat more proc, but again, that has been done in games that are now a decade old, so it's not new for todays heavy lifters...

I just hope that Blizzard isn't taking the quick and easy dev path and being sloppy with their optimization of the game, and calling it "acceptable" because computers are fast enough to handle it. Program bloat isn't acceptable, see Microsoft Word for an example of this...

In any case, I won't be able to afford a new system for a long while now, and my computer still handles *everything* else I need it for (aside from fun video editing) very snappy.

~Tyler

rbarris
May 24, 2007, 06:49 PM
Ultimately if the system requirements do come in heavier than expected, my desire would be to communicate that information to the users as quickly as possible - well before the product gets to alpha or beta, and definitely long before it goes to retail.

In the meantime I do appreciate the feedback and we will definitely keep it in mind.

~Shard~
May 24, 2007, 08:04 PM
Great to have you as a part of this thread rbarris. :cool:

So I'm curious, how difficult is it to attain a balance between adding new units, augmenting old units, introducing new abilities, etc. yet keeping micro-management and balance under control? I remember in the last levels of each campaign in Starcraft and Brood War, when the computer could build everything, you almost needed one of everything just to combat them, and micromanagement, especially with the Terrans always was fairly intense! Not that I minded, but it's just an observation. So, with the added complexity of Starcraft 2, I'm curious how hard it is to work on the balance and micromanagement issues, let alone the other aspects of the game.

rbarris
May 24, 2007, 09:01 PM
Our group tends to be involved with porting, debugging, performance tuning, Mac enhancements etc. Higher level game design concepts aren't really what we do.

~Shard~
May 24, 2007, 09:06 PM
Ah, gotcha. Disregard my above post then, just something I was curious about. :o ;) :)

angelneo
May 24, 2007, 09:37 PM
So I'm curious, how difficult is it to attain a balance between adding new units, augmenting old units, introducing new abilities, etc. yet keeping micro-management and balance under control? I remember in the last levels of each campaign in Starcraft and Brood War, when the computer could build everything, you almost needed one of everything just to combat them, and micromanagement, especially with the Terrans always was fairly intense! Not that I minded, but it's just an observation. So, with the added complexity of Starcraft 2, I'm curious how hard it is to work on the balance and micromanagement issues, let alone the other aspects of the game.
Seeing that how serious players invested a lot of time analyzing the game mechanics and calculating even the smallest of details. I think balancing the game is a very tough job and would go on even through the beta testing. If it is anything like SC, they would be expecting it to be played in league tournaments.

Xavier
May 24, 2007, 09:42 PM
Blizzard is still tweaking WC3, fixing positions of things on different maps in Battle.net as to not give anyone an advantage. Im sure that in SC2, something similar will happen

QCassidy352
May 24, 2007, 09:43 PM
Talk about bending your arguments to make a point. Above you said that you "highly, highly doubt [they would]...announce the game two years in advance". Than say in your next paragraph to me that "Probably more like 5 by the time this comes out", putting it at two years out.

Check your math. Your laptop is 4 years old right now. I said 1 year for the game to come out. That means the game comes out when your laptop is 5 years old, if my estimate of 1 year is right. If the game were still two years out your laptop would then be 6 years old.

If Blizzard wants to make a top of the line game that requires computers made by Apple in the last year (and we must ignore half of they line up, due to graphics cards), than I better see a helluva lot better graphics and game dynamics that just a flying camera and some pretty paint that casts shadows.

Made in the last year? Not even close. If the game is released in spring '08 and would run on core duos then we're talking support for 2.5 year old machines. If it will run on dual G5s then we're adding another 2.5 years on to that. As far as not running on half of Apple's line up, you can't blame Blizzard for Apple choosing to put integrated crap in macbooks and minis.

In case you forgot, Blizzard is a business. They do a hell of a lot for the mac community that they do not have to do (see: multi threaded open GL in WoW, UB of War3, and simultaneous mac/PC releases) so that we have better gaming experiences. But asking them to make a game compatible with 4-5 year old hardware or the worst freakin' GPU out there is not realistic or fair.

AoWolf
May 24, 2007, 10:23 PM
Our group tends to be involved with porting, debugging, performance tuning, Mac enhancements etc. Higher level game design concepts aren't really what we do.

And you guys do a damn fine job about it. Mac gaming without blizzard would be hard to imagine.

Eric5h5
May 24, 2007, 10:55 PM
I'm not sure if that's true, but it's very plausible.

It's quite true, which I know from first-hand experience. :) You can't just send vertex data to the graphics card, you have to tell it what shaders to use and so on for every object. That's why toning down unit detail isn't quite as helpful as you'd think, because you still have X dozen objects on-screen at once, regardless of the number of polygons. Graphics cards these days are really fast at drawing polygons (well, except for things like the GMA950, which is not very fast at that), so typically other factors cause slow-down. (Number of lights, pixel-shaders, number of objects....)

In any case, I won't be able to afford a new system for a long while now, and my computer still handles *everything* else I need it for (aside from fun video editing) very snappy.

Certainly I'm not about to replace my dual G5 + X800 anytime soon, which seems like it ought to handle SC2 reasonably well. The question is whether Blizzard ends up deciding that's enough of a market to support. If not, well, unfortunately that means I'll probably have to wait for the inevitable Starcraft 2 Battle Chest, which will no doubt be available by the time I get an Intel Mac.

--Eric

IscariotJ
May 25, 2007, 12:45 AM
Intel systems with integrated graphics is also very much up in the air, we have a lot of work left to do on the game and we will just have to see how that goes.

I really hope it doesn't end up with MacBooks being excluded. Four friends of mine have each just bought an MB, and are hoping to play this, even if it means turning off lots of the eye-candy.

This is the sort of game where people will get together to play against each other; being able to play it on a laptop is ideal. Sure you guys know that, though ;)

FireArse
May 25, 2007, 01:03 PM
Our group tends to be involved with porting, debugging, performance tuning, Mac enhancements etc. Higher level game design concepts aren't really what we do.

Just a quickie, with PPC games, I understand using AltiVec was pretty much essential. With the speed of these Intels - do you rely on the Intel equivelent to get as much out of the CPU's as possible?

Also - are these games written in C++?

Cheers,

F

MichalM.Mac
May 26, 2007, 07:29 AM
What do you thing ? Will it run on heavily upgraded G4 ? I have 1.8 Ghz G4, Ati 9800 (Pixel Shader 2.0 supported) and Gig of RAM. Is there any chance, that it will run.. or support for G4 (and maybe G5) will be totaly cut off?

MichalM.Mac

thejadedmonkey
May 26, 2007, 09:49 AM
What do you thing ? Will it run on heavily upgraded G4 ? I have 1.8 Ghz G4, Ati 9800 (Pixel Shader 2.0 supported) and Gig of RAM. Is there any chance, that it will run.. or support for G4 (and maybe G5) will be totaly cut off?

MichalM.Mac

Short answer: probably no way at all it'll work on that.

Long answer: I'd guess that if there is PPC support (which is sounds like there may not be due to added support costs for a small % of dwindling users), it would be multi-core or multi-processor G5 only. If you could make it run on a G4, I doubt it would be supported, and that's assuming they don't use any instruction sets that are G5 only (which they probably would to squeeze the most out of the processors).

~Shard~
May 26, 2007, 09:58 AM
I agree, I think the game will be coded for Intel, not PPC. Too bad, but probably the way it is, and quite understandable IMO.

elfin buddy
May 26, 2007, 03:48 PM
I'm a tad disappointed that I won't be able to play it on my little PowerBook G4, but it's not like I ever actually thought I would have been able to. There's no way something as awesome as SCII could ever be tamed by a G4 ;)

I see this as an excuse to buy a Mac Pro in a few years, as long as my PowerBook doesn't die in the meantime.

MichalM.Mac
May 26, 2007, 06:34 PM
I still have Hope because of knowing fact that Blizzard is Mac friendly company :o :apple:

~Shard~
May 26, 2007, 07:37 PM
I still have Hope because of knowing fact that Blizzard is Mac friendly company :o :apple:

Being "Mac-friendly" and supporting architectures which are effectively 2 generations old now are two separate things though. Intel for sure (obviously), G5 doubtful, G4 unfortunately not feasible IMO. :cool:

xPismo
May 28, 2007, 10:44 PM
I just watched the videos and I'm down. A plus being I'll be getting a new power- er, mac book pro around the 12 - 18 month timeframe anyway. Yayyy! SC2 looks like f u n.

miller218
May 29, 2007, 09:44 AM
Single G5 (or better), pixel shader 2 capable video card and 1 GB RAM required

Dual core/processor recommended

Why?

G4 bus speed was dog slow. Maybe the last Gen PB G4 would have the Graphics card oompf and VRAM to handle it.

That said, I don't know where this leaves the G5 iMac. Is the X600 PS 2.0 compatible? Or any of the intel minis

joecool85
Jun 1, 2007, 08:47 AM
Single G5 (or better), pixel shader 2 capable video card and 1 GB RAM required

Dual core/processor recommended

Why?

G4 bus speed was dog slow. Maybe the last Gen PB G4 would have the Graphics card oompf and VRAM to handle it.

That said, I don't know where this leaves the G5 iMac. Is the X600 PS 2.0 compatible? Or any of the intel minis

I hope so, then my system would play it. Dual 2ghz G5 Power Mac, 1gb RAM (it'll be 2+gb by the time the game comes out), ATI 9650 XT.

metgear723
Jun 1, 2007, 10:56 AM
drop G4 support, definately will happen. I know those who have them still have been upgrading with the times. My dad still has one from the first generation G4 still going running Photoshop CS2, Civ 3 w/No CPU upgrades. But it won't handle SC2 or WC 3. Now for me I have the last PPC revision for iMacs, so i'm pissed because a month later they switched to intel. So my vote is to make it scalable to PPC G5 specs with dual/multiprocessor recommended like the above poster said. I also expect a Q3-4 2008 release for this game, maybe Q2.

miller218
Jun 4, 2007, 08:32 AM
I see how it's likely a dual G5 with a decent video card will work, but I wonder if Blizz will bother with supporting that few Macs.

In my opinion, your iMac (and my sisters too) are the iffy ones. They sold quite a few of them (more than the Power Macs, which are probably in businesses).

drop G4 support, definately will happen. I know those who have them still have been upgrading with the times. My dad still has one from the first generation G4 still going running Photoshop CS2, Civ 3 w/No CPU upgrades. But it won't handle SC2 or WC 3. Now for me I have the last PPC revision for iMacs, so i'm pissed because a month later they switched to intel. So my vote is to make it scalable to PPC G5 specs with dual/multiprocessor recommended like the above poster said. I also expect a Q3-4 2008 release for this game, maybe Q2.

joecool85
Jun 4, 2007, 09:03 AM
In my opinion, your iMac (and my sisters too) are the iffy ones. They sold quite a few of them (more than the Power Macs, which are probably in businesses).

I dunno...I have a powermac and I'm just a college student. Granted I went broke attaining it, but I still own it.

~Shard~
Jun 4, 2007, 10:39 AM
Hopefully the new MBPs which will be released in the very near future will run it, as I'll be picking one of those up! :D

otis123
Jun 5, 2007, 09:27 PM
wow, i didnt check this thread until today, so my ibook G4 with a 1.5GB of RAM that i bought in april 2006 wont be able to play it? why did i buy a PPC? looks like i have to go back to windows cause a MBP is to expensive for me...

~Shard~
Jun 5, 2007, 09:39 PM
wow, i didnt check this thread until today, so my ibook G4 with a 1.5GB of RAM that i bought in april 2006 wont be able to play it? why did i buy a PPC? looks like i have to go back to windows cause a MBP is to expensive for me...

MacBooks are very inexpensive, I don't think you'd need a MacBook Pro necessarily. That being said, the game might not even be released for another year, in which case a 2-year old machine such as your iBook will indeed be too old to play the game - that's the wonderful world of technology for ya...

Eric5h5
Jun 5, 2007, 11:04 PM
MacBooks are very inexpensive, I don't think you'd need a MacBook Pro necessarily.

Except for the part where they said they don't know if they can support the craptastic GMA950? (Which gets worse performance than the iBook for some games.) Even if they end up doing so, the experience will be, as they say, suboptimal.

that's the wonderful world of technology for ya...

Yep....

--Eric

~Shard~
Jun 5, 2007, 11:18 PM
Except for the part where they said they don't know if they can support the craptastic GMA950? (Which gets worse performance than the iBook for some games.) Even if they end up doing so, the experience will be, as they say, suboptimal.

Yep....

Yeah, fair enough. Again, this game may not even be available for another year,. in which case who knows what the hardware requirements will be? I think it's safe to say that PPC architecture will not be supported though, like it or not...

VASTman
Oct 6, 2007, 11:37 PM
Anybody heard any news on this?

I have a Dual G5 with 6800 Ultra that I'm really hoping will be supported :o