Warcraft III Performance on Unsupported Systems

[Durandal7]

I just got WCIII today. I have put it off to wait for a price drop and because of the fact that both my computers are unsupported. It is however playable on both systems.

G3 Blue&White 300mhz
128 MB RAM
16MB ATI
MacOS 10.1, MacOS 9.2
It runs like a charm. It is a bit laggy, but what the hell. I am running 640x480 with all settings on low except for model detail and texture detail which are on medium. I might even venture onto B.net once I've beaten the solo campaigns. Under 10.1 it is unplayable though.

iMac 333mhz, Tray-loading
96 MB RAM
8 MB ATI
MacOS 9
On this system it is just barely playable. Some of the initial human missions worked OK but after those it got too laggy to play. I was running with all setting on minimum.

In summary, if you have a tower that meets most of the requirements then Warcraft will most likely run. If you do try it then run it under OS 9 instead of X.

[Olorin]

10.1-10.2 performance is not going to be good no matter what computer you have. Blizzard needs a serious patch on the game. It runs like **** on 10.2! but it works fine in 9.

[job]

Originally posted by Durandal7

It runs like a charm. It is a bit laggy, but what the hell. I am running 640x480 with all settings on low except for model detail and texture detail which are on medium. I might even venture onto B.net once I've beaten the solo campaigns. Under 10.1 it is unplayable though.

You could probably go up to 800*600 if you turned the texture detail down to low.

Low still looks great... :)

What color depth are you running?

[Macmaniac]

Low settings are awsome, I run it on my iMac with 700mhz, problem is that if u get alot of stuff it gets slow. Believe me nothing is better then the max settings:) I was using a Dual 1ghz G4 with a NVIDIA GForce 4 Ti with 128mb of ram on a 23 in Cinama display with everything max at MWNY, nuff' said.

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by hitman


You could probably go up to 800*600 if you turned the texture detail down to low.

Low still looks great... :)

What color depth are you running?

Yep, I've tried that. I prefer 640x480 with 32 bit to 800x600 with 16 bit though. I guess it is just personal preference.