PDA

View Full Version : Warcraft III on TiPbook


gaomay
Jul 24, 2002, 03:29 AM
I'm about to get a new powerbook 667 and want to know if this will be powerful enough to run Warcraft III and have smooth, jerk-free gameplay. The PB will have the Radeon 7500 and 1Mb L3 cache.
Thanks in advance for the advice.

Grokgod
Jul 24, 2002, 03:44 AM
nope

Ensign Paris
Jul 24, 2002, 04:08 AM
oh come on GrokGod, that is the worst one liner I have ever seen! ;)

I think the Powerbook 667, with 32mb of DDR-SDRam should be enough, considering the system reqs. are:

Minimum 400MHz G3; OS 9 or later, OS X 10.1 or later; 128MB RAM

I am not sure about it being choppy but I would have thought it will be ok.

Ensign

gaomay
Jul 24, 2002, 04:33 AM
I think I'm gonna wait until Jagwire is pre-installed - hope will this help with the game? Is the Radeon 7500 able to cope with Quartz extreme?

Beej
Jul 24, 2002, 05:03 AM
Originally posted by gaomay
I think I'm gonna wait until Jagwire is pre-installed - hope will this help with the game? Is the Radeon 7500 able to cope with Quartz extreme? AFAIK, QE will not help with the game. The underpinnings of X.2 will, though. The 7200 will take good advantage of QE. The reccomended requirement to get good use out of QE is 16+ meg VRAM.

chibianh
Jul 24, 2002, 07:09 AM
i have a tibook 800 with 512mb ram and i have the "reduce processor performance" box checked in the energy system preference. So, basically, it's running at 667mhz. I play war3 all the time with most of the settings on high or medium. It runs just fine. Gets a little jerky, though, when there's a ton of units killing each other.

G4scott
Jul 24, 2002, 07:31 AM
I run warcraft 3 on my 600mhz iBook with 8mb VRAM in OS X. It's not as stunning or smooth as a dual 1ghz G4 with a 22" cinema display (They had one at CompUSA with WC3, it was sweet :D :cool: ), but it works fine for playing the game... Maybe you just have to turn down the video options... I think that a TiBook should be able to handle it easily...

chibianh
Jul 24, 2002, 08:58 AM
Oh, the tibook handles it VERY nicely.. I had to turn down a couple of the settings because all but one was set on high (oops!). But now, I have some set at medium and some at high and still very nice... I love the wide aspect ratio of the tibook and the cinema displays, especially gaming.. warcraft III supports those resolutions but other games don't. I wish they all did, it'd be so cool...

gaomay
Jul 24, 2002, 09:18 AM
Do the PB come with Appleworks or will I have to buy it separately?
Thanks for all the info folks.

chibianh
Jul 24, 2002, 09:48 AM
My powerbook did not come with appleworks, although I wish it had.. I don't think the professional line comes with appleworks.

gaomay
Jul 24, 2002, 10:29 AM
why is my post count not going up?

mueng
Jul 24, 2002, 10:36 AM
I have the Quicksilver 800 mhz without the L3 cache. I have the Geforce 4MX and 1 gig of ram. I play with the video settings all on high.

As with everyone else, I only have problems when I have like 20 some units beating the shiznits out of each other.

macktheknife
Jul 24, 2002, 10:47 AM
I have a 550 MHz TiBook with 512 MB of RAM and 16 MB of VRAM, and WarCraft III running with OS X has some serious lags. For the first levels with few combatants, the gameplay is OK. However, once you have an all-out melee, the game slows down dramatically. Trust me on this one: Nothing was more frustrating to see my horde of Undead slowly losing because the lag made giving instructions almost impossible.

I had to resort to playing WarCraft III on my cousin's one-year old Dell laptop, which ran the game flawlessly without any lags. The specs: 850 MHz P3 with 256 MB of RAM.

Of course, you could set the graphic settings lower, but if you are going to pay more than $2,500 for a fancy laptop, you should be able to handle a game like WarCraft III with no problems. I love my TiBook, but I'm just p*ssed that my fancy and expensive machine can't handle a game that a year-old Dell can. I hope that Jaguar can speed things up, but I seriously doubt it.

macktheknife
Jul 24, 2002, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by mueng
I have the Quicksilver 800 mhz without the L3 cache. I have the Geforce 4MX and 1 gig of ram. I play with the video settings all on high.

As with everyone else, I only have problems when I have like 20 some units beating the shiznits out of each other.

Are you serious!?!?!? Wow, I would have thought that a 800 MHz with a gig (!) of RAM would have been able to play WarCraft III decently. Even my cousin's Dell didn't have any serious lags.

job
Jul 24, 2002, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by macktheknife
I have a 550 MHz TiBook with 512 MB of RAM and 16 MB of VRAM, and WarCraft III running with OS X has some serious lags.


Remember the min. CPU requirement is 400Mhz. You've only got 150Mhz more to work with. Don't try and play it on all high settings.

buffsldr
Jul 24, 2002, 12:56 PM
My experience is that I enjoy gaming more on a console or a pc than on a mac for 3d intensive games. I am not dissapointed in this. I realized when I bought a mac that there would be less games available. i have since come to realize that it is better to use my PIII 700 Mhz comp for gaming.

I am not sure I agree with the argument that if you buy a 2500 dollar computer that it should play a new video game. Rather, I think if you buy a 60 dollar game, it should play well (at all times) on a comp that meets the "Recommended Specs".

Having said that, WIII was three years in development, correct? If you want to play it bad enough, get a pc, or live with the lesser graphics. Better yet, go for a walk outside, I hear nature has some rad graphics.

macktheknife
Jul 24, 2002, 01:48 PM
Here are the recommended specs from Blizzard's website:

Macintosh« OS 9.0 or higher/ Mac OS X 10.1.3. or higher:

400 MHz G3 processor
128 MB of RAM
16 MB ATI Technologies or nVidia chipset 3D video card
700 MB HD space
4X CD-ROM drive

Well, when I read that "400 MHz G3", I'd thought that my 550 MHz G4 with 512 MB of RAM was safe (a sales rep at my local Apple store confirmed this).

I guess I should say that I was disappointed that my top-of-the-line TiBook couldn't handle something that a year-old Dell could. I can completely buy the arguement that one should leave gaming to consoles or PCs, but my question is (and I think it's not an unreasonable one to ask) this: if I am going to shell out $1,000 or so for a PC gaming system, why not shell out another $500 to $1,000 for a top-of-the-line PC rather than shelling out another $2,000 to $3,000 for another Mac? That is, why not consolidate my computing options into one?

I'm not trying to start a flame war: I'm happy with my TiBook, but I can understand those with limited monetary resources might look elsewhere for their computing needs. I know that stability and good hardware and software integration are the Mac's key draws, but I am beginning to wonder if we Mac users are paying too much of a price for stability.

Just my thoughts. Again, no flaming or ill-will intended. :D

job
Jul 24, 2002, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by macktheknife Just my thoughts. Again, no flaming or ill-will intended. :D

No problem mate. I'm running WC3 on my iMac DV+ at 800*600 with 32 bit color with very little slowdowns. Of course every detail option level is turned down to low....:rolleyes: :D

buffsldr
Jul 24, 2002, 02:02 PM
Macktheknife, why would your comments start a flame war? If a pc is a better option for you given your specific needs, why should I care? not to sound rude, but it doesn't affect me.

If playing the latest games is this important to you, and you can't afford two comps, maybe a tibook is not the computer for you. This is so obvious. Why are you sounding so confused over this?

MacAztec
Jul 24, 2002, 02:04 PM
I have a G4 500MHz with a ATI Radeon 8500, and I set the settings on HIGH at 1024x768 and I get NO jerkyness whatsoever.

On my G4 400MHz Sawtooth with Radeon 128Pro, I turn the details on medium, and some on high, and get no jerkyness.

So YES that powerbook will run WC3 perfectly on high!

Maeglin OSX
Jul 24, 2002, 02:09 PM
I have a 550 mhz tibook with the mobility radeon (16 mb ddr ram). I run Warcraft 3 at a lower resolution with settings around medium or high. There are many things you can do to make this game run smoothly. Simply don't run the game at full screen resolution and turn down the settings. If you look a Blizzard's requirements they recommend a 32 mb graphics card. The Mobility Radeon 7500 is a powerful card. The new Tibooks should run the game at optimum performance. You may need to turn down a few settings such as light (that really slows down performance) but Warcraft 3 still looks awesome however you run it.

job
Jul 24, 2002, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Maeglin OSX
You may need to turn down a few settings such as light (that really slows down performance) but Warcraft 3 still looks awesome however you run it.

Turn off unit shadows. Come on, who really needs unit shadows in a melee? :rolleyes:

macktheknife
Jul 24, 2002, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by buffsldr
Macktheknife, why would your comments start a flame war? If a pc is a better option for you given your specific needs, why should I care? not to sound rude, but it doesn't affect me.

If playing the latest games is this important to you, and you can't afford two comps, maybe a tibook is not the computer for you. This is so obvious. Why are you sounding so confused over this?

The reason why I'm so careful with my comments is that I find Mac users to be a very sensitive bunch. Scan through any of the postings with someone mildly critical of any facet of the Mac and you'll have people flaming one another. So I wanted to qualify my statements to ensure that we don't start an ugly and useless arguement.

Also, the reason why I might sound "confused" is that playing the latest games isn't the only thing that I'm looking for. I also play music, surf the internet, and do spreadsheets. When I bought my TiBook and dumped my Dell Inspiron a few months ago, I was looking for an all-round portable computer with stability, performance, and value. Yes, I know laptops aren't meant to play games, but my old Dell laptop (also with 850 MHz P3 with 256 MB of RAM) would have been able to handle WarCraft III in addition to doing most of what I want. And if I am not alone in this regard, people and recent switchers with less patience might take the next logical step and go back to a PC.

Anyhow, I'm just going to say 1) that WarCraft III lags on my TiBook with only OS X running (I can see it with my own eyes) and 2) that I am disappointed that my TiBook couldn't run the game as smoothly as my cousin's Dell laptop despite the latter being a year-old with less RAM.

I think that's a reasonable gripe. :)

Grokgod
Jul 25, 2002, 01:31 PM
face the reality.

WC3 play on a Ti 800, badly!

i will play ok until the fighting starts, sorry to tell you all this, but the fighting is still part of the game. So it is not running the game properly, period.

My Ti cost $4000 dollars with all the trimmings and if it cant play a fuhreaking game at that price then there is something very very wrong with either the fact that I bought it or the fact that Apple says its a supercomputer.

A dell is Not a supercomputer but it can play this game properly.

At the cost of this computer I want all the options ON!

Only a MACzealot would say that
"oh its ok, it will run if you turn everything off,"

If I have to turn everythign off why buy the game, why buy the computer, why is Apple telling us its the best in the world?

Why are MAc zealots turning away from the obvious truth.
Its this turning a blind eye to reality that allows Apple to continue to sell us antique hardware at HUGE prices and claims.

Specifications MacIntosh 128K
CPU: MC68000
CPU speed: 8 Mhz
FPU: None
RAM: 128k Dram not expandable
ROM: 64k
Serial Ports: 2
Floppy: 1╩ 3.5" 400k
Monitor: 9" 512x384 square pixels built-in B/W╩
Power: 60 Watts
Weight:╩ 16.5 lbs.
Dimensions:╩ 13.6" H x 9.6" W x 10.9" D
System Software: Mac OS 1.0
Production: January 1984 to October 1985
Cost: $2,495

If you paid this amount of money for a new computer would you expect it to run WC3 if Apple said it could?

macktheknife
Jul 25, 2002, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Grokgod
face the reality.

My Ti cost $4000 dollars with all the trimmings and if it cant play a fuhreaking game at that price then there is something very very wrong with either the fact that I bought it or the fact that Apple says its a supercomputer.

Only a MACzealot would say that
"oh its ok, it will run if you turn everything off,"

If I have to turn everythign off why buy the game, why buy the computer, why is Apple telling us its the best in the world?

Why are MAc zealots turning away from the obvious truth.
Its this turning a blind eye to reality that allows Apple to continue to sell us antique hardware at HUGE prices and claims.

If you paid this amount of money for a new computer would you expect it to run WC3 if Apple said it could?

Exactly. If we're paying so much money for a top-of-the-line computer, we should expect it to run programs flawlessly. If laptops in general can't handle WarCraft III, then the TiBook's inability to run the game smoothly would be less of an issue. However, the fact that a year-old Dell laptop can run the game without the slightest hitch makes me shake my head in disappointment at Apple's claims.

Maeglin OSX
Jul 25, 2002, 02:01 PM
My god people. Warcraft 3 is a good game however you run it. I choose to play these games not only for their graphics but for the gameplay. It isn't necessary to turn everything off to make it run smoothly. You've got a damn 800 mhz Tibook don't complain if you can't run it perfectly. Would it kill you not to run a game at full screen resolution. WARCRAFT 3 LOOKS DAMN GOOD AT WHATEVER SETTINGS YOU RUN IT AT. QUIT COMPLAINING!:mad:

macktheknife
Jul 25, 2002, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Maeglin OSX
My god people. Warcraft 3 is a good game however you run it. I choose to play these games not only for their graphics but for the gameplay. It isn't necessary to turn everything off to make it run smoothly. You've got a damn 800 mhz Tibook don't complain if you can't run it perfectly. Would it kill you not to run a game at full screen resolution. WARCRAFT 3 LOOKS DAMN GOOD AT WHATEVER SETTINGS YOU RUN IT AT. QUIT COMPLAINING!:mad:

With so many people whining about Apple's new policy on iTools (which I believe Apple has every right as a company to charge for), I can see how some complaints could be out of line.

However, I don't believe that this is the case with WarCraft III. Yes, the graphics is not everything, but if one had paid so much money for a top-of-the-line TiBook, why should one settle? Again, a year-old Dell laptop can play WarCraft III at the default settings *perfectly*. Are we wrong to complain about a computer that Apple has hailed as top-of-the-line and convinced people to fork over a lot of money for but can't play a game properly? Was Grokgod out of line in asking Mac users to demand more from Apple? :(

Grokgod
Jul 25, 2002, 02:28 PM
Jesus , are you a complete idiot!>? Maeglin

Why cant you understand what we are saying.

Its a cost vs performance ratio.

Wake up, !

Its a performance issue, clear and simple.

NOT what you THINK qualifies as complaining.

Its half witted fools like you that have allowed this entire situation to get out
of control with Apple.

If your happy paying premium costs for old tech then go and buy the oldest computer you can find , pay top dollar for it and enjoy it.

****, you pathetic limpwristed excuse for troll.
I am sick of guys like you without the brains to spark enough electricity to move your mind to a level above the tunnel reality of a reptile.

If you dont like our posts then DONT read them!

Or is that TOO complicated for you?

Maeglin OSX
Jul 25, 2002, 02:29 PM
Apple computers aren't designed for Gaming but they do a good job at them. Do you know what graphics card that Dell has? I refuse to believe that a 2 year old Dell Laptop's video card could out perform a new 800 MHz Tibook with a radeon 7500 w/ 32 mb of DDR RAM.:confused:

jadam
Jul 25, 2002, 02:30 PM
sorry to say bud, but your ti550 is over a year old ok. Secondly, WCIII runs fine on my ibook700 ok! not to mention, have any of you ACTUALLY run WCIII on a tibook???? and how many PCs can handel WCIII at the Tibooks resolution?

Maeglin OSX
Jul 25, 2002, 02:37 PM
I know my Tibook isn't as up to date as other computers and I understand your opinions about Apple's pricing for what you get. I want to know if you have these opinions why get an Apple computer? My Tibook has the exact same Graphics card as a new iBook except my Tibook has AGP 4x compared to a new iBook's 2x. Warcraft 3 works fine on my Tibook. The only thing I'm concerned about is beating those damn rushers on BNet they piss me the heck off.

jadam
Jul 25, 2002, 02:41 PM
isnt it hard to rush on BNet with WCIII? Blizzard made it a bitch for me.

macktheknife
Jul 25, 2002, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by jadam
sorry to say bud, but your ti550 is over a year old ok.

The Rev B TiBook was released announced in October of 2001, and I purchased the combo drive model in late January of 2002. My old Dell laptop was purchased in March of 2001, my cousin's Dell laptop was purchased in the early summer of 2001.

Originally posted by jadam Secondly, WCIII runs fine on my ibook700 ok! not to mention, have any of you ACTUALLY run WCIII on a tibook???? and how many PCs can handel WCIII at the Tibooks resolution?

I made sure that I was running WarCraft III with the same settings on the TiBook and the Dell laptop, and there is no doubt that the latter is flat-out better. I was playing WC3 on my TiBook until the fifth chapter of the Human campaign where the lag seriously hampered my ability to give orders to defend against the undead. Thereafter, I switched over to my cousin's Dell.

Look, I want nothing more than to play WC3 on my own TiBook. I would love nothing more than to show my friends that Macs CAN run programs smoothly, if not flat out better. However, I see what I see, and I just can't play WC3 on my TiBook. A previous post said he had problems with W3 even with his 800 MHz PowerMac and NVIDIA graphics card when the fighting got heavy.

Maeglin OSX
Jul 25, 2002, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by jadam
isnt it hard to rush on BNet with WCIII? Blizzard made it a bitch for me.

I thought it was hard too but some stupid people who delight on making me angry do it by taking their damn one hero and pissing me off then running away. Whilst distracting me they all of a sudden bring a million dudes and waste me. I'm used to 90 minute long games on Starcraft so when a game ends in me being wasted in 10 minutes I'm pissed!:mad:

macktheknife
Jul 25, 2002, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Maeglin OSX
I know my Tibook isn't as up to date as other computers and I understand your opinions about Apple's pricing for what you get. I want to know if you have these opinions why get an Apple computer? My Tibook has the exact same Graphics card as a new iBook except my Tibook has AGP 4x compared to a new iBook's 2x. Warcraft 3 works fine on my Tibook. The only thing I'm concerned about is beating those damn rushers on BNet they piss me the heck off.

Hey, no problem. I got a Mac not just for the gaming, but also for its stability and tight software-hardware integration that makes adding new drives or syncing with iTunes and iPod a piece of cake. Despite all the problems I have with WC3, I still love my TiBook. However, I don't think it's unreasonable 1) for us to warn would-be Mac buyers that W3 will not work smoothly on a TiBook unless settings are set lower and 2) to expect more from a computer we paid lots of money for that was touted as the best of the best.

Maeglin OSX
Jul 25, 2002, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by macktheknife


I made sure that I was running WarCraft III with the same settings on the TiBook and the Dell laptop, and there is no doubt that the latter is flat-out better.

What settings were you using? I find it strange that my 550Ti Runs WAR3 fine when a 800 ti runs it worse. Were you running the display at full resolution? That slows the game down a hell of a lot. Also running it at 32 bit is slow.:confused:

peterjhill
Jul 25, 2002, 05:09 PM
Thanks for the info all, I was planning on picking it up at next week. I have a Ti800, and am ready to go! Diablo2 is getting a bit old :-(

Maeglin OSX
Jul 25, 2002, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by peterjhill
Thanks for the info all, I was planning on picking it up at next week. I have a Ti800, and am ready to go! Diablo2 is getting a bit old :-(

HAVE FUN!:)

gaomay
Jul 26, 2002, 03:21 AM
Wow, didn't think there would be this much interest in my thread! Anyway, thanks for the info people. Would this be a reasonable summary of ways to get smooth gameplay in WarIII?

1. Lower resolution (any reccommendations?)

2. Lower detail levels (ditto?)

Any more?

Cheers.

hvfsl
Jul 26, 2002, 04:46 AM
I have good news on how to get better performance out of your mac with at least 16MB of Vram and a Radeon or better. Get Mac OS X 10.2. If you go to the charts on Apple's website, they show Mac OS X 10.2 is around twice as fast as Mac OS X 10.1.x. I have also heard from people at ATI that also say the new OS brings improvements in graphics speeds.

Also I have a PC (AMD 2000, Radeon 8500) and a lot of games when they first come out do not run well on it. This problem is normally solved by updates.

So there may still be light at the end of the tunnel for the Mac gamers out there.

ddtlm
Jul 26, 2002, 04:55 AM
The TiBook 550 is probably in the running for slowest G4 laptop ever made. Why? Because if I recall, it's on the newer 7-stage core with only 256k of L2. In order to beat the older 4-stage G4's, the newer core needs to be clocked significantly higher, but at only 550mhz this particular chip does not compare well to it's older brothers.

As far as WC3 on my own Mac, I run at 800x600x16 with medium settings accross the board except lights, which are low. I also turned off unit shadows. This provides marginal performance on my G4 800-MP with GF2MX and 1.5gigs of RAM. Works pretty smooth except in large battles, which get slow if they are big enough.

One good thing about WC3 is that it will be around for years with an active community online, so many of us will have the oppurtunity to run it on much newer machines.

Calzone
Jul 26, 2002, 06:29 AM
quote:-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, didn't think there would be this much interest in my thread! Anyway, thanks for the info people. Would this be a reasonable summary of ways to get smooth gameplay in WarIII?

1. Lower resolution (any reccommendations?)

2. Lower detail levels (ditto?)

Any more?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaomay,

Best way to improve performance in WIII - OS 9. Runs MUCH better than in X.
My TiBook 550 runs W3 with minimal lag on max. resolution, 32 bit color (everything else on lowest though), so your 667 with the new GPU should run it great.

Paolo
Aug 16, 2002, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by gaomay
I'm about to get a new powerbook 667 and want to know if this will be powerful enough to run Warcraft III and have smooth, jerk-free gameplay. The PB will have the Radeon 7500 and 1Mb L3 cache.
Thanks in advance for the advice.

Yep... I've got a powerbook G4 667mhz and I can run it fine... jerk free... just make sure you have lots of memory!!!

peterjhill
Aug 16, 2002, 06:15 AM
I run WCIII with all settings as high as possible on a Ti 800, and things look great. Sometimes it is hard to find the cursor, but only when there is alot of action going on. The movement is always smooth though, so I do not blame the computer, but myself and the wide screen for not being able to find it.

peterjhill
Aug 16, 2002, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by Calzone

Best way to improve performance in WIII - OS 9. Runs MUCH better than in X.
My TiBook 550 runs W3 with minimal lag on max. resolution, 32 bit color (everything else on lowest though), so your 667 with the new GPU should run it great.

I am running 10.2 and it couldn't run any better. Anyone else make a cd image of the play disk with disk copy, and just keep that on your HD. It runs perfectly off of a cd image, with less battery power required.

As for 9, It no longer exists on my computer in any shape or form. When the GM came out for Jaguar, I backed up my documents and settings, and formatted the HD and installed 10 only. Yeah baby, I'm not looking back!

gaomay
Aug 16, 2002, 06:32 AM
Didn't know that you could remove Classic - how is this done? I haven't got my TiBook yet and I'd like to remove any vestiges of ( as soon as I get it because all of my apps run on X.

alex_ant
Aug 16, 2002, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by MacAztec
I have a G4 500MHz with a ATI Radeon 8500, and I set the settings on HIGH at 1024x768 and I get NO jerkyness whatsoever.

On my G4 400MHz Sawtooth with Radeon 128Pro, I turn the details on medium, and some on high, and get no jerkyness.
That's because you're a Mac zealot. All games run perfectly on all Macs with at least 80+ fps if you're a Mac zealot.

maelstromr
Aug 16, 2002, 07:51 AM
Sheesh, I'm running WCIII BEAUTIFULLY on a G4 450 upgraded 9500(!!) with OS 9.1(!!)

I love the game and haven't missed anything, so YES YOUR TITANIUM WILL RUN IT.

peterjhill
Aug 16, 2002, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by gaomay
Didn't know that you could remove Classic - how is this done? I haven't got my TiBook yet and I'd like to remove any vestiges of ( as soon as I get it because all of my apps run on X.

You just don't install it. You need to install OS 9 before you install 10 for classic to work. You could delete the OS 9 system folder and application folder. Or you can do what I did and reformat your HD.

Not for the faint at heart.

tjwett
Sep 1, 2002, 01:30 AM
why are Macs still considered the industry standard for pro graphics work when the video cards are always yesterday's technology and they can't even run video games properly? is the processes between say, Photoshop and Quake 3 that different? how can the Mac be so good at one graphic application yet suck so bad at graphic-intensive games? i have a 550 PowerBook and i wouldn't dare try and run a game on it besides Heroes. Yet somehow, it does fine with Photoshop and even After Effects...weird.

job
Sep 2, 2002, 11:11 PM
i have 450mhz and 320 megs of ram and can run return to castle wolfenstein and wc3 just fine.

i'm sure your 550 tibook would run games a lot better than my slot loading imac....

idkew
Sep 3, 2002, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by macktheknife



I guess I should say that I was disappointed that my top-of-the-line TiBook couldn't handle something that a year-old Dell could.

How long has it been since 550mhz was top of the line? Never? Humm, as far as i know a 550 is a year old within the next month or so, and when it came out it was not top of the line. and just because you foolishly waited 6 months to purchase a computer does not mean it is not a year old.

idkew
Sep 3, 2002, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by tjwett
why are Macs still considered the industry standard for pro graphics work when the video cards are always yesterday's technology and they can't even run video games properly? Yet somehow, it does fine with Photoshop and even After Effects...weird.

THose games use different "muscles" than the applications. You ever go rollerblading after not doing it for a year? Notice the burn in the lower back? You never use those muscles. Well, macs don't use gaming muscles enough to have them dev eloped fully. :) :D

Well, on the current macs, they are made to do the vector calcs and other "real world" things better than the unimportant game calcs. Remember, most people do not spend $3000 on a cpu for gaming. Few real world apps require real time rendering of 3d environments. Many require long, complex calculations that do not even involve the GPU. And, i hope you were exaggerating about the yesterday's tech- while apple may be a bit behind in some areas, i don't see that in video cards, you can always upgrade if you need performance that bad.

Oh yeah- Stop complaining about gaming performance on a PC!!! If you want great gaming performance, buy a GameCube or other CONSOLE device!!! How hard is that to understand??

macktheknife
Sep 3, 2002, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by idkew


How long has it been since 550mhz was top of the line? Never? Humm, as far as i know a 550 is a year old within the next month or so, and when it came out it was not top of the line. and just because you foolishly waited 6 months to purchase a computer does not mean it is not a year old.

Yes, I guess my TiBook is a year-old, meaning that it doesn't qualify as top of the line. But "foolishly waited 6 months?" I was a "switcher" who decided to pay $2,500 back in January when I heard that the TiBook got a new combo drive and that OS X was a good OS. Yes, with 20/20 hindsight, I could have waited another four months to get a 600 MHz, but staying ahead of technology is like trying to change a wheel on a running car. I bought it when I had the money.

Anyhow, the whole point of my previous post was that my cousin's year-old Dell could handle WarCraft III just fine, whereas my TiBook could not. Yes, a personal computer isn't the best platform for gaming, and yes, maybe a Mac isn't the best computer for gaming. However, if WC III could run on a run-down Dell with no problems, I am being too greedy or unreasonable when I sigh with disappointment about my TiBook's performance?

Look, I love my Mac, and I am glad I switched. I leave the gaming to my cousin's PC and will probably never run another heavy-duty game on my Mac. However, I don't think that I have to love it unconditionally--I paid a lot of money for it, and I just wished it could run software just as smooth as a year-old PC can. Yes, I am paying for the stability when I buy a Mac (I'm reminded of that everyday at work when my Compaq crashes :D ), but are some Mac users out of line when we ask for better performance from our machines? :confused:

I'm not complaining--the original post asked for opinions and I gave my honest opinion based on my experience. Others had different experiences, but I saw what I saw with my own eyes.

ugru
Sep 9, 2002, 09:12 AM
hi to you all.

i think that all this is is not a matter of the tibook hardware but a problem of the game performance.. i mean the mac version of the game is just not as optimized for mac as it is for windoze running machines, i played on my 400mhz with 256 ram and it is very slow (yea, i know mine is old).

Blizzard is well known for doing masterpeaces and usually on peecees they spend a lot of time (3 years for WC3) to optimize performance even for older machines. i do not know if they did the same for this mac game.

i hope some patch will repair all this mess.

ddtlm
Sep 10, 2002, 11:40 PM
Ever since I started booting into OS9 to play WC3 on my 800-DP GF2MX it has performed more or less on par with a PC with similar video and clock speed. It does slow down in large battles but it handles 6-way FFAs well. I have used it to play arranged team 3v3 games to good effect.

I'm pretty sure I'll grab either a Radeon 9000 Pro of GF4Ti when I finally go and order 10.2, perhaps then I'll even be able to play well in OSX. :)

Jeffx342
Sep 11, 2002, 08:41 PM
We all have to understand that Ati radeon 7500 is not very powerful that card will age fast.
The new Ati Radeon 9000 Mobility expected on the next Ti books!

Ati Mobility radeon 9000 is as powerful as Geforce 4 Mobility

The ti book wil be the ulitimate Laptop cant wait!!

Its already on the Compaq latop w/ 64 DDR, or 32 DDR

ddtlm
Sep 11, 2002, 11:16 PM
Jeffx342:

You underestimate the Radeon 7500 Mobility. Although Apple has clocked it at only 230mhz (for power and heat reasons I assume), at 270mhz it is in fact very compeditive with even the best GF4GO chips.

The Radean 9000 Mobility will actually be clocked somewhat lower at the max, I think only 250mhz, although it'll probably have better memory and the core itself if better.

Overall I predict the 9000 Mobility will be a nice but not amazing inprovement. Believe it or not, the change from the original Radeon Mobility to Radeon 7500 Mobility was a bigger change than going to the 9000-M will be.

Olorin
Sep 16, 2002, 11:53 PM
I got Warcraft 3 when it first came out. I was looking forward to playing the game on 10.1.5. However, the game runs very bad under 10. I emailed blizzard multiple times and after not getting any real help I started to get mad. After many back and forth emails they finally admitted that the game does not run as well in 10 as 9 and that they were working with apple to release a patch after the improvements of 10.2 had been made.
I was annoyed to be sure but I switched to 9 whenever I wanted to play the game. 9 loads very fast on my iMac G4 800 so it wasn't to much trouble. The game runs fine under 9. I waited and waited then finally 10.2 came out. I upgraded and to my surprise the game did run a little better but the performance is still way below that of 9. Blizzard will hopefully release a patch to fix performance under 10.2 as they said they would. All of you who are annoyed with performance just remember its not your mac that is unable to play the game, but blizzard not knowing how to write for Mac OS 10.
I have emailed them multiple times on this subject. I really think all of you should as well. But knowing blizzard they will try to fix the problem soon.

ddtlm
Sep 17, 2002, 08:38 PM
Olorin:

I think that it is very naive to blame Blizzard for not knowing how to write for OSX, and I hope you didn't say that to Blizzard. As a programmer who has programmed for many platforms, I can tell you with confidence that the fault lies with OSX, Apple's hardware, and/or Apple's drivers.

If you are lucky Blizzard will care enough to find some work-around to compensate for OSX's drawbacks.

RogueLdr
Sep 17, 2002, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by macktheknife


With so many people whining about Apple's new policy on iTools (which I believe Apple has every right as a company to charge for), I can see how some complaints could be out of line.

However, I don't believe that this is the case with WarCraft III. Yes, the graphics is not everything, but if one had paid so much money for a top-of-the-line TiBook, why should one settle? Again, a year-old Dell laptop can play WarCraft III at the default settings *perfectly*. Are we wrong to complain about a computer that Apple has hailed as top-of-the-line and convinced people to fork over a lot of money for but can't play a game properly? Was Grokgod out of line in asking Mac users to demand more from Apple? :(

I don't think anyone is ever out of line to ask more from a company if they are dissatisfied, but I do have a question:

Why on earth would a TiBook 800MHz with the 7500 have any problems with something like WarCraft III? I have a 400MHz PowerMac with a GeForce2MX and experience no issues. Not that I don't believe that W3 on Grokgod's machine was having lag, I am just wondering what could be causing this on a pretty darned fast Mac.

RL

chibianh
Sep 17, 2002, 10:00 PM
maybe it's a unique situation. I play wcIII on my ti800 and everything is fine and dandy.. even more so after i upgraded to 10.2.

ddtlm
Sep 17, 2002, 10:57 PM
RogueLdr, chibianh:

It depends heavily on what sort of WC3 game you are playing. I play at a very compeditive level primarily in 3v3 and 4v4 arranged team games. My 800-DP with GF2MX is not fast enough in OSX 10.1.5, and is very marginal in OS9.

OS9 can play smooth when there are no battles going on, but when the fight begins I need higher a framerate to effectively manage my spells, and I am sure that I am less compeditive on my Mac than my PC.

Olorin
Sep 18, 2002, 09:41 PM
I did not tell blizzard that they didn't know how to program. This is the letter I sent them:

I got WarCraft III when it first came out. The game runs fine in 9 but it has never run very well in 10.1-10.2. I realize that this may have been do to multiple reasons However, I do not think I should have to boot back into 9 when the requirements say that the game will run under 10.1. I meet all the requirements with my iMac G4 800 with 512MB of ram running 10.2. Many people are annoyed at this performance issue! I know of nothing I can do to make it play better in 10 with out lags ect which I do not get in 9.
Can you tell me if there is a patch being worked on to fix this performance issue? Shouldn't it just take some optimizations to make the game run well now that 10.2 is out? Right now 10.2 performance is way below par on what it should be playing this game. I understand that Apple made the necessary changes to 10 to up graphic performance. A lot of people are waiting to be able to play this game in 10.2 the way it was ment to be played.
Please let me know if Blizzard plans to do anything about this,
(my name)


I do not think this is to much to ask a company that makes a profit from their sales. 10.2 has fixed the driver/performance issue. Blizzard just needs to Optimize WC3 for 10.2 and all should be fine.