Warcraft III Performance on Unsupported Systems

Discussion in 'Games' started by Durandal7, Sep 22, 2002.

  1. macrumors 68040

    Feb 24, 2001
    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.
  2. macrumors newbie

    Aug 12, 2002
    Middle Earth
    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.
  3. job
    macrumors 68040


    Jan 25, 2002
    in transit
    Re: Warcraft III Performance on Unsupported Systems

    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?
  4. macrumors 68040


    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.
  5. thread starter macrumors 68040

    Feb 24, 2001
    Re: Re: Warcraft III Performance on Unsupported Systems

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

Share This Page