[darrick]

on the halo box i hand in my hand at last, i saw that the requirements included a computer running at leat 800 Mhz (if i remember right). my tiBook is 667Mhz.

is it possible to dial down the graphics of the game to get it to run?

[mac freak]

Maybe... but even if you could, the game would probably not be much fun to play (low FPS and overall cruddy looks).

[dennis88]

When I played halo on "reduced" performance, the game was enjoyable so it should run on your powerbook.

[powerbook867]

does your 667 have 16 or 32 meg of video ram? If it only has 16, I don't think halo is going to run very well...with 32 you might be all right...it's too bad there is no demo out for mac users...

[calamar1]

Originally posted by powerbook867:
does your 667 have 16 or 32 meg of video ram? If it only has 16, I don't think halo is going to run very well...with 32 you might be all right...it's too bad there is no demo out for mac users...

Very likely it will probably be pretty nasty on just 16. It does have a *lot* of settings, and you will probably be able to play the single player pretty decently (although i can't remember if there is an actual clock speed check in the program). i wouldn't count on the multiplayer being playable, though. i play decently on a Ti/867, but everything's got to be dialed down for the multiplayer to work. Also be sure that the 'ignore accidental trackpad input' is turned off in the System Preferences if you're going to play with the trackpad.

[Joel]

Originally posted by calamar1:
Very likely it will probably be pretty nasty on just 16. It does have a *lot* of settings, and you will probably be able to play the single player pretty decently (although i can't remember if there is an actual clock speed check in the program).

There is a clock check, but when it detects that you have below par hardware it is kind enough to inform you that you can hold a key down to bypass it (it gives you this key, but I forget what it is just now). I had Halo running on my first generation IceBook (500 MHz, 384 MBs of RAM, 8 meg graphics card). It was rather humorous though. VERY laggy, no textures loaded. Everything was blue, people were white and 2D, etc. But it did run.

-Joel

[I'mDaMac]

For sh*ts & giggles I installed a friends copy on my Ti 667 PowerBook G4. The minute I launched Halo it reminded me that my computer didn't meet the requirement of 698MHZ (yes, 698) and that I would need to hold down the "p" key to bypass this check. I dialed down all the settings and once the interface loaded I thought that it just might work. In game speed was a different story. Moving around in the game with a few other characters wasn't bad but once the enemies showed up on screen and action ensued the speed turned to cr@p. Unplayable. The machine gun worked and sounded more like a semi-auto pistol. Not worth it. I trashed the folder soon after.

The game itself was cool; reminded me of Marathon (BTW, is there a link to Marathon?) It kept me interested enough that I got to the point where you can drive around in that vehicle. After that I just got too frustrated with the speed. I'll probably buy the game along with the rev.B G5 I plan to buy next year.

[darrick]

thanks for the info.

my tibook seemed top of the line when i got it; still love it but i had been looking forward to halo. -- now, it's probably gonna be the same thing with tomb raider.

thanks again.

merry, merry.

(posting from my brother's house via bluetooth, via my t68i)

[sandsl]

I'm on a Powerbook G4 800MHz, 32Mb of VRAM and 768MB of RAM.

Like I'mDaMac said, single player is playable up to a point with all the settings low - I got to the level where you drive around before giving up on the game due to poor graphics and performance on my system. Personally I don't think its worth running this game on anything less than a 1Ghz+ and 64MB+

In comparison, Max Payne, a two year old game, runs perfectly on my system and its graphics are the best I've seen in any game I've played on this computer.

[emark]

the laptops, and the iMacs don't have the L3 cache architecture the the PowerMacs do, (there were 1 & 2 mb versions), not to mention larger and upgradeable video cards, and better system bus speeds.

perhaps, especially with an updated vid card of radeon 8500/9000 class or better the 800 mhz will be sufficient with lowered eye candy....at least after the inevitable patch.....
here's hoping or I'm S.O.L.

hopefully people who've sprung for the game will continue to post their system and experience.

[Ghoser777]

I got it for my brother - game play on his eMac is much better than on my 866 powerbook. I've got 620 ram and all, but even with all the settings manually set down as far as I can put them (unless there are some secret ways I don't know of), I still get significant lag.

By the way...

I got Halo for him thinking that we could play against each other over our LAN. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that Halo doesn't like that both our installs are using the same CD key. Most games I've played had some type of multiplayer spawn system so that to play the single player version you need the CD, but to play multiplayer you could have a couple computers with some type of minimal install. Why is Halo backwards in this respect? It kind of sucks that I have to blow another $50.

Matt Fahrenbacher

[Vash]

Halo is a complete rip off. You can't play it without lag unless you get a 4ghz P4 or 3ghz G5 sometime far from now. I wouldn't even think about playing Halo with a 32mb graphics chip.
Most games allow infinite people with the same CD Key to play on a LAN, but no Microsoft is a bitch, they have to prevent that in their games as well as all their other software.

[emark]

ooooops.

[moonmonkey]

Originally posted by Vash:
Halo is a complete rip off. You can't play it without lag unless you get a 4ghz P4 or 3ghz G5 sometime far from now. I wouldn't even think about playing Halo with a 32mb graphics chip.
Most games allow infinite people with the same CD Key to play on a LAN, but no Microsoft is a bitch, they have to prevent that in their games as well as all their other software.

I plays great with my 700Mhz Imac 640 Meg Ram.

I don't know what your problem is (although I have an idea).

[Vash]

I don't know what your idea of "great" is, but it sure isn't anywhere near mine. Halo is unplayable at 800x600 with everything set to low in an empty multiplayer level on a 1ghz TiBook w/64mb graphics. Halo is not made to be played on a computer, and that fact becomes extremely obvious when trying to. What do you set everything to? Low and then maybe get 30fps in small areas?

[MindFad]

If you can live without the pixel shaders, Halo plays great. Dual 800 GF3 here. 832x624, model detail high, VSYNC off, lens flare low, decals on, particles off (they're screwed up anyway), and obviously no pixel shaders (they don't work on nVidia cards yet for the Mac). It runs fine�time demo returns an avergae of 34FPS. Which is "worst case" average. Since VSYNC is off, I'm often in the 40-70FPS range. I rarely have dropped below 30 FPS yet, except in mega intense field battles, and even then, it's playable still with no problem.

Good luck! Remember, pixel shaders and high resolutions make baby Jesus and graphics cards cry.

[drHo]

what do you condider playable?

$hit! i installed a friend';s copy of Halo on my B&W G3 450, 1gb, 32mb Radeon PCI (not 7000). 10.3. well...it runs...:-)

not the greatest performance but at least i can play the game. everything set at low, 640X480. people shouldnt complain too much since i've read reports of people 'unhappy ' with the performance of Halo even on decked out PC's (P4 3.2ghz, 98000 XT's etc..) shoot...i can only imagine how much better this game would run on even a 1ghz Tibook with 64mb Radeon 9600!! or even better a dual G5! seeing how crappy this game runs on my B&W gives me the motivation to save even harder for my new G5!

if you are SO unhappy buy an xbox an play it there