Hey everyone,

I have been drooling over Civ IV since the rumours started last year. This was quickly followed by the news that my current computer would be unable to handle the game, a pain this forum knows all too well apparently. So I tucked away my drool for another day.

I am now in the market for a new computer and I was looking to buy a Mac for the first time.
I have gone 24 years without playing Civ IV and I am not eager to go another five because I bought the wrong machine. I looked through the forums for spec information, but it is fairly overwhelming to the non-computer savvy such as my self. So my question is this:

What apple products meet the recommended specs? [Upgrading the computer is fair game, so paying for extra ram is an option.]

Hopefully a broad response can help those in a similar boat as mine.

Hi :wavey: Welcome.

If you want to play without too many compromises (Mac OS X, not Windows in Boot Camp, full graphics, high res movies, fast late game, huge maps etc) then the only new machines that you can buy to run it appear to be the iMacs and MacBook Pros. You'll need at least 1 GByte of memory, but I would recommend that regardless of Civ4, as OS X thrives on more memory.

It seems you shouldn't get an Intel MacBook or Mini with integrated graphics unless you want to play Civ4 in Windows and Boot Camp, though it seems a little strange that OS X should be *that* much worse than Windows on the same hardware. So we're all waiting with bated breath to see the first reports from someone who tries it.

You could buy a current G5 tower, or maybe a high end G5 iMac if you can find one, but if you want a machine to stand the test of time for another five years I wouldn't recommend it, as you'd be buying a dinosaur relative to Apple's future plans.

I'm waiting for the new Intel 64 bit towers that should be released in a few months, as my upgrade will be primarily to get onto the Intel equivalent of the G4 tower I have currently, with Civ4 capability as an incidental bonus.

Just to double-check, Alan, but the 1G RAM requirement isn't just the game itself, right?

Gatekeeper

In my view, if you use your Mac for anything more than email and light web browsing, it will benefit from having more memory than the 512 MBytes minimum. Everything just gets snappier. As I said:

You'll need at least 1 GByte of memory, but I would recommend that regardless of Civ4, as OS X thrives on more memory.
Make sure you have spare memory slot(s) in any Mac you buy. For example, if there are two slots in a Mac and Apple fills them with two 256MByte sticks then you'll have to throw one or both away in order to put more memory in. Better to have one 512 MByte stick from Apple so that you can just add another stick and keep the Apple memory.

Hmm. Well, I plan on maxing out the RAM

Hmm. Well, I plan on maxing out the RAM

OK, two issues that are starting to piss me off with CivFanatics:

1. Why does the damn "quick reply" cut off messages?!

2. What the hell's up with full-page pop-ups, and multiple ones at that? This is the only site I get those on. Do I need to enable a pop-up killer? I will *never* do business with a firm that utilizes such in-your-face advertising. NEVER.

Back on topic: As I was saying, I plan to max out the iMac RAM at the point of purchase — in this case 2GB. Right now, I'm looking to buy direct from Apple or from an authorized vendor, likely MacZONE. Unfortunately, I hear Apple charges and arm and a leg for RAM, so that might be a deal killer. Unless, of course, they're willing to negotiate with a purchaser (me) who will pay for the entire thing up front (yes, I've been saving that long).

Gatekeeper

OK, two issues that are starting to piss me off with CivFanatics:

1. Why does the damn "quick reply" cut off messages?!
It doesn't do that to me. What browser are you using? How does the cut off occur? Truncation? Failure to post?

2. What the hell's up with full-page pop-ups, and multiple ones at that? This is the only site I get those on. Do I need to enable a pop-up killer? I will *never* do business with a firm that utilizes such in-your-face advertising. NEVER. Site Feedback is the best place to air these issues. There aren't many site staff taking much notice of this backwater. Safari has a built-in pop up filter which I have permanently enabled. So does Firefox. What do you use?

Back on topic: As I was saying, I plan to max out the iMac RAM at the point of purchase — in this case 2GB. Right now, I'm looking to buy direct from Apple or from an authorized vendor, likely MacZONE. Unfortunately, I hear Apple charges and arm and a leg for RAM, so that might be a deal killer. Unless, of course, they're willing to negotiate with a purchaser (me) who will pay for the entire thing up front (yes, I've been saving that long).
:shrug: I suggest you check the third party RAM prices as well. You may be able to get a better deal by separating the computer and RAM deals.

To answer the initial question, the iMac (preferably the new Intel ones), the MacBook Pro, and the PowerMac G5 will be happy enough to handle it. Some older 15" and 17" PowerBooks could do well enough for it too.

I will be buying the game and trying it on a Mac mini PPC with 32 MB VRAM and 1 GB RAM. I will let you know how it runs. The intention is I'll be buying a MacBook Pro down the line, so why not buy it now rather than later and maximize my Civ IV-ness?


P.S. dealram (http://www.dealram.com) is an excellent place for cheap RAM. Also you need to upgrade in pairs (dual core = pairing memory).

Alan:

I use Netscape 7.02 ... the truncation is a hit-and-miss problem, and usually strikes off everything after the first line.

Regarding the pop-ups, perhaps I'll let Thunderfall, et al., know. Usually it's not that big a deal, except when there's a flurry of them. That's when I make my holy vows not to do business (EVER) with the offending company.

About memory, well, I went to the Apple Store and priced the purchase (besides the 20" Intel iMac, it included maxed out RAM, a 256MB video card, a printer, sales tax, USB cable, iWork and AppleCare). The total came out to roughly $2,600. That's not including the $100 rebate for the printer.

Gatekeeper

Alan:

I use Netscape 7.02 ... the truncation is a hit-and-miss problem, and usually strikes off everything after the first line.

Sorry for going offtopic here, I couldn't resist posting this. ;) But I have always wondered why anyone would want to use netscape nowadays, instead of the mozilla suite.

considder this formula:
Netscape = old version of Mozilla suite + junk.

If you'd use the latest version of the Mozilla suite you'll have a newer version of what is more or less the same browser, without junk.
(and then one might ask, "why not firefox?" But Firefox and Mozilla suite are sufficiently different that you could call it a matter of personal taste)

Also you need to upgrade in pairs (dual core = pairing memory).
Untrue. The Core Duo iMacs are perfectly happy to run on single chips. In theory there would be a small performance improvement from paired RAM, but in practice it's utterly negligible.

And, in all honesty, buying RAM from Apple is a REALLY, REALLY bad idea, since they do hugely overcharge for it. However, if you don't get it from Apple, you'll get the default 512 chip, which will eventually be wasted.

My suggestion would be to upgrade it to 1 GB with Apple - making sure you select the 1x1 GB option instead of the 2x512 MB. Then buy a second 1x1GB from somebody who won't charge you so much.

Also,

Unless, of course, they're willing to negotiate with a purchaser (me) who will pay for the entire thing up front (yes, I've been saving that long).
Not going to happen, since paying the entire cost up front is the standard. From Apple's perspective, anyway - putting it on a credit card still counts as far as they're concerned.

For those switching to a Mac in the near future, would boot camp + windows not be an acceptable solution? I expect to purchase an iMac with similar addons as Gatekeeper's, and already own Windows Civ4 and a WinXP+SP2 license (not to mention a preordered copy of the Warlords expansion pack). I was under the impression from various Boot Camp reviews that gaming under such a setup worked like a charm.

It works, certainly. The questions you need to ask are:

1. Is it worth the hassle of rebooting every time you want to switch OSes, plus the time investment to keep the WinXP installation secure and clean?

2. Consider how much time would you be spending in WinXP and how much under MacOS. Does that amount of time under MacOS really justify buying a Mac at all?

If you can answer "yes" to both questions, Boot Camp is likely to be a good solution. If you can answer "yes" to the second but "no" to the first, you should just stick with Mac-native software. And if your answer to the second question is "no," you're probably better off buying a cheap Windows-only system, in all honesty.

MAS ... I'm running 8.6, which severely limits what browsers work on my machine. ;)

Oh, and MacZONE charges the same for RAM as Apple does ...

MAS ... I'm running 8.6, which severely limits what browsers work on my machine. ;)

Oh, and MacZONE charges the same for RAM as Apple does ...

Hmz, Can't argue with that.

When you buy a new system, there is a big chance it will be 10.5, Then you'll have to suddenly learn a lot of new things all at once. :eek:

Don't check RAM prices in Mac-specific stores. They are geared to Apple pricing in general. Check out places like Crucial, Adata etc. They price closer to the commodity market than to the jewelry quarter :p.

It works, certainly. The questions you need to ask are:

1. Is it worth the hassle of rebooting every time you want to switch OSes, plus the time investment to keep the WinXP installation secure and clean?

2. Consider how much time would you be spending in WinXP and how much under MacOS. Does that amount of time under MacOS really justify buying a Mac at all?

If you can answer "yes" to both questions, Boot Camp is likely to be a good solution. If you can answer "yes" to the second but "no" to the first, you should just stick with Mac-native software. And if your answer to the second question is "no," you're probably better off buying a cheap Windows-only system, in all honesty.

My switch to the Mac is primarily for business reasons. I've found I'm far more productive in that kind of environment than I am under Windows (don't ask me why). Still, I'll need to wind down from time to time, and Civ is pretty much my only game. I only really play a few hours on the weekend. So, I'd spend the bulk of my time operating under MacOS while doing work. In order to maintain the computer as a working tool, I intend to run WinXP under an external drive that will remain unplugged until I decide I need to launch some nukes.

My switch to the Mac is primarily for business reasons. I've found I'm far more productive in that kind of environment than I am under Windows (don't ask me why). Still, I'll need to wind down from time to time, and Civ is pretty much my only game. I only really play a few hours on the weekend. So, I'd spend the bulk of my time operating under MacOS while doing work. In order to maintain the computer as a working tool, I intend to run WinXP under an external drive that will remain unplugged until I decide I need to launch some nukes.

I run Civ4 under XP w/ Boot Camp on my MacBook and it runs great. Like you, I only use XP to play Civ4 and 2-3 otehr games, so I'm not in it that much, and it takes less than 5 min total to reboot into XP and then back into OS X. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that Boot Camp won't work w/ and external HDD, so keep that in mind. You will have to let it partition your main drive, so make sure you get a big enough HDD. I have an 80GB with 10GB for XP.

As far as keeping XP secure and clean, its not that big of a deal if all you do is play games. I leave the WiFi on all the time, but you can easily disable it if you don't play multiplayer. Plus, I have never had a virus on Windows (cross my fingers) so I'm not too worried about it. Most spyware and virus's come from things you download, so if you only download 1.61 path, I think you'll be all right ;)

Don't check RAM prices in Mac-specific stores. They are geared to Apple pricing in general. Check out places like Crucial, Adata etc. They price closer to the commodity market than to the jewelry quarter :p.
Offtopic: I just have to say that this is the one thing I hate about Apple.

With the iMac/Mac mini, it is $100 for 2x512MB and $300 for 2x1GB, a difference of $200 (for those math-challenged individuals :D)
With the MacBook/MacBook Pro, it is $100 for 2x512MB, same as the iMac. But it is $500 for 2x1GB, a difefrence of $400!!! It is the same RAM! Both use DDR2-667MHZ SODIMM, so there shouldn't be any difefrence in price, right? Even the $300 is overpriced, as I got my 2x1GB for my MacBook for $180.
Also, it is $100 for 2x512MB or 1x1GB on the iMac, but $100 for 2x512MB and $200 for 1x1GB in the MacBook Pro!
So in the end, Apple is over-charging thier notebook customers for RAM. To me, this is just stupid, and makes no sense, since they all use the same RAM.

Ok, enough ranting, I just had to say this ;)

I run Civ4 under XP w/ Boot Camp on my MacBook and it runs great. Like you, I only use XP to play Civ4 and 2-3 otehr games, so I'm not in it that much, and it takes less than 5 min total to reboot into XP and then back into OS X. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that Boot Camp won't work w/ and external HDD, so keep that in mind. You will have to let it partition your main drive, so make sure you get a big enough HDD. I have an 80GB with 10GB for XP.

As far as keeping XP secure and clean, its not that big of a deal if all you do is play games. I leave the WiFi on all the time, but you can easily disable it if you don't play multiplayer. Plus, I have never had a virus on Windows (cross my fingers) so I'm not too worried about it. Most spyware and virus's come from things you download, so if you only download 1.61 path, I think you'll be all right ;)

Thanks for the information. Most of that's pretty spot on for my case. Odd, though, I was told by another mac user that boot camp would work with an external drive. Darn.

Thanks for the information. Most of that's pretty spot on for my case. Odd, though, I was told by another mac user that boot camp would work with an external drive. Darn.
The only way I could see doing it would be to make your XP partition as small as possible in Boot Camp, b/c you have to use it to install the BIOS replicator. Then plu in your external drive and install XP to it in the XP setup. You would have a useless partition on your HDD, but it may only need to be a couple GB (5GB is default, never tried to make it any smaller).

If you want to put XP on an ext so it doesn't screw with OS X, there isn't any real possibility of that. Windows can't even see an HFS+ drive, so there is no way a virus could affect it. OS X can see and read NTFS, but not write to it.

Hmz, Can't argue with that.

When you buy a new system, there is a big chance it will be 10.5, Then you'll have to suddenly learn a lot of new things all at once. :eek:

Odds are, I'll be working with 10.4.6, unless 10.5 is coming out in the next month or so! :D BTW, when is 10.5 coming out? It's my understanding that it won't be until sometime in 2007 at the earliest.

Gatekeeper

Don't check RAM prices in Mac-specific stores. They are geared to Apple pricing in general. Check out places like Crucial, Adata etc. They price closer to the commodity market than to the jewelry quarter :p.

Heh. The biggest surprise I got when pricing my dream package at the Apple Store was the VRAM upgrade — it cost only $75 or so going from 128MB to 256MB. That's not too bad ... and, then again, maybe I'm just a "yokel" showing my ignorance of the marketplace when it comes to video cards. :D

I called MacZONE earlier Wednesday, and, suffice to say, I *wasn't* impressed at all with the salesman who handled my call. Maybe things have changed a bit at MacZONE since I last bought an iMac from them (in May 1999). I came away with the distinct impression that it's probably better to buy direct from the source (in this case, the Apple Store) than go through an intermediary. Aside from the RAM — and the sales tax ... God! That came to more than $145 alone — the prices were about what I expected. I added iWork to the package instead of MS Office 2004, though, because the reviews for the latter were, well, less than auspicious. I only hope iWork's "Pages 2" can save files readable in MS Word.

Gatekeeper

I added iWork to the package instead of MS Office 2004, though, because the reviews for the latter were, well, less than auspicious. I only hope iWork's "Pages 2" can save files readable in MS Word.
Gatekeeper
Having both iWork and MS Office, I wouldn't recomend going with just iWork. With Pages 2 you can export your file as Word, but you may loose some of the formating if you are doing anything other than black text. And though Pages 2 now has some of the features that I use most in Word (AutoCorrect, for example) they are nearly as good as those in Word. The only advantage to Pages 2 is the tables and ease-of-use when adding graphics. I would say Pages 2 is a better replacement of Publisher than Word.

Keynote 3 is amazing, but PPT export isn't too great. You loose most of the efefcts and things that make Keynote presentations so cool. So if you need to be able to show your presentations using PPT, PPT is the better option. If you can use your Mac or anotehr Mac w/ Keynote 3, then use Keynote.

Every Mac comes with a 30 day trial of iWork 06, so my suggestion would be to try that out. If you find it can do what you want, then buy it. Otehrwise, you will want to get Office.

I would agree. If you have a significant need to exchange MS Office documents then you should get Office 2004. In particular, Excel really has no good replacement. Even NeoOffice/OpenOffice is not really a match for it.

MS Office 2004 is still actually a pretty good package. It had some features that are in advance of those in Office for Windows. If you can get it at education price it's frankly a no-brainer.

When I get my copy, I'll post up on these forums as to how well it functions on my system (20" Intel Dual Core iMac, 1.5 GB RAM, etc.)

We'll all be waiting with bated breath :p

Let's face it, if that system doesn't eat Civ4 for breakfast there's no hope for anyone else.

Welcome, BTW :wavey:

BTW, when is 10.5 coming out? It's my understanding that it won't be until sometime in 2007 at the earliest.

Gatekeeper

Late 2006 / early 2007. Hopefully we'll get a more specific date at WWDC when it's previewed.

My guess is that Leopard will be released during the San Francisco show keynote in January. That should give it a good opportunity to upstage Vista.

Well, I supposed I'd better save another $129 for an upgrade, then. :D

I very much look forward to seeing Vista upstaged (assuming it is actually ever released ...) and thanks also for the welcome AlanH.

One thing I notice about my new iMac that simultaneously delights/enrages my Mac-using friends who have slightly older G5 systems is that they take 30+ seconds or a minute to go from power-off to login-ready bootup, whereas my iMac seems to take about 13 or so seconds ...

It BETTER play Civ 4!

considder this formula:
Netscape = old version of Mozilla suite + junk.


There are two reasons to use NS7. The first is the one Gatekeeper later identifies as his: an old system that is not supported by Mozilla/Firefox/Safari.

The other would be if you want AIM, web browser, and AOL Mail all integrated in one app. The Mozilla suite won't do AOL mail because that is proprietary.

Of course I don't know why you'd have an aol mail account anymore, but I suppose some people do out of sheer momentum.

In a prior life I worked on Netscape 6/7, & Mozilla, and Thunderbird.

Ok, about performance on the Intel-graphics machines, the Intel mini and the Macbooks:

First of all, the new review lends some light on this, as the reviewer says Civ 4 was "playable" on a Macbook with 512.

I ran Civ4 in Windows a couple months ago on a laptop with integrated Intel graphics and only 512. The game was initially playable, yes. However, once I got to the late game, it slowed down unbearably.

However, I think there's good news here. For one thing, I was running a huge map with maxed-out players. And it didn't seem to be the graphics that were the problem, as those ran just fine under the 64 Mb stolen from the system RAM. Given that the MacBooks have better processors than this Dell craptop I was using to run the game, then I think it's reasonable to assume that a MacBook with 1 Gb would run the game satisfactorily, perhaps with the graphics turned down. Max the MacBook out to 2 Gb, and it would probably be reliable and smooth.

Exactly Helmling. Enough RAM (aka over a GB) should make Civ 4 run well on a MacBook.

Not to repeat myself (third thread I've posted something similar to this in) but I consider the game unplayable on my g5 with 1.5 gigs of ram. Save your money, sorry! :(

Based on some of these posts, it appears that the minimum specs were actually set too low... I haven't got my copy yet (I have a g5 duo 1.8ghz 1gb RAM) but I have a feeling that the geforce 5200 isn't enough to run it.:(

Odds are, I'll be working with 10.4.6, unless 10.5 is coming out in the next month or so! :D BTW, when is 10.5 coming out? It's my understanding that it won't be until sometime in 2007 at the earliest.

Gatekeeper

But 10.4.7 came out day before yesterday.

:)

Not to repeat myself (third thread I've posted something similar to this in) but I consider the game unplayable on my g5 with 1.5 gigs of ram. Save your money, sorry! :(

What?

Unplayable on a G5? That just doesn't make any sense, unless Aspyr was really lazy and didn't optimize at all. Comparable power to a G5 on the PC side was more than enough to run Civ4...unless you have some crappy video card...but in a G5?

I have a G5 with a 9600 and 128 mb VRAM. Dual 2 gig. I'm pretty sure Civ IV will play okay on my machine, but I'm thinking about getting a better video card. However, it seems that there isnt' much out there, and what is out there costs about 200 bucks for even a modest upgrade. Pricing of Mac Video cards is absolutely ridiculous... but I feel even more sorry for people with unupgradable macs.

I'm still waiting to here from someone using a MacBook, but it wounds like they really screwed over the game. It runs OK on my Celeron 2.7GHz, 1GB RAM, 128MB GeForce MX 4000 (PCI), which is worse than the G5 1.5GB RAM that I have heard it is unplayable on. Like I've said before, it runs fine through the late game on my MacBook 2GB RAM on Windows, so it will be ineresting to see how teh Mac version runs in the late game.

I have a G4 (digital audio made in 2000) dual 1.33 powerlogix upgrade with a Radeon 9800 pro 256MB vram and 1.12 GB system ram.

It is slow but playable. Espescially on the smaller maps. I have played on small, tiny and dual. I doubt that it will be playable on larger maps (but I don't like big maps anyway cause I have ADD). I also have the sound issues that everyone else has. It has crashed on me once.

Ok,
I have

Dual G5 2 Ghz
1.5 Gig RAM
ATI Radeon® 800 XT (256)

What do you think, should I even give it a try?

Thanks

Ok,


What do you think, should I even give it a try?

Thanks

Of course, you are well within the recommended specs.

I have it running in a window and the cpu monitor up. It maxes out both of my cpu's even in the main menu when there is not even a game going. Should it do that? It averages at about a 180% cpu load. It is playable.

G4 Digital Audio (powerlogix dual 1.33 GHZ)
ATI Radeon 9800 pro 2X agp 256 MB VRAM

Should it do that?Sure! What else did you plan to use your computer for? :p

I have it running in a window and the cpu monitor up. It maxes out both of my cpu's even in the main menu when there is not even a game going. Should it do that? It averages at about a 180% cpu load. It is playable.

G4 Digital Audio (powerlogix dual 1.33 GHZ)
ATI Radeon 9800 pro 2X agp 256 MB VRAM

Just some random info for you - I checked my CPU usage using Activity Monitor and it seems that most of the CPU usage is 'nice' (a bit over 100%). That means that, while it will grab whatever it can get, you can still run other stuff in the background (iTunes maybe, given that the music doesn't actually work in Civ IV) without it all coming to a screeching halt because it will graciously allow others to use the CPU as well (how nice).

Here is some feedback: 20" Intel iMac, 1.5 GB RAM ...

Graphics/sound/playability so far good, though I have yet to proceed much into even the ancient era.

It has crashed the OS once - some sort of video card issue - in about 30 minutes of play time.

They're going to have to patch this thing.

My mac civ4 copy is still in the mail. Meanwhile in addition to the winciv4/bootcamp/imac report I made earlier, I've been playing a winciv4/bootcamp/macbook setup as well.

At first I had a stock macbook (512meg). On that setting the game worked but there were some glitches. It reported that my machine was below spec and wouldn't run the game, but then it would run anyway. I set everything to lowest res/least cpu and the game worked, although it did crach every once in a while. It was a bit slow.

Then I upgraded the ram to 2gig. I still keep the lowest settings else scrolling the map gets clunky, but on these settings the game is now reasonably reponsive. All my play has been standard map and opponent settings, except for epic speed and prince level. I've played fairly deep into the game (beyond 1000AD) and it's been fine.

I'll report on the mac version when I get it. I'll try it on a 2gig intel iMac (it had better be fine, that machine rocks), a 2gig intel macbook, and a 1.5gig dual 1.8 G5 with a GeForce FX 5200 (64meg vid ram).

(offtopic)
For memory I'd suggest OWC (macsales.com). Great prices, 100% compatibility guaranteed.

Also if you are "stuck" in OS 8.6 you can try Mozila Suite 1.3.1 -> http://wamcom.org/latest-131/ sure it doesn't have the latest rendering engine, but it sure beats Netscape 7.0.2 as it uses Mozilla 1.0.2 as rendering engine.
(/offtopic)

I'd say the Macs that will perform better then other Macs will be those with plenty of memory (1gb or more) and a dedicated graphics card with at least 4 pipelines (as in a Radeon 9200 wont cut it but a Radeon 9600 will) and 64mb of memory is ran at 1024x768 or lower and 128mb if ran at 1280x1024 or higher.

A current generation iMac will be able to fit the bill without problems, just plop in another memory stick (comes with 1x 512 by default, one bank empty).

It looks like my next computer will be the Mac Mini 1.66Ghz Intel Core Duo (with 2 GB of RAM). Does anyone know if civ 4 will be playable on this system? I'd preffer to play it on the mac side but since it will be dual booted I'll settle for the pc version if I must.

any info would be appreciated, thanks in advance.

Based on reports from MacBook users, it will likely be playable under either OS. However, it will not be supported by Aspyr.

is macbook data applicable to the intel mac mini?

sorry if that's a stupid question but my knowledge about hardware is very limited.

Pretty much, the 1.66 Mac Mini is just clocked a bit slower. MacBooks are 1.83 Ghz. I'd expect similar performance.

If I understand things correctly, it is the video card that is the key similarity(?), and the main reason that Aspyr won't officially support either model.

Both the mini and the MacBook have Intel 950 integrated graphics. They are the same basic computer except for their shape. The iMac and the MacBook Pro similarly share the same hardware but in a different shape.

god I love forums, thank you all very much. I'd spent 2 days on the phone (with little success) trying to get the straight forward info you guys gave me in a few hours. As a result, I'm changing plans and going with an imac, the mini is just too restrictive.

btw - don't give up on mac games! half of the reason I'm upgrading is to play civ 4.

god I love forums, thank you all very much...
Cool to have these lil' support groups, isn't it?

Well, this is strange.

I picked civ up today assuming I wouldn't be able to play it until I got my new system but tried it on my old g4 tower, just for the hell of it. That was a few hours ago, I'm presently at 1000 AD and aside from a few very minor glitches, it works perfectly fine. Granted, it's a small map and everything is set to minimum but I'm a bit shocked by how smooth it's been running considering the first thing the game says after starting is, "Your machine is below minimum specifications. Civ 4 will not run on this hardware setup.". I have the same sound problems as everyone else of course but the spock narrations come through loud and clear.

I haven't even tried the patch yet.

Machine Model: Power Mac G4
CPU Type: PowerPC G4 (3.2)
Number Of CPUs: 2
CPU Speed: 1.25 GHz
L2 Cache (per CPU): 256 KB
L3 Cache (per CPU): 1 MB
Memory: 512 MB

edit - I'll play this game to the end and let you know how it goes. I suspect things will get hairy as the interactions get more complex later in the game but I didn't think I'd even get this far so I'm happy.

Two CPUs is not doing you any harm, but you're doing well with only 512MBytes of memory. What's your video card? That's the other critical component.

this is a bit embarrassing but I have no clue what card I have. I looked it up in "About This Mac" but nothing looked like a video card (though, to be honest, I wouldn't recognize one if it bit me on the ass).

is this it?

ATY,RV250:

Type: display
Bus: AGP
Slot: SLOT-1
VRAM (Total): 64 MB
Vendor: ATI (0x1002)

Yes, I think so. If so you have a 64 MByte ATI card which just about staggers over the bar.

Looks as if you may be on an older version of OS X, as the System Profile format is different from mine. This is what my totally underpowered system looks like if I select Graphics/Displays in About This Mac (I have two displays on one video card) ...

NVIDIA GeForce4 MX:

Chipset Model: GeForce4 MX
Type: Display
Bus: AGP
Slot: SLOT-A
VRAM (Total): 32 MB
Vendor: nVIDIA (0x10de)
Device ID: 0x0172
Revision ID: 0x00a5
ROM Revision: 1121
Displays:
PLE435S:
Resolution: 1280 x 1024 @ 60 Hz
Depth: 32-bit Color
Core Image: Not Supported
Main Display: Yes
Mirror: Off
Online: Yes
Quartz Extreme: Supported
AY765:
Resolution: 1280 x 1024 @ 75 Hz
Depth: 32-bit Color
Core Image: Not Supported
Mirror: Off
Online: Yes
Quartz Extreme: Supported

yup, I'm still running on 10.3.9 (no point buying tiger when I'll get it free with my next system) but I omitted the device ID and my monitor info because I assumed it wasn't relevant. If that stuff is useful let me know and I'll post it all.

No problem. It sounds as if you are having a better time than you'd expect, on a limited system :thumbsup:

(limited by Civ4 standards, that is!)

Hmmm, based on looking over the posts, I might have a chance with my Powermac system, which is a 1.1 ghz upgrade, 576 megs of Ram that I know I need to upgrade (4 ram slots) and a Radeon 9000 video card with 128 megs of Ram. Anyone want to voice any opinions on my success. I figure I will by Civ4 for the Mac eventually anyway. We are running it on my son's Dell laptop, which is really borderline for it, and so far, aside from some sound skips, and changing the setting to single figures for display, have not had major problems. Still like Civ3 better, but I would like to play with the editor on Civ3. AlanH, is there any chance for a stand alone editor for Civ4? I have Adobe GoLive to edit xml, and a couple of good 3D programs for modelling terrain, units, and buildings.

AlanH, is there any chance for a stand alone editor for Civ4?
WorldBuilder is included with Civ4. I think that, and a text editor, are all you need for basic modding, and all that's used by a lot of the PC modders. Python is included with OS X. The full SDK is a non-starter at the moment, as the Mac version will not handle an external compiled mod library in the way the Windows version does.

If there are any independent PC utilities that you think should be made available for Mac, please shout. I'm not involved in modding, so I'll be the last person to find out if any are required.

All I want to know is, will it run on a 1.5Ghz G4? My graphics are up to snuff (Raedon 9700) and I have 1GB ram. Anyone done it?

Thanks

All I want to know is, will it run on a 1.5Ghz G4? My graphics are up to snuff (Raedon 9700) and I have 1GB ram. Anyone done it?

Thanks
You have my system.

It's not silky smooth but it's definitely playable.

As just tested with the new patch on a 1.42 GHz PPC Mac mini 32 MB VRAM 1 GB RAM, it's surprisingly playable at the min graphics settings. Has not crashed once. Can successfully play someone else's late game circa 1930's (http://sampo.ru/~headden/Harkonnen%20AD-1961.Civ4SavedGame) has been a few turns now no problem. And it's not unbearably slow.

Whatever problems people seemed to be having are either largely Intel-based or Aspyr was able to resolve many of the bugs with the beta patch.

My brother just got the game for his G4 ibook with 32mb of Vram, and believe it or not if all of the graphical and performance settings are on the lowest the game is playable. That is after installing the patch. No complaints on his side.

I found the playability bearable at the beginning with 1400x900 resolution and all graphics turned down, but it turned out dreadful as the game progressed. What a dissappointment really. I am thinking of sending the game back.

My system is iMac G5 (iSight rev., 1,9 GHz, 1,5 GB).

I found the playability bearable at the beginning with 1400x900 resolution and all graphics turned down, but it turned out dreadful as the game progressed. What a dissappointment really. I am thinking of sending the game back.

My system is iMac G5 (iSight rev., 1,9 GHz, 1,5 GB).

Turn down the resolution! It should help a ton. And get the patch if you haven't already.

I may be pushing the absolute limits of Mac operation with a Power Mac upgraded with an OWC chip to 1.1 Ghz, with a Radeon 9000 video card with 128 megs of RAM, and 576 megs of memory. With everything turned down, it runs real slow, but I at least can get an idea of how the game functions verses Civ3Complete. I am going to install the patch, and then gradually add functions until it basically stops. Screen resolution is 1024 x 768, but I have not turned down the refresh rate, which is at 85 hz. I suspect what is making it work at all is the video card, which in theory is not supported. If anyone has a more advanced system than mine, and the game is not running, I would recommend that they play with the game options, and download the patch if they have not already done so. I will be playing with the game a bit more, and post the results of changing the refresh rate, using the patch, and playing with gradually adding more graphics options.

By the way, I got Civ4 more to check out the worldbuilder than anything else, as I find playing Civ3Complete much more satisfying than playing Civ4 on my son's laptop, where it runs reasonably well.

Turn down the resolution! It should help a ton. And get the patch if you haven't already.
I have installed the patch, and turning down the resolution does but makes the game look worse. There appears to be a fundamental flaw (poor design?) with this software, because the same system runs e.g. WoW perfectly with graphic settings above minimal.

Performance update.

Just a reminder, my system runs on 10.3.9 and the hardware is:

Machine Model: Power Mac G4
CPU Type: PowerPC G4 (3.2)
Number Of CPUs: 2
CPU Speed: 1.25 GHz
L2 Cache (per CPU): 256 KB
L3 Cache (per CPU): 1 MB
Memory: 512 MB

ATY,RV250:

Type: display
Bus: AGP
Slot: SLOT-1
VRAM (Total): 64 MB
Vendor: ATI (0x1002)

This shouldn't be a surprise now that so many people have chimed in but I wanted to add some final thoughts about civ 4 on my specific system incase someone has it and want to know details before buying.

Most importantly, it can be played to the end even though I'm under spec. I've played 3 full games now and had no crashes or significant glitches (I consider a glitch significant if a restart/reload is required to remove it). Once fighting starts though, the game starts getting choppy and the more complex the interactions the choppier it gets.

It's hard for me say yes or no on wether to buy this. To me it's playable so I'm not sorry I bought it but I've noticed people seem to have very different definitions of "playable". btw, I have only tried playing in a window, everything set to minimum and using small maps.

Hopefully this info was helpful, if I missed any details let me know.

I am running on:
Hardware Overview:

Machine Name: iBook G4
Machine Model: PowerBook6,7
CPU Type: PowerPC G4 (1.5)
Number Of CPUs: 1
CPU Speed: 1.42 GHz
L2 Cache (per CPU): 512 KB
Memory: 1 GB

and a ATI Mobility Radeon 9550: 32 MB

Well...I have 4 cities now. Is slow, but I think I will play some more. If there any suggestions how to get the most out of the machine. I set everything to minimum in civ and closed all other apps before starting. I have the patch aswell.

I am running on:
Hardware Overview:

Machine Name: iBook G4
Machine Model: PowerBook6,7
CPU Type: PowerPC G4 (1.5)
Number Of CPUs: 1
CPU Speed: 1.42 GHz
L2 Cache (per CPU): 512 KB
Memory: 1 GB

and a ATI Mobility Radeon 9550: 32 MB

Well...I have 4 cities now. Is slow, but I think I will play some more. If there any suggestions how to get the most out of the machine. I set everything to minimum in civ and closed all other apps before starting. I have the patch aswell.

This seems like exactly the same iBook as I have - I would be interested to hear how the game has been running on this system since your last post.

I've recently ordered Civ3 to play on the same system and waiting for it to be delivered to the store. I chose Civ3 due to the lower system requirements, but it would be interesting to hear how someone else has gone over time with the above system.