i have the same issue with my 13 2011 2.4 i7 8gb ram 10.7.3 any fix?thanks for great work
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
UltraFan
- Thread starter LostSoul80
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i have the same issue with my 13 2011 2.4 i7 8gb ram 10.7.3 any fix?thanks for great work
Nice work on this app. I just downloaded rev. 8.2. Running 10.7.3 on a late 2010 15" MBP. Functionally the app works great, but I've got a couple of suggestions.
Normally I don't take the time to write epics novels like this, but it seems that you're genuinely interested in what we've got to say and are taking some suggestions to heart. So I thought I'd spill my guts. Sorry.
1) Give us the option to use C or F.
In the set target temperature dialog, I think it would be better if we had some more options:
2a) Instead of a strict target temperature, we should be allowed to set minimums and maximums.
2b) Instead of only setting the target for the CPU, we should set targets for the GPU and enclosure.
3) You could have a slider-style control (by slider I mean the kind of element you have for choosing the target temperature) to let us choose whether we want more continuous or less continuous adjustment of fan speeds.
4) Simplify your menubar display. Or give us some different templates.
Here's my rationale for these suggestions:
1) Celsius and Fahrenheit. Normally I'm all about metric, but as a user of smcFanControl, I switched my display to F for the past 2 weeks and only recently got used to it. I wanted to compare the side-by-side temp readings but had to change my smcFanControl settings to do that. This made me think that for people that are more standard-minded, a unit toggle couldn't hurt. I don't think anyone routinely uses Kelvin, but you could throw that there as an option too. (iStatPro has a Kelvin setting- it seems enough people use iStatPro that Kelvin could conceivably be used by more than a handful of users.)
2) There seem to be two general reasons why people would like an applet like smcFanControl (the established free temperature control) or UltraFan. Some people think that Apple's preset thresholds are too high and would rather keep their components (and laps) a little cooler in the name of longevity (and comfort). Other people don't like how their fans spin up all of a sudden. They get used the their fan at a fixed speed and the noise fades into the background. So under some workloads, their fans speeds fluctuate and get more annoying. With smcFanControl, I just set my fans to go at 4800rpm minimum and let my temperatures wander. The noise fades into the background and for the most part, I don't get surprised by a sudden increase in fan speed.
If you had temperature ranges available, you address the noise issue. Ie: target 60C, min 58C, max 70C. UltraFan could make *very* gradual changes to fan speed within the 58-70C range so that we don't hear sudden changes in fan speed. As I type this long-winded reply, I've noticed my fan spin up and down a few times and have become irritated by this aspect of UltraFan. I've read (in other forums) that some people use their MBPs in a recording studio type setting. I'll admit that I don't know too much about audio recording, but I would think that it's easier to "clean up" fan noise from a recording if the fan noise is relatively constant.
Secondly, if you allow us to set target temperatures for the CPU, GPU, and enclosure, we would be able to tailor UltraFan to our preferences. When I'm lounging around with my MBP on my lap, I don't care where my CPU or GPU temps are. I care most about how hot my lap is. iStatPro shows 3 different sensors on my MBP for the enclosure, so you'd have to figure out which sensors are associated with the location of the CPU and GPU. (I'd be welcome to beta test this). Anyway, the point is, sometimes the enclosure temperature matters to a user far more than the CPU/GPU temperatures. This would add a fair amount of complexity to your settings panel though. Now you would need to also allow us to prioritize which temperature trumps which. (Ie: You could hit a CPU minimum of 70C before you hit an enclosure maximum of 45C. So your crotch would be on fire but your CPU is happy as a clam. End result: mad user.)
3) Option for gradual vs rapid fan speed change. This partly is related to the "my fans keep spinning up and down and it's more annoying than if they were just on all the time" crowd. This kind of setting would tell UltraFan whether to change fan RPMs in increments of 500rpm or something closer to 100rpm, and whether these adjustments will happen every 1 second or 20 seconds. (Ie: Min CPU 58C, target 60C, max 70C. 100rpm increments every 20 seconds might be enough to keep me between 58-70C most of the time without me noticing my fan speeds changing.)
4) Tweak the menubar display. I don't personally care for 2-decimal point precision in temperatures. But I do like knowing how fast my fans are running. Someone else might not care how fast their fans are running. So you can either give us a bunch of options or take them all away. Download smcFanControl and have a look at their various layouts. Something like that would be a start. But you could improve on it.
For the record, I use smcFanControl's multiline display with temperature and fan speed. Here's how I'd make it better. Line 1: Current temp rounded to nearest degree. Black font if at target. Blue font if under target. Red font if over target. Various shades of Blue-Black-Red to correspond with how far away from target. Line 2: Fan speed of fastest fan, in black font. Similar color changes to tell us whether the fan will be going faster, slower, or the same. Or, to be kind of awesome, italicize it if it's going to go faster and left tilt italicize for slower.
Normally I don't take the time to write epics novels like this, but it seems that you're genuinely interested in what we've got to say and are taking some suggestions to heart. So I thought I'd spill my guts. Sorry.
1) Give us the option to use C or F.
In the set target temperature dialog, I think it would be better if we had some more options:
2a) Instead of a strict target temperature, we should be allowed to set minimums and maximums.
2b) Instead of only setting the target for the CPU, we should set targets for the GPU and enclosure.
3) You could have a slider-style control (by slider I mean the kind of element you have for choosing the target temperature) to let us choose whether we want more continuous or less continuous adjustment of fan speeds.
4) Simplify your menubar display. Or give us some different templates.
Here's my rationale for these suggestions:
1) Celsius and Fahrenheit. Normally I'm all about metric, but as a user of smcFanControl, I switched my display to F for the past 2 weeks and only recently got used to it. I wanted to compare the side-by-side temp readings but had to change my smcFanControl settings to do that. This made me think that for people that are more standard-minded, a unit toggle couldn't hurt. I don't think anyone routinely uses Kelvin, but you could throw that there as an option too. (iStatPro has a Kelvin setting- it seems enough people use iStatPro that Kelvin could conceivably be used by more than a handful of users.)
2) There seem to be two general reasons why people would like an applet like smcFanControl (the established free temperature control) or UltraFan. Some people think that Apple's preset thresholds are too high and would rather keep their components (and laps) a little cooler in the name of longevity (and comfort). Other people don't like how their fans spin up all of a sudden. They get used the their fan at a fixed speed and the noise fades into the background. So under some workloads, their fans speeds fluctuate and get more annoying. With smcFanControl, I just set my fans to go at 4800rpm minimum and let my temperatures wander. The noise fades into the background and for the most part, I don't get surprised by a sudden increase in fan speed.
If you had temperature ranges available, you address the noise issue. Ie: target 60C, min 58C, max 70C. UltraFan could make *very* gradual changes to fan speed within the 58-70C range so that we don't hear sudden changes in fan speed. As I type this long-winded reply, I've noticed my fan spin up and down a few times and have become irritated by this aspect of UltraFan. I've read (in other forums) that some people use their MBPs in a recording studio type setting. I'll admit that I don't know too much about audio recording, but I would think that it's easier to "clean up" fan noise from a recording if the fan noise is relatively constant.
Secondly, if you allow us to set target temperatures for the CPU, GPU, and enclosure, we would be able to tailor UltraFan to our preferences. When I'm lounging around with my MBP on my lap, I don't care where my CPU or GPU temps are. I care most about how hot my lap is. iStatPro shows 3 different sensors on my MBP for the enclosure, so you'd have to figure out which sensors are associated with the location of the CPU and GPU. (I'd be welcome to beta test this). Anyway, the point is, sometimes the enclosure temperature matters to a user far more than the CPU/GPU temperatures. This would add a fair amount of complexity to your settings panel though. Now you would need to also allow us to prioritize which temperature trumps which. (Ie: You could hit a CPU minimum of 70C before you hit an enclosure maximum of 45C. So your crotch would be on fire but your CPU is happy as a clam. End result: mad user.)
3) Option for gradual vs rapid fan speed change. This partly is related to the "my fans keep spinning up and down and it's more annoying than if they were just on all the time" crowd. This kind of setting would tell UltraFan whether to change fan RPMs in increments of 500rpm or something closer to 100rpm, and whether these adjustments will happen every 1 second or 20 seconds. (Ie: Min CPU 58C, target 60C, max 70C. 100rpm increments every 20 seconds might be enough to keep me between 58-70C most of the time without me noticing my fan speeds changing.)
4) Tweak the menubar display. I don't personally care for 2-decimal point precision in temperatures. But I do like knowing how fast my fans are running. Someone else might not care how fast their fans are running. So you can either give us a bunch of options or take them all away. Download smcFanControl and have a look at their various layouts. Something like that would be a start. But you could improve on it.
For the record, I use smcFanControl's multiline display with temperature and fan speed. Here's how I'd make it better. Line 1: Current temp rounded to nearest degree. Black font if at target. Blue font if under target. Red font if over target. Various shades of Blue-Black-Red to correspond with how far away from target. Line 2: Fan speed of fastest fan, in black font. Similar color changes to tell us whether the fan will be going faster, slower, or the same. Or, to be kind of awesome, italicize it if it's going to go faster and left tilt italicize for slower.
Last edited:
I've been using Ultra Fan for a month now. The issues described on page 3 of this thread were, I discovered, unrelated to UltraFan. I like it much better than SMC Fancontrol and intend to continue using it.
However, I do think that a gradual fan acceleration as mentioned by the previous poster would be of benefit. It seems to me that UltraFan increases fan speed a little vigorously at times.
At other times, FanSpeeds seem to increase without justification (judging by the ambient temperatures as reported by iStat Menus)
I appreciate that a change like the one described may be difficult for the developer to implement but perhaps Lost Soul might consider it for the future.
Thanking you, LS, for a great app.
However, I do think that a gradual fan acceleration as mentioned by the previous poster would be of benefit. It seems to me that UltraFan increases fan speed a little vigorously at times.
At other times, FanSpeeds seem to increase without justification (judging by the ambient temperatures as reported by iStat Menus)
I appreciate that a change like the one described may be difficult for the developer to implement but perhaps Lost Soul might consider it for the future.
Thanking you, LS, for a great app.
Sorry for the late reply, haven't checked the thread for a few days now.
That's something I wanted to implement, but no one was requesting it.
Now that you mention it, I'll let the user choose the preferred unit.
The range of temperature sounds like a nice idea.
That would allow for more gradual changes, as you state, within that range. When exiting the maximum threshold set, however, UltraFan would need to make bigger jumps, but that too sounds ok. As a downside, this would probably create some confusion, but I can design an appropriate interface for it.
As for 2b), I have to find out how to retrieve precise data from different sensors, if found. Haven't looked much into that, but I will.
There's a problem with 3). If I let the user choose how aggressive UltraFan should behave, then it's more likely for it to pass the threshold, thus creating a conflicting behaviour with the logic you expressed in 2a).
That could be applied when in the selected range, but I don't think that would make much sense there, as UltraFan would already go on the gradual route.
I like the 4) also, but don't really think the user has to be notified about the rpm of the fans.
I'm going to implement a similar system with the beta version of 8.3. When ready I'll send it to you via pm, if that'so ok.
Thanks for the feedback and the suggestions. Appreciated. Feel free to express your opinion on my reply.
I can implement a more gradual and intelligent system, and seen that may of you would like it, I'll code it. Again, thanks for the feedback and appreciation.
That's something I wanted to implement, but no one was requesting it.
Now that you mention it, I'll let the user choose the preferred unit.
The range of temperature sounds like a nice idea.
That would allow for more gradual changes, as you state, within that range. When exiting the maximum threshold set, however, UltraFan would need to make bigger jumps, but that too sounds ok. As a downside, this would probably create some confusion, but I can design an appropriate interface for it.
As for 2b), I have to find out how to retrieve precise data from different sensors, if found. Haven't looked much into that, but I will.
There's a problem with 3). If I let the user choose how aggressive UltraFan should behave, then it's more likely for it to pass the threshold, thus creating a conflicting behaviour with the logic you expressed in 2a).
That could be applied when in the selected range, but I don't think that would make much sense there, as UltraFan would already go on the gradual route.
I like the 4) also, but don't really think the user has to be notified about the rpm of the fans.
I'm going to implement a similar system with the beta version of 8.3. When ready I'll send it to you via pm, if that'so ok.
Thanks for the feedback and the suggestions. Appreciated. Feel free to express your opinion on my reply.
I can implement a more gradual and intelligent system, and seen that may of you would like it, I'll code it. Again, thanks for the feedback and appreciation.
Thanks for taking the time to read, digest, and reply LS. It's refreshing to have dialogue with the dev directly. And promptly I might add.
I see what you're saying about how 3) (changing how aggressive we want fan speeds adjusted) and 2a) (target temperature ranges) overlap.
What I meant was that within the target temperature ranges, Ultrafan could make very gradual adjustments at longer intervals. But once temps go out of range, users can decide how aggressive they want the adjustments made. If you really wanted to make UltraFan highly customizable, you could allow us to choose how aggressive to adjust within the range and outside of the range. But at some point giving us all this control is going to make configuring UltraFan kind of complicated.
I figured it would be easier and less complex if you didn't allow user configuration on how aggressive fan speeds should be adjusted within the temperature range. That way whatever you feel is acceptable for staying within the temp range would be hard-coded into UltraFan.
So let's say I set min 58C, target 60C, max 70C. If I'm >60C and increasing, UltraFan might increase my fan speed by 100rpm every 10-20sec. Assuming I didn't start something CPU intensive, eventually the fans will be fast enough to get my CPU temps trending back towards 60.
UltraFan could hold my fan speeds as long as my temp is trending down, or it could start to decrease my fan speeds as I get closer to 60. I don't know which style most people would prefer though. In either case, eventually I should approach 60 and there's a good chance the fan speeds would be overkill. So as I trend below 60, UltraFan can start cutting fan speed by 50rpm every 10-20sec or something.
The slider I was describing in 3) was meant to control what happens at >70. The more options you give us, the more complex UltraFan is going to get. Both to use and for you to develop. I'm sure there could be a pretty sweet GUI to define UltraFan behavior well, but that might take a lot of thinking and creativity. I'll let it stew for a few days and see if I can think of something awesome.
In the meantime, as you get 8.3b up and running, I'd love to play around with it. I'm not terribly familiar with the macrumors forum software, but I think I now have PMs enabled.
I see what you're saying about how 3) (changing how aggressive we want fan speeds adjusted) and 2a) (target temperature ranges) overlap.
What I meant was that within the target temperature ranges, Ultrafan could make very gradual adjustments at longer intervals. But once temps go out of range, users can decide how aggressive they want the adjustments made. If you really wanted to make UltraFan highly customizable, you could allow us to choose how aggressive to adjust within the range and outside of the range. But at some point giving us all this control is going to make configuring UltraFan kind of complicated.
I figured it would be easier and less complex if you didn't allow user configuration on how aggressive fan speeds should be adjusted within the temperature range. That way whatever you feel is acceptable for staying within the temp range would be hard-coded into UltraFan.
So let's say I set min 58C, target 60C, max 70C. If I'm >60C and increasing, UltraFan might increase my fan speed by 100rpm every 10-20sec. Assuming I didn't start something CPU intensive, eventually the fans will be fast enough to get my CPU temps trending back towards 60.
UltraFan could hold my fan speeds as long as my temp is trending down, or it could start to decrease my fan speeds as I get closer to 60. I don't know which style most people would prefer though. In either case, eventually I should approach 60 and there's a good chance the fan speeds would be overkill. So as I trend below 60, UltraFan can start cutting fan speed by 50rpm every 10-20sec or something.
The slider I was describing in 3) was meant to control what happens at >70. The more options you give us, the more complex UltraFan is going to get. Both to use and for you to develop. I'm sure there could be a pretty sweet GUI to define UltraFan behavior well, but that might take a lot of thinking and creativity. I'll let it stew for a few days and see if I can think of something awesome.
In the meantime, as you get 8.3b up and running, I'd love to play around with it. I'm not terribly familiar with the macrumors forum software, but I think I now have PMs enabled.
Testing it out, so far so good but i have found some bugs:
1. to re-set the speed, you need to hit "cancel" in the UI box rather than just pick a new speed, this isn't immediately obvious
2. somehow, the event queue for the UI got screwed up, and i tried to get "about" info but it didn't work. I tried again, didn't work. until i cancelled and then re-set the temp target, and then the about boxes became visible.
other than that, seems to work as advertised so far.
might i offer a suggestion?
allow the user to either tweak the "set" cpu temp in the menu bar, or make it darker. at the moment i have green on pale grey and it looks horrid and difficult to read. Maybe just make it black like most of the other menu bar widgets, and leave the red colouring for the bar when you are in the set temperature interface?
will give it a run and see how it goes, i've been using SMCfancontrol up to this point, and been manually cranking up the min fan speed to try and work around the default MBP (2011) behaviour of waiting until the CPU temp gets real hot then suddenly ramp up to 6000rpm in an attempt to cool down (when the machine is already hot). from the sound of it, this app will get around me needing to do that.
nice work
edit:
you've actually inspired me to try and see if i can fix another annoyance i have with the core i7 in my mbp.
currently, whether or not it is on battery, on my lap, etc the machine will ramp up turbo speed for as long as it can to get as hot as it can.
sometimes, i don't care for this - i don't care how long a background task takes and would rather have the machine run cooler. I'm looking to see if i can write an app to limit the CPU clock to non-turbo spec (or even down clock) unless someone else has already written something like this?
1. to re-set the speed, you need to hit "cancel" in the UI box rather than just pick a new speed, this isn't immediately obvious
2. somehow, the event queue for the UI got screwed up, and i tried to get "about" info but it didn't work. I tried again, didn't work. until i cancelled and then re-set the temp target, and then the about boxes became visible.
other than that, seems to work as advertised so far.
might i offer a suggestion?
allow the user to either tweak the "set" cpu temp in the menu bar, or make it darker. at the moment i have green on pale grey and it looks horrid and difficult to read. Maybe just make it black like most of the other menu bar widgets, and leave the red colouring for the bar when you are in the set temperature interface?
will give it a run and see how it goes, i've been using SMCfancontrol up to this point, and been manually cranking up the min fan speed to try and work around the default MBP (2011) behaviour of waiting until the CPU temp gets real hot then suddenly ramp up to 6000rpm in an attempt to cool down (when the machine is already hot). from the sound of it, this app will get around me needing to do that.
nice work
edit:
you've actually inspired me to try and see if i can fix another annoyance i have with the core i7 in my mbp.
currently, whether or not it is on battery, on my lap, etc the machine will ramp up turbo speed for as long as it can to get as hot as it can.
sometimes, i don't care for this - i don't care how long a background task takes and would rather have the machine run cooler. I'm looking to see if i can write an app to limit the CPU clock to non-turbo spec (or even down clock) unless someone else has already written something like this?
Thanks. The new beta is still in the works, will send it when it's ready.
As for 1, that's intentional. You have to physically click the Set button, and I thought that way was the easiest to understand. The reason behind this is that I don't want to flood the core with requests. If you can think of an alternative way, post it here.
For 2, since UltraFan is a menu bar application, it can happen that some windows get spawned behind others, making them unnoticeable.
I defenitely welcome the suggestion on the color.
Haven't ever looked into that, but that'd be quite hard to get unless some usable bridges between OS X and TB exist, which I doubt.
This is why I encourage feedback and suggestions.
I'm also very interested in this app taking flight, as I think it holds great potential. I'm only on my second year of college as a systems engineer, but I'd like to help you with the code in any way I can. I also think porting this to windows would be excellent, as I know some people (myself included) use boot camp to overclock their cards and do some heavy gaming. Send me an email if you're interested =]
I don't have time to work on it, as you may have guessed.
However, here is revision 9 beta 1. It implements advanced criterias as to choosing what to do with the fans. It also implements and fixes a lot of things. Feel free to try it out and post back here.
This beta is not compiled for Leopard. If you're a Leopard user wanting to give it a try, just post in the thread.
iVikD, I'm not interested at the moment. But be sure I'll PM you when things change.
Thanks for all the suggestions and feedback so far.
However, here is revision 9 beta 1. It implements advanced criterias as to choosing what to do with the fans. It also implements and fixes a lot of things. Feel free to try it out and post back here.
This beta is not compiled for Leopard. If you're a Leopard user wanting to give it a try, just post in the thread.
iVikD, I'm not interested at the moment. But be sure I'll PM you when things change.
Thanks for all the suggestions and feedback so far.
Last edited:
On 9beta1 my 15" MBP Early 2008 2.4 Penryn (10.6.8) & Late 2011 2.4 i7 MBP (10.7.4) only the right fan ramps up, left remains on default 2K, with UltraFan 8.2 both fans respond in unison, rpm`s monitored by iStat and audibly obvious
Dont see any more options over 8.2, barring C or F on MBP 4.1, 8.2 & Late 2011 Air, rolled back to 8.2
Dont see any more options over 8.2, barring C or F on MBP 4.1, 8.2 & Late 2011 Air, rolled back to 8.2
I'm testing the latest Beta revision on a Mac Mini, only one fan to control, so, ideally suited for an appliance like this.
My impressions so far are positive.
UF Beta 9, I feel, does a more sophisticated job of fan control than before. The sharp accelerations seem to be gone and the overall speed of the fan has increased somewhat but only a shade.
Right now, the Target is set for 63ºC, CPU temperature is 55ºC and the fan is running at 1806 rpm, a fraction above the default idling speed.
Admittedly, I'm not running the Mini very hard atm, listening to music and typing this.
The lurid emerald is gone and that's a good thing.
One peculiarity is that the font on the menu bar changes from regular to bold every so often.
Not sure what that is about.
I hope LS continues to develop this very worthwhile application.
This is a very promising and refined Beta in my estimation.
TY LS
My impressions so far are positive.
UF Beta 9, I feel, does a more sophisticated job of fan control than before. The sharp accelerations seem to be gone and the overall speed of the fan has increased somewhat but only a shade.
Right now, the Target is set for 63ºC, CPU temperature is 55ºC and the fan is running at 1806 rpm, a fraction above the default idling speed.
Admittedly, I'm not running the Mini very hard atm, listening to music and typing this.
The lurid emerald is gone and that's a good thing.
One peculiarity is that the font on the menu bar changes from regular to bold every so often.
Not sure what that is about.
I hope LS continues to develop this very worthwhile application.
This is a very promising and refined Beta in my estimation.
TY LS
Wow!
At 64, I am amazed that you can fix problems so fast, as they crop up,
You are very smart,KUDO's
At 64, I am amazed that you can fix problems so fast, as they crop up,
You are very smart,KUDO's
Thanks fpr the feedback.
Bold indicates UF is going to increase the speed.
I'll investigate as soon as I can, but I think I know what's going on.
Thanks!
Bold indicates UF is going to increase the speed.
I'll investigate as soon as I can, but I think I know what's going on.
At 64, I am amazed that you can fix problems so fast, as they crop up,
You are very smart,KUDO's
Thanks!
I don't have time to work on it, as you may have guessed.
However, here is revision 9 beta 1. It implements advanced criterias as to choosing what to do with the fans. It also implements and fixes a lot of things. Feel free to try it out and post back here.
This beta is not compiled for Leopard. If you're a Leopard user wanting to give it a try, just post in the thread.
iVikD, I'm not interested at the moment. But be sure I'll PM you when things change.
Thanks for all the suggestions and feedback so far.
I cannot get this running on Mountain Lion. 8.2 runs but won't save any settings so I can't run it at startup.
This is the same for me. Same 2010 15inch Macbook Pro also running the newest version of Lion. I have to enter my password every time I turn the application on after restarting my computer or the app, very annoying. I am all for the automatic vote. Also I set my desired temp all works well and when I go to quit the application it comes up with a warning that states:
"Warning:
In order for UltraFan to open at launch, a target temperature must be set. Do you want to set it?"
If you could solve these two things this app will become indispensable to me.
You are certainly on a winner here. Thank you.
A window pops up with an error? And/or UltraFan crashes? Please, give as much information as you can.
The next beta should implement the automatic launch, but I have to think about it. The point is, as a user, I want to get notified of anything using my privileges. We'll see.
As for the warning you're getting, that's normal. If you check the open at launch option, you must give it a temperature so that it starts right away. I can change this, of course. Let me know what do you think.
There are a couple things going on best I can tell. There is a message about it being "corrupt" and the help text basically says that, for example, scripts that modify themselves can trigger this. So I opened the .app's contents and was able to run one of the executables, (ultranfan1 i think, Im not in from of my mac now) and it opened a termnial window and said some things about not being able to adjust the fan speeds in the open terminal window. That may have been a permissions thing as I don't remember if it asked me to put my password in when running it manually that way.
The problem I am having in 8.2 is the same as the other posters, I can run it after each reboot but it never saves the settings in any way that will allow it to be added to login items.
I can get the exact text this evening and reply here as well for the mountain lion issues, but that was it to the best of my memory.