Any temperature improvements?

unlikely, I have yet to hear of any performance improvements in ML, only features added. Which just means more crap running in the background.

electronique said:

When I went from Snow Leopard-Lion, on my 2011 MBP, I had noticed quite a large increase in temperature. Its not uncommon for some apps to push my MBP to 70+ degrees celsius... Also noticed a decrease in battery life.

For those with ML. Any improvements with temperature or battery life?

Click to expand...

70 degrees Celsius is a normal operating temperature for SB CPUs. Even 93 Celsius is still a normal operating temp for those chips, even though that is very freaking hot and you'll probably notice slowness at that point.

MonkeyBrainz said:

70 degrees Celsius is a normal operating temperature for SB CPUs. Even 93 Celsius is still a normal operating temp for those chips, even though that is very freaking hot and you'll probably notice slowness at that point.

Click to expand...

My 2011 iMac with i7 chip, runs at 40°C under normal use...

T'hain Esh Kelch said:

My 2011 iMac with i7 chip, runs at 40°C under normal use...

Click to expand...

Good for you, but that has nothing to do with what I said. I was reassuring him that 70 is a normal (and safe) operating temperature for a 2011 MBP. Mine is usually between 50 and 80 depending on what I'm doing.

mulo said:

unlikely, I have yet to hear of any performance improvements in ML, only features added. Which just means more crap running in the background.

Click to expand...

Everyone i've seen has commented that ML seems to run smoother and better than Lion.

electronique said:

While smoother and better is always good..
Theres a difference between 'Smoother and better' and... less CPU/GPU intensive..

Click to expand...

You're right, i should have explained better. A majority of people have said things like smoother and better, but the few that have looked more thoroughly have said less RAM/CPU as well. One guy on here said Lion at boot took about 3 GB and Mountain Lion was down to 1.5-2 GB at boot.

cocky jeremy said:

You're right, i should have explained better. A majority of people have said things like smoother and better, but the few that have looked more thoroughly have said less RAM/CPU as well. One guy on here said Lion at boot took about 3 GB and Mountain Lion was down to 1.5-2 GB at boot.

Click to expand...

I'm one of those that said that..

ML is not just lion with more crap, It's actually a nice OS..When you use it it feels alot like Snow Leopard and uses less resources.

fans

My fans seem to be running more often on my Air with ML than with Lion

MonkeyBrainz said:

Good for you, but that has nothing to do with what I said. I was reassuring him that 70 is a normal (and safe) operating temperature for a 2011 MBP. Mine is usually between 50 and 80 depending on what I'm doing.

Click to expand...

It had everything to do with what you said, as it was ambiguous and could be understood in two ways.

T'hain Esh Kelch said:

It had everything to do with what you said, as it was ambiguous and could be understood in two ways.

Click to expand...

We're talking about fan speeds in completely different computing devices. Also leaving a "..." at the end of a comment while remaining vague generally has a negative connotation, not ambiguity. Forgive me if I misunderstood your intention.

--- double post ---

cocky jeremy said:

You're right, i should have explained better. A majority of people have said things like smoother and better, but the few that have looked more thoroughly have said less RAM/CPU as well. One guy on here said Lion at boot took about 3 GB and Mountain Lion was down to 1.5-2 GB at boot.

Click to expand...

I put ML on a 2008 MBP with 2 GB of RAM. After boot, the wired memory is about 300 MB, and total memory in use is less than one GB. SL on the same machine did get along with less than 200 MB wired.

Now, Lion, on my 8 GB machine, usually starts with 700 MB wired, and about 1.3 GB of memory in use.

Now, I'm not sure if this shows that ML is better with memory management, or if OSX is programmed to use more memory if it is available, but it seems like a good sign. Performance on the 2008 machine is still very slow, since Safari quickly uses up the available memory.

Safari 5.2 still uses a lot of RAM, but for me at least, it's MUCH quicker than previous Safari versions. Quick enough to switch me back from Chrome.