5 Replies Latest reply: Jul 14, 2013 5:23 AM by Csound1
BertieTBE Level 1 (0 points)

Hello,

 

Would be greatful of your views on how much slower Mountain Lion is when compared to Snow Leapard. I'm thinking of upgreading a 2008 Macbook with 4GB of Ram.

 

Please note my question relates to running ML on an older (but still compatible) Mac.

 

Any thoughts much aprecated.

 

Thank you very much in advance.

 

BertieTBE


MacBook, Mac OS X (10.6.8)
  • andyBall_uk Level 7 (20,490 points)

    my 2007 macbook pro with 4GB seems much the same, perhaps even a little quicker.

  • BertieTBE Level 1 (0 points)

    Thank you very much andyBall UK!

     

    Anyone else?

  • sig Level 8 (35,785 points)

    I would stick with Snow Leopard on your 2008 Mac unless you need ML to run some software or you need some new functionality (iCloud) that needs the upgrade.

  • LowLuster Level 6 (12,065 points)

    Anyone that says Moutain Lion runs as fast or faster on older hardware is just kidding themselves. It doesn't and can't. Simple fact is it uses a lot more system resources then Snow Leopard and slightly more resources then Lion did (Lion also uses a lot more resources then Snow Leopard).

     

    So those that say Mountain Lion runs better then Snow Leopard on older hardware had problems with their Snow Leopard install.

     

    Stay where you are until you need a new computer.

  • Csound1 Level 8 (46,880 points)

    LowLuster wrote:

     

    Anyone that says Moutain Lion runs as fast or faster on older hardware is just kidding themselves

    I have an 09 MBP that has ML in one partition and SL in another, it is faster in the ML partition. I dislike your assumption that you know better than everyone else.

     

    Are you sure that's low and not lack?