Macbook Pros Are Hot

61 Comments

As many of you have seen, heard, or used a Macbook Pro, you know that they run kind of hot. This is partially because of the insane processor speed, and the small size of the casing; even though there are some other mysteries of the heat. But another fact that some of you may or may not know is that Apple purposely underclocks the Macbook Pro so it doesn’t over heat as much, but it still gets so warm it can become uncomfortable to sit on a lap. Well over at the Something Aweful forums, a user has pointed out that one of the reasons the Macbook Pro gets so hot is because of a misapplication of thermal grease. Now you can read the full article with pictures, or the instructions to disassemble your Macbook Pro yourself; but it does appear to have taken the temperature from about 55 degrees down to 39 degrees. This may void your warranty, so take extreme caution in attempting to do this, you do not want to destroy a $2500 computer.

61 Comments

Kevin L.

I will not argue the rationalization and placebo point; I am well aware of the possibility.

>>Lower peak case temperatures is proof of damage.
This is not justified. As has been discussed ad nauseum, we don’t know the extent of leakage between the heatpipes and case. If it is less significant than the effect caused by heat buildup around the CPU area, then cooling is proof of precisely the opposite.

Even then, there is no evidence that the temperatures measured were peak temperatures.

>>I have no evidence that there is increased fan activity. I’ve never seen anyone describe a controlled experiment with conscientious data collection. It’s always just someone’s feeling, and that isn’t science. So I just don’t believe that people are consistently seeing any improvement.

Reading through the SomethingAwful thread, the majority of those who reworked their machines report increased fan activity, usually from zero. In my opinion, the sudden appearance of fan activity is significant enough a change that it is unlikely to be the product of rationalization or placebo.

>>Right here on this page, Mark described the problems he’s had since messing with his machine. How much more evidence does anyone need that this rework is a bad idea?

Mark’s results indicate no change in case temperature, and a decrease in reported CPU temperature. How does this support your argument?

>>sometimes they report evidence that proves they made things worse after all, like the original writer did on Something Awful.

For obvious reasons, I object to this statement.

Peter Glaskowsky

As far as I can tell, I didn’t say anything wrong in any of my comments here, but I’ve learned that being right isn’t a guarantee that people will understand or agree with me. I have as much professional experience as a writer as I do as an engineer, and I still can’t write in a way that absolutely precludes misunderstanding. I don’t even know anyone who can.

You ask if the increased fan activity isn’t proof that the rework helps. I have no evidence that there is increased fan activity. I’ve never seen anyone describe a controlled experiment with conscientious data collection. It’s always just someone’s feeling, and that isn’t science. So I just don’t believe that people are consistently seeing any improvement. If anything, the evidence suggests most people who make this change have screwed up their machines.

Since the facts clearly show that replacing a five-mil film of one brand of thermal paste with a two-mil film of some other random brand– the best outcome one might rationally hope for– isn’t going to make a meaningful difference, I can’t see how anyone can support this modification. Sure, there might be individual cases where someone had a machine that was screwed up by the factory, and futzing with it helped somehow, but I doubt it.

It’s far more likely that people are inventing rationalizations after the fact. That behavior is pretty much universal in this kind of situation. Talk to ten people who have modified an imported compact sports car and nine of them will report improved performance. Put them on a dynamometer or race track, and the odds are that only one or two will actually be better. Most will see no change and some will be worse– because those cars are professionally engineered to begin with, and amateur modifications are more likely to hurt than help.

This is what I’m talking about:

http://autorepair.about.com/cs/productreviews/fr/aafpr052002.htm

Heatsink goop has become the Tornado of the MacBook Pro market. The modification usually can’t help, and it certainly can do harm, but whenever you see people speaking up about it they’re convinced they did the right thing. They will invent evidence as needed to support their positions.

In this case, since people don’t always understand the evidence, sometimes they report evidence that proves they made things worse after all, like the original writer did on Something Awful. Lower peak case temperatures is proof of damage. Right here on this page, Mark described the problems he’s had since messing with his machine. How much more evidence does anyone need that this rework is a bad idea?

. png

Kevin L.

>Now– is this a blistering reply? Do I sound like a troll?
No, and I’m glad =) Your previous replies came across as assumptuous and unjustified. To be perfectly honest, my opinion was “like a guy _pretending_ to have a lot of relevant professional experience”.

>I’ve never implied the primary purpose of the heat pipes was to transfer the heat to the case.

In support of my previous statement, your first post seemed to clearly imply this ;) I understand what you mean now.

>I’m saying that this recommended rework generally interferes with this preferred situation, and certainly can’t help.

Can you clarify? From what I’ve read, the fans *do* come on more often, which implies to me that the rework gives the desired results (i.e. more heat leaving the case through the proper pathway). Are the fans not indicative that the heatpipes are getting hotter? To me, this is the strongest argument for the procedure.

Peter Glaskowsky

Ah, there we are. Thanks be to the gods of The Apple Blog.

. png

Peter Glaskowsky

Be patient, everyone, there’s a nice long comment awaiting moderation. :-)

Since Friday. :-(

. png

Peter Glaskowsky

The only thing that would wound my ego is to learn that I’ve been misleading people. The only reason I’ve been posting is to discourage people from screwing up their machines by following all the bad advice that’s gone around on this topic. I haven’t heard a single thing from you or anyone else that shows anyone has improved the operation of their computer by messing with the thermal paste, and there’s a LOT of evidence of ruined machines. I don’t say anyone is doing this maliciously, but the results speak for themselves.

I’m not going to pick nits with you line by line, but a few points are worth addressing.

If you want to be technical, there are no heat sinks in any ordinary computer. Everything just transfers heat. A block of aluminum acts as a heat sink only while it’s warming up, and that’s not an important point. The thing between the CPU and the heat pipe is most properly called a “heat exchanger,” as is the thing between the other end of the heat pipe and the air. When I’m having technical discussions with engineers and product managers at companies that make thermal-management hardware– as I’ve done within the last month as part of my job– I use the proper terms. But here, I’m talking to people who use the term “heat sink” broadly to cover all these things, so in the interest of more effective communication, I use that term too. I also used the term “radiator” in an earlier comment here because that seemed to help.

I don’t actually know to what extent the heat pipes are coupled to the case, although obviously they are to some extent, through the air if nothing else. I think you’re maybe reading too quickly or something; I’ve never implied the primary purpose of the heat pipes was to transfer the heat to the case. But because they run close to the case– at least, closer than the CPU itself– if they’re hotter, the case nearby will likely be hotter.

You’re entirely correct to point out that if more heat gets into the heat pipes, and the fans come on, more heat leaves through the preferred path and therefore less leaves through other paths such as the case. But I’m not arguing against that. I’m saying that this recommended rework generally interferes with this preferred situation, and certainly can’t help.

But even so, unless the heat gets out of the CPU into the hot end of the heat pipe, it’s going to have a more difficult time getting into the case in that area. That essential truth undermines the rest of your argument, so I won’t spend much more time on it.

You’re correct to say that if the CPU is not well connected to its heat exchanger, the heat still has to go somewhere. With a good connection, the heat is directed to the relatively small areas around the hot chips, heat exchangers, and heat pipes. Without a good connection, it just goes everywhere. The heat pipes don’t get as hot, and the hot spots on the case don’t get as hot. So this creates the appearance of reduced case temperatures. The CPU, unfortunately, gets hotter.

This is why you’re wrong to say “the case temperature cannot be lower if heat is not dissipated through the fans.” The total heat leaving through the case is the same (barring thermal throttling, which must be happening in the most severe cases of user-induced damage), but it’s more diffuse, so the peak temperatures are lower. The difference between total flux and flux density is also one of those things they teach us in college, remember?

On the question of where the thermal sensors are located– well, there are several sensors. People are reporting all kinds of temperature readings, and some of them just don’t make sense– not according to my analysis or yours either. So honestly I don’t know what to make of these reports.

The MacBook Pro case certainly is meant to help dissipate heat, at least in the sense that Apple’s thermal engineers know perfectly well it provides a path to ambient. But yeah, they probably regard it as the undesirable path too.

You repeat the old canard about how “thick layers of thermal compound act as insulation.” We’re not talking about thick layers. It’s obvious from the photos of disassembled MacBook Pro systems that the excess goop Apple’s manufacturing technicians are squirting in there is almost entirely squeezed out when the heat sinks are mated to the chips; what’s left is a few thousandths of an inch thick. It’s certainly much thinner than an index card, which is around 0.007″ thick.

According to Wikipedia, “The typical silicon and zinc oxide thermal compound has thermal conductivity between 0.7 and 0.9 W/(m·K).” Now do the math– assume the CPU power is 31W, and tell me how much higher the CPU temperature will be for each additional 0.001″ of thermal compound. It works out to less than 0.001 degree C, literally unmeasurable.

In poking around on the net, I ran into this long article about some guy who tested many different kinds of thermal paste. Plus water, toothpaste, and Vegemite. The variance in his results across most of these substances, even with deliberate thickness variations, is just a few hundredths of a degree C per watt of power, or around one to two degrees of potential variance in CPU temperature. That’s less than the likely error margin for his measurements.

http://www.dansdata.com/goop.htm

Now– is this a blistering reply? Do I sound like a troll? I’m trying to sound like a guy with a lot of relevant professional experience designing and building microprocessor-based hardware. I’ve designed heat sinks for a living, with good results. I’m helping to design a microprocessor right now, and thermal management is one of the things I’m in charge of. So if you don’t mind, instead of f*cking myself, I’ll just get back to work.

. png

Kevin L.

>I repeat, a hot case is evidence that the heat sink is properly attached to the processor. Any change that results in a colder case will also result in a hotter processor. That’s bad.

Our fundamental difference here is that *you* believe that the heatpipes (NOTE: Heat *pipes*, not heatsink! The heatpipes transfer heat to the heatsink near the fans.) are thermally coupled to the case. While this is unavoidable to some extent (simply due to the physical contact), thus causing a small temperature increase when the heatpipe temperature increases, this is *by far* negligible compared to the thermal buildup that occurs when heat is *not* transferred to the heatpipes. When heat is improperly transferred to the heatpipes, more heat must instead be dissipated through the case. You’ll also note that with the fans off (as is observed prior to modifications), any heat that *is* transferred to the heatsink is not even dissipated properly, meaning ALL thermal energy generated by the CPU must be dissipated through the case. This is certainly the cause of any significant case temperature increase.

Even if the heatsink temperature increases, by your own reasoning, the net heat efflux must equal the net heat generated. If more heat is dissipated through the hotter fan air, then the net heat dissipated through the case _must_ be smaller than if the total amount of generated heat were dissipated through the case, even if there is some heat “lost” from the heatpipe to the case along the way. The case temperature cannot be lower if heat is not dissipated through the fans, because – by your own reasoning – the thermal energy cannot simply be dissipated “into the internal components” and vanish (albeit causing damage, as was the intent of your words). The thermal energy will build up inside, increasing the temperature of the entire system until the case temperature is high enough that the rate of heat transfer from case to air balances the deficiency of the heatsink/fan. The small amount of leakage you speak of cannot be compared with this greater effect, and in fact is simply a ‘fudge factor’ associated with the fundamental issue: Of the total heat generated, a large portion is transferred to the fans and dissipated, but some doesn’t make it along the way; whereas, in a problematic system, simply none of the heat is dissipated through the fans, and *everything* is dissipated through the case.

In any case – heat is not, and never was, meant to be dissipated through laptop casing. The vast majority of laptop surfaces are plastic, which is *not* a good heat conductor. The sum total of exposed metal surface area in the casing is insignificant compared to that the heatsink, which is then cooled via fans. There should be minimal heat transfer from the heat pipes to the case, and maximal transfer to the heatsink, in order to ensure best efficiency – especially since the fans provide much more air flow through the heatsink than the case receives from the relatively still air. If heat is properly dissipated through the heatsink/fans, i.e. at a large enough rate, the rate of dissipation through the case will decrease since rate of generation is constant.

While it should now be intuitively obvious that the case will measure cooler, I will continue academically: the rate of heat transfer from case to air (or between any two heat reservoirs) is directly related to the temperature difference between the two reservoirs, and therefore we can extrapolate that the lower rate of heat flow through the case is indicative of a lower case temperature.

I’m surprised at your oversight; this knowledge is elementary to any first-year engineering student, and I expect that an ‘editor in chief’ of the Microprocessor Report would know at least as much.

>For a given system, each of these thermal resistances is a given. Increasing one, for example by damaging the thermal connection between the CPU and the heatsink as advised by the original ignorant article on Something Awful, doesn’t reduce the others.

You’re making a *huge* assumption here: The thermal connection is NOT being damaged. In fact, this is quite the opposite; if you know anything about thermal conduction, you must understand that thick layers of thermal compound act as insulation, causing resistance rather than greater conductivity. While we’re talking about circuit analogues, the principle of series resistance gives that a thick layer of *anything* beyond what is required to eliminate air gaps between the two metal surfaces will only increase resistance.

>So whatever you’re measuring, it doesn’t matter. If your case is hot, the CPU is hot.
This is the first valid point you’ve made, although not in the way you meant it. The hot case is indicative of improper heat transfer to the heatpipes, and therefore of intense heat buildup in _all_ internal components of the laptop.

>But it’s always better to get the heat to leave through the heatsink, heat pipes, fan-blown air, and other elements of the purpose-built thermal management system. The fact that the Something Awful recommendations are causing lower temperatures on the heat pipe-attached thermal sensors is proof positive that using too little thermal compound is BAD for the system.

You are misinformed: The thermal sensors used for those measurements are *directly on the CPU*, not on the heatpipes. However, it is mentioned that the fans spin up more, indicating that the sensors that _are_ located on the heatpipes are detecting a *higher* temperature. Thus, as is desired, the heatpipe temperature increases and the CPU temperature decreases, indicating that more heat is transferred from CPU to heatpipe.

The heatpipe then efficiently conducts the heat to the heatsink, where the large surface area allows the fans to efficiently remove heat from the system via an out-of-the-way air outlet. You will note that, because the heatsink temperature is higher, and therefore the temperature difference between the air (cold reservoir) and heatsink (hot reservoir) is greater, the rate of heat flow to the air is greater, in addition to the fact that there is a greater rate of air flow due to the fans actually being _on_.

Of course, since the NET heat flow is constant, this means there is less heat that remains to be dissipated through other means, i.e. through the case, and therefore the case remains stable at a lower equilibrium temperature (i.e. the temperature at which net outward heat flow is equal to heat generated).

Of course, your wounded ego will prompt you to post a blistering reply, picking on perceived logic errors in my later paragraphs based on your own fundamental understanding of the issue. However, I must warn you: As I detailed _very_ clearly in my first paragraph, your entire argument has been flawed from the beginning due to an oversimplification, and I advise you to read my post carefully, and proofread your arguments before posting them lest you have the ground cut out from underneath you. On the other hand, if you are simply trolling here, go f*ck yourself and get a life. There are people here who are genuinely trying to help others.

Tan

I use the s/w call temprature monitor, and on my Macbook, light used its read about 45-60 C, heavy use it’s read about 62-70 C.

The bottom of the case is too hot to touch,

kevin

Whats the point of a LAPtop when you can’t use it on your lap!!

I have a mbp and am forced to do the majority of my work at a desk!

Mark

Yet another update after more than a week of heavy use. I suspect there is some issue with CoreDuoTemp software. I am now getting readings that are a bit more realistic which are ranging 25-60C. Not as bad as the original readings but the machine is still uncomfortable to use for extended periods of time.

I’m returning to the States next month and will take it up with Apple then. Regardless of the outcome, I will be obtaining one of the 17 inch MBP following the first hardware refresh. My guess is September timeframe when the new Intel Core 2’s come out.

jeroen

i just do not understand that mac is selling out their primary quality, building absolute perfect and superior machines for pro users. How can steve jobs present a product he couldnt even keep in his hands during his speech because its simply too hot. I am a owner of a mbp but find it unbelievable that i can not rest the side of my hand palm on the computer during typing and browsing.

If design is completely overruling useabillity than i start thinking about pc (did i really say this?)

Peter Glaskowsky

Look, the heat comes from the CPU. There’s just no way that the CPU temperature can be at 25 degrees C if the case is hot! This whole argument about “convention” vs. “conduction” is silly. Essentially all of the heat leaves the CPU through the heat pipes, which is effectively a process of conduction– what happens inside the heat pipes is not relevant here.

So whatever you’re measuring, it doesn’t matter. If your case is hot, the CPU is hot. It’s clear to me that you’ve screwed up your machine just like many of the other people who have messed with things they don’t understand. I’m sorry, but that’s the truth.

. png

Mark

I understand your reasoning however I believe that you have made some assumptions based on miss information. The CorDuoTemp software reads directly from the processor sensor. The information is coming directly through the main board. I am 100% sure the temp sensor wire are attached. If one is left unattached or fails to send a reading back to the hardware control the machine will go to a panic mode. In this mode the fans crank up nonstop in order to preserver the rest of the hardware.

I’m not going to go into conduction vs convection since there are many people who have already described this in detail. Conduction is what causes the case to get hot. Convection is what the heat pipe is intended to accomplish. Since apple bothered the pipe and fans in this cooker, I assume the plan was to force heat to the air instead of into the case.

In any case, the amount of heat generated by the process can be considered nearly the same with or without the proper heat paste. (One could argue that the process looses efficiency at higher temps therefore the as heat builds, the rate of heat generation also increases. Fine, but this affect is small in comparison to the processing heat.) The only thing that is changing as the heat paste configuration is modified is the path of heat flow. If the forced air convection (heat pipe) was sized accordingly and working properly, the case would not be so hot.

Something is obviously wrong. I’ve decided to give up on this machine and buy the first next generation 17” that arrives. The amount of discussion this topic is getting is sure to make it a high priority for resolution in the next hardware revision. Shame on me for early adopting!

Peter Glaskowsky

It isn’t possible that it’s working the way you think it is. Whether your software is reading the CPU temperature directly, or the temperature sensor(s) on the heat pipes adjacent to the CPU, the temperature you’re measuring has to be closer to the CPU than the case is. Since the heat comes from the CPU, there shouldn’t be any way to see a cold temperature at the sensor when the case is hot.

That is, unless the sensor wires have come loose, in which case the apparent temperature will be almost constant. That’s what you’re seeing, so I think that’s what’s happened.

I repeat, a hot case is evidence that the heat sink is properly attached to the processor. Any change that results in a colder case will also result in a hotter processor. That’s bad.

. png

Mark

OK, I have one of these fine machines with the extreme heat problems. Since I am currently living in China and recently had a horrible 3 month wait to get an iPod serviced, I took fixing the problem into my own hands. After reading tons of articles about this issue I decided to monitor my CPU temp using “CoreDuoTemp” software. The results were extremely difficult to justify or understand. When running under no load the system would vary from 40-50C. However, under heavy load (90-100%), using Hanbreak to encode DVD’s, the range was between 25-80C. The heat would build to between 70 and 80C then the fans would spin up. I mean SPIN UP, like a couple of jet engines. These fans can be a bit loud when running at full speed. Unfortunately, I did not have the time or energy to attempt to find a sensor to take case readings. Being a Expat in China can be challenging for problems like this. That said, the case was uncomfortable to handle both on the top in front of the hinge and on the bottom just behind the RAM access panel.

Next I operated to find a horrific mess of thermal goo located all over the three chips, I took pictures if anyone is interested. Once the thing was cleaned up, I carefully reassembled the machine exactly as I had found it. The web instructions do not mention all of the wire routing tape… Beware there is a lot of tape to keep track of. I reapplied the proper amount of silver compound and reassembled. I also have photo proof of this.

Upon reassembly and attempt to power up… NOTHING! Luckly, I quickly found the RAM was installed into the wrong slot. I’m new to Apple and had no idea they cared which slot is filled first.

Upon reassembly and retesting. I used the same methods to test in the same 20C as before. The processor now runs at a nearly constant 22-25C. GREAT! However the case is still a scorcher. Still to hot to handle on in the same locations.

My conclusion is the heat sink compound was a definite problem. Unfortunatly this is not the solution to everyone’s heat issues with the case. I have a first revision motherboard and the latest software updates. Perhaps there is no solution for this particular machine. That said, this is my first mac and the experience has been less than perfect, regardless you will not catch me shopping for a Vista machine anytime soon. Apple’s software kicks ankle. At least I now understand were all you annoying mac users are coming from. :)

Peter Glaskowsky

Think of the power being consumed by the system as a given. It depends on what kind of processing work you’re doing. This power is converted into heat energy. The goal is to remove the heat energy from the system. At each point where heat is moved from one thing to another– CPU to heatsink, one side of the heatsink to the other, heatsink to case, heatsink to air, etc.– there’s some thermal resistance. The goal of a thermal engineer is to minimize the total thermal resistance from the CPU to the air.

For a given system, each of these thermal resistances is a given. Increasing one, for example by damaging the thermal connection between the CPU and the heatsink as advised by the original ignorant article on Something Awful, doesn’t reduce the others. It just increases the total resistance. Just because the heatsink and case are cooler doesn’t mean the heat energy is being removed from the system faster somewhere else; it can’t work that way. What it DOES mean is that the CPU is much hotter, increasing the fraction of the heat energy that is forced to exit through the motherboard, the local ambient air and adjacent components, keyboard, etc.

But it’s always better to get the heat to leave through the heatsink, heat pipes, fan-blown air, and other elements of the purpose-built thermal management system. The fact that the Something Awful recommendations are causing lower temperatures on the heat pipe-attached thermal sensors is proof positive that using too little thermal compound is BAD for the system. Everyone who follows that advice is damaging their systems.

. png

James

I’m curious, I’ve heard that reasoning before; that if the heat is being properly transferred to the heatsink, then the case should be warmer. But what about total heat in the system? If you consider the laptop notebook as a system, and you’re trying to pump the heat outside the notebook, then increasing the efficiency of the heatsink/fan would remove more heat from the laptop. If the heatsink/fan is less efficient, then the heat cannot be removed as quickly and instead it builds up within the case.

I guess the question comes down to; does the heat escape more quickly from heatsink to case (conduction) and then case to air (convection), or from heatink to air (convection) directly? If it’s the second, then improving the efficiency of the heatsink would allow heat to escape to the outside more quickly; also, the converse is that an inefficient heatsink would allow heat to start conducting through other means available (socket, motherboard, other components, anything that’s close to the CPU). One user said that due to the heat issues, the PCB around his CPU was bubbling up. If the heatsink were transferring its heat to the case, then the motherboard should not have suffered as badly. As it is, looks like there was a lot of localized heat buildup, and that the heatsink was not transfering heat from the CPU correctly.

Thoughts?

Peter Glaskowsky

Hmm, well, think about it. The only (significant) way that heat gets out of the CPU is into the heat sink. The heat sink, after all, is the only thing connected directly to the CPU (except for the PC board, which isn’t important in this case). The heat sink is also between the CPU and the case. So the case can’t get hotter unless the heat sink gets hotter, and conversely the case can’t be cooler unless the heat sink is cooler.

Improving the thermal interface between the CPU and the heat sink will, therefore, make the heat sink AND the case hotter.

Changing the thermal interface between the CPU and the heat sink simply can’t make the case cooler, the heat sink hotter, and the CPU cooler.

The usual mental model that engineers use for thermal management is a voltage source and a series of resistors connected ultimately to ground. The resistors model the thermal interfaces– between the CPU transistors and the silicon substrate, between the silicon and the heat sink, the heat sink to the heat pipe, the heat pipe to the radiator, the radiator to the fan-blown air, and the blown air to the ambient air outside. You can also think of a parallel chain of resistors connecting from the heat sink to the case, and from the case to the air (or, more likely, your legs).

The “voltage” (heat) is highest at the CPU, and lowest in the ambient air. A better thermal interface is like a lower resistance– it means the nodes it connects will stay at a closer temperature.

Now, because there are two ways to get the heat out of the system– the fan air, and through the case– making the fan air hotter will cool off the case (and your legs). But changing the thermal grease on the CPU can’t change JUST the temperature of the fan air. If you help the CPU get rid of more heat, you’re inevitably going to increase the temperature of the fan air AND the case.

Justin Ames

I don’t think that is necessarily true. Currently the heat is dissipating through the MacBook’s case, but when the thermal grease is applied properly, it is instead getting transferred to the heat pipes and then vented out the back of the case, where it will not toast our fun bits.

Peter Glaskowsky

Woah, woah. That article was stupendously stupid. If the case is cooler, the CPU is hotter. Think about it– if the CPU isn’t transferring its heat to the heat sink, the heat sink can’t transfer the heat to the case. So that bozo has ruined his perfectly good $2,000 laptop, and made a fool of himself in public. Do not make a fool of yourself by following his bad advice.

. png

Peter Glaskowsky
Former Editor in Chief, Microprocessor Report

macintosh mac

i am an apple certified technician. taking apart the machine will not void your warranty unless you fuck something up. but if you dont know what you are doing, you probably will fuck something up.

Andrew

Well, Brad, the thread shows that Apple’s own manuals call for too much grease, so even if an Apple certified technician reapplies the grease, if they follow the instructions they’re given then the problem will persist.

The problem here, or so it seems, is that Apple is overdoing it. The dude who made the thread apparently spoke with a “genius” at the Genius Bar and the “genius” said that he would do his best to pass the information on to the appropriate people. This, combined with it being all over the internet, is bound to produce results if a change is indeed necessary

Brad

This doesn’t make sense. If the MacBooks are running too hot because of a grease problem, that means its fixable under warranty. You don’t need to crack your case – if a Macbook with proper grease is running at 39 degrees, and one with poor application of grease is running at 55, you should justbe able to show apple that your macbook is running at the higher temp and they’ll take it back.

Why perform the surgery?

Nick

It’s a rule of mine to always wear pants while computing. I also leave my MacBook pro on my desk while I work. Even still, it’s hot on my hands when I type. Don’t tell me you expect I should wear gloves as well as pants.

Todd Baur

Man and all this time I thought *I* was the one getting hot – must’ve been the sites I visited. Thanks Tanner, now I know its just the MBP. Now I will have to wear pants…

Karuel

Well I have a simply solution to your problem. You say that the MBP gets so hot it is too hot for your lap. Why don’t you try wearing pants? Perhaps maybe putting it on a table would be more reasonable? I know they are so handy right there in the lap, but sometimes we have to adapt. It is evolution. Try putting it somewhere else, but try wearing pants first.

Michael

Now does the Macbook GPU automatically clock down with the Mac OS drivers? I was never quite clear on how OSX handled advanced driver features like that.

Tanner Morrison

I have a few friends with Macbook Pros and those things get so warm you could grill on them. I mean all laptops and computers get hot over time, my Powerbook gets warm after a bit, but Macbook Pros are insane.

Sam Pullara

Anyone near want to start a service that does this? I’m not interested in doing it myself, but I would gladly pay a reasonable amount to have it done by a professional.

Twist

I have never used a laptop that hasn’t gotten to be a little too hot to be comfortable when it is sitting in your lap. About the best I have used in this regard was a 400 MHz Pismo. It warmed up slowly enough that you didn’t really notice but when someone else had been using it and they passed it to me it was a bit uncomfortable.

Comments are closed.