More than 4 CPU/8GB in Standard Version

Discussion in 'Parallels Desktop for Mac Feature Suggestions' started by Nemensi, Apr 22, 2017.

  1. Nemensi

    Nemensi Bit Poster

    I would like to use more than 4 CPU/8GB in Standard version as it was possible in all previous versions up to Parallels Desktop 10. Please vote if you like it too.
    Ivanych, Craig4, JoseL1 and 6 others like this.
  2. JustinB3

    JustinB3 Bit Poster

    I am writing the following with the hope that someone at Parallels will read this and actually care:
    I have used Parallels since v9. So far I have been very happy with my experience - until I downloaded the upgrade to v12. I use both MAC and PC to do my work. At the time I purchased my iMac, I maxed out the ram to 32GB - leaving my MAC experience with 16GB and my PC with 16GB - The recommended amount for the software I use on windows and MAC. Based on this, you can imagine my surprise and disappointment when I upgraded to the amazing new version only to find that, in true software developer fashion, you have changed the game without warning or concern. Limiting my VM to 8gb of ram because I refuse to purchase a subscription-based license for twice the price and an annual commitment (P.S. - I use my VM for hobbies and don't need a "PRO" version) is simply absurd. We all know that the glorious, resource-hogging windows OS can barely function on 8gb of ram - what's the point. This isn't 2005 anymore, we have no use for machines that can only, barely run a web browser and check email.
    You have a product, it turns out that you found success because there was a need. You have now fallen into the trap of so many other developers and gotten greedy. Let me tell you something that you already know - nobody, NOBODY likes subscription licenses. Ever since the clowns at Adobe did it a few years back, every other developer with remotely useful software has decided that this should be the new standard. I have not upgraded and stopped purchasing adobe's CS since CS6 when they went to subscription. Subscriptions just give developers an excuse to release mediocre "upgrade" after mediocre upgrade since you don't actually have to fix anything or develop some new feature or tool that your users will want and therefore upgrade and boost your sales. As for parallels, I will NEVER purchase your software as a subscription. You have lost a loyal customer (one of may, I'm sure). I have always recommended your software to others who share my needs and interests, and there have been many. I will no longer suggest Parallels. I can't stand behind a company that unashamedly dupes their customers. Other options are out there, your organization would be wise to remember that in your pursuit of milking your loyal customers for more and more of our hard-earned money. I wish you were better than you are. Give us all a break.
  3. TomC4

    TomC4 Bit Poster

    I agree with the above comments. I have been using Parallels since I got my MacBook Pro four years now and I loved it before this year. This year's version 12 release is less stable than previous releases (I experienced several guest crashes within the first weeks of using it) and the crippled CPU and memory limitations drove me back to using VMWare Fusion instead. I don't care about a complimentary subscription to "Parallels Access", I don't want to be repeatedly nagged about installing the "Parallels Toolbox", and I don't want cloud backup for a year. Keep that junk, focus on the stuff that used to work, and drop the hardware restrictions. As it stands, I won't be renewing/upgrading/subscribing (whatever) my current license.
  4. oztrev

    oztrev Bit Poster

    VMWare Fusion (non-Pro) allows 64GB/VM compared with Parallels 8GB/VM ! Looks like I'll be giving up on PD ...
  5. TomC4

    TomC4 Bit Poster

    I have been using VMWare Fusion exclusively for about six months now. Although Parallels is definitely a more polished product (particularly with USB devices and shared folders), VMWare doesn't (yet) artificially cripple their product to force you into a yearly subscription. Good luck with your new model, Parallels. I will (slightly) miss you, but I won't be supporting you this year.
  6. Kurt Bigler

    Kurt Bigler Bit Poster

    I agree, but would be willing to pay more for one-time Parallels if it were less limited in development than it is. Perhaps the $49.99 price is too cheap for Parallels to get needed features implemented for Mac guest OS (which is perhaps most of my use), such as multi-screen coherence and fullscreen mode, and reliable networking in the form of sharing from Mac host to Mac client that continues to work through suspend/resume cycles, including aliases on the client to folders on the host, which is essential for actual practical use. I'd be willing to pay $100 or $200 for Parallels if they actually did development I need. Decades ago good software was expensive. Now it has to be cheap because people don't want to spend, and user expectations had to drop sharply, as I see it. The same is certainly true for macOS.

    Incidentally VMWare (based on compatibility tables) apparently supports running an El Capitan guest under a Mavericks host, which is just now about to become critical for me, and will kind of shoot in the foot any continued use of Parallels for a Mac guest OS.

    Mind you I am still using Parallels Desktop 10 for Mac, so I haven't proven the needed things don't work but it appears so from what I can glean in the Knowledge Base. I also don't want to pay for an upgrade just to find out what things have been fixed, or limitations removed.

    So my vote is to drop subscriptions (certainly as a requirement for features), increase price if necessary to have decent development. I absolutely don't want a version that stops working some day.

Share This Page