More than 4 CPU/8GB in Standard Version

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

  1. Maria@Parallels

    Maria@Parallels Parallels Team

    Messages:
    5,186
    Hi guys, thank you for your feedback. Allowing Parallels Desktop to use high number of CPU and RAM requires from our team developing and maintaining advanced virtualization algorithms to balance CPU load so real-time emulation is not affected (USB, sound). This comes with certain costs.
     
  2. (GalaxyMaster)

    (GalaxyMaster) Bit Poster

    Messages:
    16
    @Maria@Parallels, this is such a strange and evasive response :(. The original question was not about supporting high number of CPU and RAM, but about bumping the limit a bit toward more sane values for 2019. The software is exactly the same for Standard and Pro versions and the difference is just with the licence, so there is no "team developing and maintaining advanced virtualisation algorithms" involved at all :).
     
    Bryce1 likes this.
  3. Filip10

    Filip10 Bit Poster

    Messages:
    22
    I upgraded from Parallels 11 to 14 but it was actually a downgrade. My Mac had 6 cores and 32 GB RAM.
    Windows 10 on Parallels 11 had a Performance test Benchmark score of 2890
    Windows 10 on Parallels 14 has a Performance test Benchmark score of 2473,6 due to the limitation of 8 MB RAM and 4 CPU.
     
  4. Kalhana

    Kalhana Bit Poster

    Messages:
    1
    I've been using Parallels since V10. Then I upgraded to V11 back when it came out. After many years of daily use, today I decided to upgrade to V14 since I read that they've made significant performance/speed improvements in the newer versions. But after purchasing the non-subscription 1 off upgrade, downloading it and booting my VM, I realised that it now forced my 6 core VM to run at 4 cores max. Despite the performance improvements that they've apparently done, the 4 core VM was obviously still slower than the 6 core in V11 (my PCB CAD software was lagging and was useless now).
    I asked them for a refund straight away and they gave it. I'm seriously disappointed with their greedy subscription strategy. Nowadays most developers seem to have got greedy and think that their software is the only thing that people have to buy. By the time you pay for all these subscriptions, you'd have to go hungry!
    This is a massive step back. Why did you remove a feature that used to be part of the standard version?! Will have to look at VMware now. Not recommending this SW to anyone else either.
     
  5. harryj3

    harryj3 Bit Poster

    Messages:
    1
    I like it. Thank for share this informations.
     
  6. TravisC2

    TravisC2 Bit Poster

    Messages:
    2
    I first started using Parallels in version 8. Up until recently, my Mac couldn't support more than 4 CPUs or 8GB of RAM in a VM. Now, though, in 2019, this limitation is, frankly, laughable. (It has been laughable for a number of years, actually.) Trying to claim that is comes "with certain costs" is exceedingly insulting to us, your users. There is NO excuse for these limitation in 2019. I can guarantee that you will lose me as a customer if you don't AT LEAST double both the max CPUs and max RAM in the standard version of Parallels 15. And I strongly suspect I will be FAR from your only customer who flees your sinking ship. Before upgrading to Parallels 14, I actually tried VMWare, and it was measurably slower than Parallels on my 2012-era Mac. But that was before I had a computer that had more than 4 CPUs and more than 16GB of RAM. I'm quite certain that it is now faster on my current hardware. And the price I would have had to pay to "upgrade" to the latest VMWare was the same price I DID pay to upgrade to Parallels 14 (because VMWare, clearly wants your customers). I'm quite convinced that you have ALREADY lost plenty of customers due to this incredibly asinine policy. And I'm sure you'll lose a whole lot more now that 6-core Macs are commonplace.
     
  7. Filip10

    Filip10 Bit Poster

    Messages:
    22
    Let's hope that the Standard Parallels Version 15 will support at least 6 cores and 16 GB RAM. Fingers crossed.
     
  8. Filip10

    Filip10 Bit Poster

    Messages:
    22
    On the same MacPro 2009 6 core 3,33 GHz, the first with 16 GB RAM, the second with 32 GB RAM
    Windows 10 on Parallels 11 Cinebench R15: OpenGL 53 fps - CPU 699 cb (12 cores)
    Windows 10 on Parallels 14 Cinebench R15: OpenGL 43 fps - CPU 375 cb (4 cores)
    :(
     
  9. JeffreyT3

    JeffreyT3 Bit Poster

    Messages:
    8
    I agree. It's unprofessional that Parallels wants to charge you a yearly fee to use YOUR OWN RAM in YOUR OWN COMPUTER! Parallels Desktop should allow your VM to use more than 8GB of ram; that is a ridiculous limitation. Often when I am using a number of design applications at once and on deadlines I get error messages that I am running dangerously low on RAM. Sometimes I'm working and one of my design programs suddenly closes and I loose my files. If I install 64GB of RAM on my Mac I should be able to allocate 32/32 to each side or 8/56 etc. I wonder what Parallels would say when they see that VMWare Fusion does not have this RAM limitation in their non-pro version.
     
    oztrev and JorgeR2 like this.
  10. JorgeR2

    JorgeR2 Bit Poster

    Messages:
    4
    I'm not in the same boat as all people here, the difference is that I've stopped using PD on the version 8 (Cliente from version 6 to 8) today I decided to install the latest version (demo), no I realize that the standalone version is limited to 8Gb of ram?! This is not reasonable. This is only a way to create a false product segmentation and push people to a subscription base model.

    Why parallels what's to give more Costumers to other companies like vmware?
    Like someone said l, the ram and the cpu is Something we already paid.
     
    oztrev likes this.
  11. oliverzofia

    oliverzofia Bit Poster

    Messages:
    5
    It can be even better.
     
  12. DavidB74

    DavidB74 Bit Poster

    Messages:
    1
    I have been using the software for years. I have numerous VMs I use for work which are now pointless unless I pay a protection racket fee to use them. I have a mac with 64Gb and 8 cores. I do not expect that when I pay for an upgrade, I basically have been held ransom on my own resource. You have lost my trust. I now feel guilty for recommending your product to many of my colleagues.
     
    oztrev likes this.
  13. FlyingHighUp

    FlyingHighUp Bit Poster

    Messages:
    2
    Similar situation here, I've owned Parallels since v4 (Almost 12 years!) and I'm cheesed a feature I used to have got removed from under me right when I was in a situation to use it. If the Pro-Licence was one-time, I would buy it - but out of principle I hate subscriptions. I don't even use MS Office anymore. (Especially the caveat that once the subscription expires, the software will lock up until you pay up)
    In my case, my memory keeps capping out on my Ubuntu VM, causing it to freeze. For those in this thread - if your hardware has flash memory, consider increasing your swap size. Slightly slower, but it dramatically increases your available ram as a workaround. (Also in Ubuntu, it's easy and can be done without restarting).
     
  14. JorgeR2

    JorgeR2 Bit Poster

    Messages:
    4
    1. This only force users to go and install pirated version.
      People mentality will change when this crisis ends, regarding this kind of extortion that companies are now using, to make tons of money
     
  15. AjayS6

    AjayS6

    Messages:
    1
    It is not fair ...


     
  16. Roland07

    Roland07 Bit Poster

    Messages:
    9
    Parallels has been acquired by Corel corporation in 2018, so this subscription model is creating "shareholder value". We can't honestly expect Parallels employee's to speak against company guidelines.

    If subscription models were a loosing model, Adobe would have returned, Microsoft would have returned, Parallels would have returned, but they did not. The thread of people jumping from fusion to parallels is very popular so I suspect people move from product to product and in this way Corel still makes money.
     
  17. KristianS1

    KristianS1 Bit Poster

    Messages:
    4
    Except these 'advanced algorithms' don't seem to work (see the post I made in the thread on Apple vs Parallels Hypervisor)
    I for one, think the artificial hardware constraints to try and force people into subscriptions are too much, but I suspect it works which is why Parallels are reluctant to change them.

    However the limitations are way too low in this day and age. At best they should be removed, at worst they need to be bumped up to level levels in the current generation of consumer machines (6 cores with two threads each so 12 logical processors / VM cores and 16GB-32GB). Those of us who are are pro users with humungous numbers of cores and huge amounts of RAM probably don't care so much about paying for subscription - it's a tiny part of the system cost and can often be claimed back.
     

Share This Page