More than 4 CPU/8GB in Standard Version

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.

 

@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 .

 

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.

 

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.

 

I like it. Thank for share this informations.

 

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.

 

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

 

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)