Mac Mini Can't Handle Parallels

No1iSaHero · Feb 17, 2013, 03:21 PM

I bought the base 2012 Mac Mini last week and I need to use parallels for Sony Vegas and capture software via Xbox/PS3. It keeps lagging constantly. I am looking to return the Mac Mini and upgrade to a different desktop option. I currently have a rMBP and it runs parallels with no lag. But I would like to run it on the big screen without thunderbolt displays. Would a the base iMac 27 be able to handle this with no lag? Or should I look for other options?

P.S I understand I can put the rMBP on my display via hdmi, but I am looking to use the iMac with my other displays I already have.

chrfr · Feb 17, 2013, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No1iSaHero

I bought the base 2012 Mac Mini last week and I need to use parallels for Sony Vegas and capture software via Xbox/PS3. It keeps lagging constantly.

How much RAM is in the Mini and how much is in your MBP? 8GB is inexpensive, and will really help when running a virtual machine.
You could also just use Bootcamp for maximum Windows performance.

azentropy · Feb 17, 2013, 06:47 PM

The base with just 4gb is not enough for VM to run smoothly. RAM is cheap, going to 16gb is ~$80 and makes a HUGE difference. The other issue you may be running into is that the Mac mini only has integrated graphics where are slow natively depending on what you do and even slower virtualized. For what I do, mainly virtualize linux environments, it is perfectly fine.

Santabean2000 · Feb 18, 2013, 02:49 AM

Where is your film footage stored? If it's all stored on the same 5400rpm HDD as your apps and OS, then that'll be the bottleneck right there.

Try a USB3 external and see how it goes. (Plus more ram.)

LaunchpadBS · Feb 18, 2013, 03:21 AM

Swap it for the i7 quad core, throw in more ram and an SSD yourself, problem solved.

Giuly · Feb 18, 2013, 10:08 AM

Try Final Cut Pro X instead of Sony Vegas, get an elgato game capture HD that works on OS X and dump Parallels. And throw 16GB Kingston HyperX Plug'n'Play RAM into the mix.

chrfr · Feb 18, 2013, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giuly

Try Final Cut Pro X instead of Sony Vegas, get an elgato game capture HD that works on OS X and dump Parallels. And throw 16GB Kingston HyperX Plug'n'Play RAM into the mix.

I agree with not trying to use Sony Vegas, but don't bother with spending an extra 50% on "faster" RAM vs. the $80-$85 options.
EDIT: OP, have you tried using iMovie, that even may be adequate for your needs rather than spending the money on Final Cut Pro. Premiere Elements is another option that's far cheaper than FCP and may work fine for your needs.

djc6 · Feb 18, 2013, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No1iSaHero

I bought the base 2012 Mac Mini last week and I need to use parallels for Sony Vegas and capture software via Xbox/PS3. It keeps lagging constantly.

Why not use Bootcamp?

Giuly · Feb 18, 2013, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrfr

I agree with not trying to use Sony Vegas, but don't bother with spending an extra 50% on "faster" RAM vs. the $80-$85 options.
EDIT: OP, have you tried using iMovie, that even may be adequate for your needs rather than spending the money on Final Cut Pro. Premiere Elements is another option that's far cheaper than FCP and may work fine for your needs.

16GB Crucial are $99.96 incl. shipping, the HyperX are $126.74. That's merely $26.78.

paulrbeers · Feb 18, 2013, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giuly

16GB Crucial are $99.96 incl. shipping, the HyperX are $126.74. That's merely $26.78.

Well if we are talking about "slower" RAM, even this 1600mhz RAM is reported to work in Mac's and is only $73

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820313301

So at this point now we are at chrfr $50 difference....

Or here is GSkill which is a brand I have personally used in Macs:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820231580

and now we are at $46.

Or here is Crucial just to make an apples to apples comparison:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820148614

That's a $40 difference than hyperx which is pretty much 50% more.

chrfr · Feb 18, 2013, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giuly

16GB Crucial are $99.96 incl. shipping, the HyperX are $126.74. That's merely $26.78.

You can find Crucial and other brand RAM for less, but regardless, 25-30% for an intangible performance difference is a waste.

Giuly · 10:57 AM

There's also an intangible performance difference between all those CL11 1600MHz kits and the Partriot 1333MHz CL9 kit for $64.99, so you might as well go for that?

As far as I am concerned, CL9 1600MHz is faster than CL9 1333MHz (which is as fast as CL11 1600MHz), hence every Mac deserves CL9 1600MHz, and unless other companies decide to build these, you pay the premium tax to Kingston if you want them.

chrfr · Feb 18, 2013, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giuly

There's also an intangible performance difference between all those CL11 1600MHz kits and the Partriot 1333MHz CL9 kit for $64.99, so you might as well go for that?

I'd stick with something that's within Apple's specifications.

Mojo1 · Feb 18, 2013, 11:08 AM

Your Mini should be able to easily handle Parallels without a faster CPU or SSD. If you are using the stock 4GB RAM then that is probably the source of your problem.

Mountain Lion requires 4GB RAM for just the basics; it is not enough RAM to run OS X, a Windows virtual PC and software. You need at least 8GB but 16GB would be even better. With 16GB RAM you can provide the two operating systems and your programs enough memory to run properly. Just keep in mind that even 16GB RAM won't be enough if you insist on simultaneously running so many programs that you run out of available memory. Use the Activity Monitor to see how much memory your OS and software is actually using and pay attention to how much RAM the manufacturers state is the recommended minimum for their programs.

I set-up a client's 2010 Mini/Snow Leopard to run Windows 7 using VMWare Fusion. With 8GB RAM (the max allowed) she was able to use very demanding programs on the Windows side for quite some time. It only began to slow down when she updated programs and the RAM requirements were higher.

If you get an iMac and try to do the same thing with 4GB RAM you will obtain the same results.

Don't throw money at the problem: an i7 CPU, SSD or an iMac is not the fix you are looking for. Simply upgrade the Mini's RAM and allocate enough RAM to Parallels for it to run properly. With 16GB RAM the Mini should serve you well until software upgrades require more RAM than the Mini can accept. But by the time that happens you will be ready to upgrade the Mini anyway.

Giuly · Feb 18, 2013, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrfr

I'd stick with something that's within Apple's specifications.

And Apple sticks Intel CPUs with integrated memory controllers onto their logic boards that stick to JEDEC specifications, which in the case of a 2012 Mac Mini require compatibility with CL8 and CL9 at 1333MHz and CL9, CL10 and CL11 at 1600MHz.

poloponies · Feb 18, 2013, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No1iSaHero

I bought the base 2012 Mac Mini last week and I need to use parallels for Sony Vegas and capture software via Xbox/PS3. It keeps lagging constantly. I am looking to return the Mac Mini and upgrade to a different desktop option. I currently have a rMBP and it runs parallels with no lag. But I would like to run it on the big screen without thunderbolt displays. Would a the base iMac 27 be able to handle this with no lag? Or should I look for other options?

P.S I understand I can put the rMBP on my display via hdmi, but I am looking to use the iMac with my other displays I already have.

I have 3 2012 Mac Minis (two low-end and one high-end). All 3 are maxed out to 16GB RAM and all run Parallels beautifully.

FreakinEurekan · Feb 18, 2013, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No1iSaHero

I bought the base 2012 Mac Mini last week and I need to use parallels for Sony Vegas and capture software via Xbox/PS3. It keeps lagging constantly.

Not sure which Vegas software you're running, but you definitely need RAM. From Sony Vegas Pro 12 system requirements:

Microsoft® Windows Vista® 64-bit SP2, Windows 7 64-bit, or Windows® 8 64-bit operating system

2 GHz processor (multicore or multiprocessor CPU recommended for HD or stereoscopic 3D)

500 MB hard-disk space for program installation

4 GB RAM (8 GB recommended)

That's the ram that the VM requires - you'll need additional RAM on top of that for Mac OS X. I would not even attempt Vegas in a VM without 16GB RAM.

poloponies · Feb 18, 2013, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreakinEurekan

Not sure which Vegas software you're running, but you definitely need RAM. From Sony Vegas Pro 12 system requirements:

Microsoft® Windows Vista® 64-bit SP2, Windows 7 64-bit, or Windows® 8 64-bit operating system

2 GHz processor (multicore or multiprocessor CPU recommended for HD or stereoscopic 3D)

500 MB hard-disk space for program installation

4 GB RAM (8 GB recommended)

That's the ram that the VM requires - you'll need additional RAM on top of that for Mac OS X. I would not even attempt Vegas in a VM without 16GB RAM.

For the relatively minor cost of a 16GB upgrade you get very good bang for your buck.

manual123 · Feb 19, 2013, 12:57 AM

I agree witho who ever said that you should try iMovie or FCP. Depending on your needs, iMovie mmight actually be more than enough and thus you'll have zero need for parallels..

Now i have a 2011 i5 Mini that runs both bootcamp and parallels for astrophotogragy image stacking and iMovie editing (8GB installed) and it runs great.

If you can go without the sony software, and use iMovie for free..then do it. Your performance will be better anyways.

Edde1 · Feb 19, 2013, 06:14 AM

Hello. I use parallels without problems on my 2012 I7. I Can use mac OS, Windows 7 and Windows XP at same time. I have 16gb of RAM

foofan · Feb 19, 2013, 06:44 AM

i say the hell with windows apps. lets make an effort to force these companies to make their apps for mac. As long as they know these people will just use boot camp or parallels then they have no incentive to cater to mac users.

poloponies · Feb 20, 2013, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foofan

i say the hell with windows apps. lets make an effort to force these companies to make their apps for mac. As long as they know these people will just use boot camp or parallels then they have no incentive to cater to mac users.

The apps generally suck in the first instance, we don't need more sucky Mac apps.

Feb 17, 2013, 03:21 PM	#1
No1iSaHero macrumors newbie Join Date: Jun 2012	Mac Mini Can't Handle Parallels I bought the base 2012 Mac Mini last week and I need to use parallels for Sony Vegas and capture software via Xbox/PS3. It keeps lagging constantly. I am looking to return the Mac Mini and upgrade to a different desktop option. I currently have a rMBP and it runs parallels with no lag. But I would like to run it on the big screen without thunderbolt displays. Would a the base iMac 27 be able to handle this with no lag? Or should I look for other options? P.S I understand I can put the rMBP on my display via hdmi, but I am looking to use the iMac with my other displays I already have.
	0

Feb 18, 2013, 03:21 AM	#5
LaunchpadBS macrumors 6502a Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: iLondon/iDurban	Swap it for the i7 quad core, throw in more ram and an SSD yourself, problem solved. __________________ Mac Mini i7 2012 - 13" MBP 2012 - iPhone 4S - iPod Shuffle - Retina iPad - iPad Mini - iPod Classic - ATV 2
	0

Feb 18, 2013, 10:48 AM	#12
Giuly macrumors 68030 Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: That depends whether you ask for timezone, state of mind or GPS coordinates.	There's also an intangible performance difference between all those CL11 1600MHz kits and the Partriot 1333MHz CL9 kit for $64.99, so you might as well go for that? As far as I am concerned, CL9 1600MHz is faster than CL9 1333MHz (which is as fast as CL11 1600MHz), hence every Mac deserves CL9 1600MHz, and unless other companies decide to build these, you pay the premium tax to Kingston if you want them. Last edited by Giuly; Feb 18, 2013 at 10:57 AM.
	0

Feb 19, 2013, 12:57 AM	#19
manual123 macrumors Demi-God Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Bellevue NE	I agree witho who ever said that you should try iMovie or FCP. Depending on your needs, iMovie mmight actually be more than enough and thus you'll have zero need for parallels.. Now i have a 2011 i5 Mini that runs both bootcamp and parallels for astrophotogragy image stacking and iMovie editing (8GB installed) and it runs great. If you can go without the sony software, and use iMovie for free..then do it. Your performance will be better anyways. __________________ "late 2011 17 MBP, 2.4 GHz, 12 GB RAM;iPhone 5;OG iPad 16GB and many more over the last 20 years."
	0

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Feb 17, 2013, 06:47 PM	#3
azentropy macrumors 65816 Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Surprise	The base with just 4gb is not enough for VM to run smoothly. RAM is cheap, going to 16gb is ~$80 and makes a HUGE difference. The other issue you may be running into is that the Mac mini only has integrated graphics where are slow natively depending on what you do and even slower virtualized. For what I do, mainly virtualize linux environments, it is perfectly fine.
	0

Feb 18, 2013, 02:49 AM	#4
Santabean2000 macrumors 6502a Join Date: Nov 2007	Where is your film footage stored? If it's all stored on the same 5400rpm HDD as your apps and OS, then that'll be the bottleneck right there. Try a USB3 external and see how it goes. (Plus more ram.)
	1

Feb 18, 2013, 10:08 AM	#6
Giuly macrumors 68030 Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: That depends whether you ask for timezone, state of mind or GPS coordinates.	Try Final Cut Pro X instead of Sony Vegas, get an elgato game capture HD that works on OS X and dump Parallels. And throw 16GB Kingston HyperX Plug'n'Play RAM into the mix.
	0

Feb 18, 2013, 11:08 AM	#14
Mojo1 macrumors 65816 Join Date: Jul 2011	Your Mini should be able to easily handle Parallels without a faster CPU or SSD. If you are using the stock 4GB RAM then that is probably the source of your problem. Mountain Lion requires 4GB RAM for just the basics; it is not enough RAM to run OS X, a Windows virtual PC and software. You need at least 8GB but 16GB would be even better. With 16GB RAM you can provide the two operating systems and your programs enough memory to run properly. Just keep in mind that even 16GB RAM won't be enough if you insist on simultaneously running so many programs that you run out of available memory. Use the Activity Monitor to see how much memory your OS and software is actually using and pay attention to how much RAM the manufacturers state is the recommended minimum for their programs. I set-up a client's 2010 Mini/Snow Leopard to run Windows 7 using VMWare Fusion. With 8GB RAM (the max allowed) she was able to use very demanding programs on the Windows side for quite some time. It only began to slow down when she updated programs and the RAM requirements were higher. If you get an iMac and try to do the same thing with 4GB RAM you will obtain the same results. Don't throw money at the problem: an i7 CPU, SSD or an iMac is not the fix you are looking for. Simply upgrade the Mini's RAM and allocate enough RAM to Parallels for it to run properly. With 16GB RAM the Mini should serve you well until software upgrades require more RAM than the Mini can accept. But by the time that happens you will be ready to upgrade the Mini anyway.
	1

Feb 19, 2013, 06:14 AM	#20
Edde1 macrumors newbie Join Date: Nov 2012	Hello. I use parallels without problems on my 2012 I7. I Can use mac OS, Windows 7 and Windows XP at same time. I have 16gb of RAM
	1

Feb 19, 2013, 06:44 AM	#21
foofan macrumors 6502 Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: New England	i say the hell with windows apps. lets make an effort to force these companies to make their apps for mac. As long as they know these people will just use boot camp or parallels then they have no incentive to cater to mac users.
	0