VM Performance on MBPRs

[phyrexia]

For VM's.....16gigs does not matter.

Nonsense. How can I give 4GB to Windows, 8GB to Ubuntu, and 4GB to Lion if I only have 8GB RAM?

If you can run Win7 with 1GB and get anything done, good for you. Since Win7 uses something like 1050MB on a fresh boot, I question how much I could get done on such a setup. SSDs are fast, but they are not DDR3 fast.

 

[Slivortal]

Nonsense. How can I give 4GB to Windows, 8GB to Ubuntu, and 4GB to Lion if I only have 8GB RAM?

If you can run Win7 with 1GB and get anything done, good for you. Since Win7 uses something like 1050MB on a fresh boot, I question how much I could get done on such a setup. SSDs are fast, but they are not DDR3 fast.

This is the same kind of setup that I was thinking about doing.

Also, does anyone have experience with LINUX specifically? While many may see Windows virtualization as a great way to play video games on their Mac, I need to be able to run Linux, and my multiple VM scenario will often not have Windows in any of those VMs.

For those who have used Linux, have their been any resolution/driver issues with the MBPR? I like to do most of my work in various Linux distros, so this is a VERY important topic.

 

[AVonGauss]

Deleted.

 

[JasonH42]

Nonsense. How can I give 4GB to Windows, 8GB to Ubuntu, and 4GB to Lion if I only have 8GB RAM?

If you can run Win7 with 1GB and get anything done, good for you. Since Win7 uses something like 1050MB on a fresh boot, I question how much I could get done on such a setup. SSDs are fast, but they are not DDR3 fast.

Win7 and 1GB works for me. It depends on what applications you need to run.

I use Virtualbox on a 2011 MBP with 8GB RAM and SSD running 2 x Win7 VMs with 1GB RAM each and 1 x XP VM with 1GB RAM. Bloated IBM software runs on Win7 and Oracle+SQL Server databases run on XP. Performance feels near-native and only the XP VM wants to page to disk if I open two SQL management tools at once.

People whine about RAM without ever measuring how much they actually need/use.

 

[AVonGauss]

Deleted.

 

[ZipZap]

It all depends on what you use the VMs for. But especially, if you want to run more than a single VM, RAM does become an important factor.

Also, even if I were to add an SSD, would that change the fact that my VM is using all of its virtual CPU by merely existing?

Your SSD point being?

SSD makes a huge difference in VMs.

----------

Nonsense. How can I give 4GB to Windows, 8GB to Ubuntu, and 4GB to Lion if I only have 8GB RAM?

If you can run Win7 with 1GB and get anything done, good for you. Since Win7 uses something like 1050MB on a fresh boot, I question how much I could get done on such a setup. SSDs are fast, but they are not DDR3 fast.

Ah...maybe because you dont need to assign that much ram to those VMs.

I do run with 1GB and get things done. SSD again to the recue. I never said SSD was the same as DDR3. All I said is you can be quite productive with less than 16gig.

Since you obviously never tried it I recommend you do.

----------

Have you ever even tried it? Windows 7 will run fine running Microsoft Outlook, Access and QuickBooks with 1 GB of RAM or a Visual Studio session. Windows like any other OS, including Linux, likes to eat RAM for cache which is senseless in a VM.

Thank you. Yes it will. Its obvious that there are people posting that I would not classify as general users and of course they need 16 gig...

But you can be quite productive with 8.

----------

Win7 and 1GB works for me. It depends on what applications you need to run.

I use Virtualbox on a 2011 MBP with 8GB RAM and SSD running 2 x Win7 VMs with 1GB RAM each and 1 x XP VM with 1GB RAM. Bloated IBM software runs on Win7 and Oracle+SQL Server databases run on XP. Performance feels near-native and only the XP VM wants to page to disk if I open two SQL management tools at once.

People whine about RAM without ever measuring how much they actually need/use.

Yep.

 

[RabidMacFan]

It sounds like both Parallels and VirtualBox look fine on the new Retina Display. What about VMWare? I heard that unless you run it in full screen, it looks terrible. Can anybody confirm this?

 

[Aftershocker]

On a regular 2012 MBP it runs no problem. Gave it access to all cores and 4GB of RAM with 256MB of Video RAM. Running a SSD in my MBP super fast start up speeds. Specs are in Sig below. Shouldn't be any different with the Retina model.

http://youtu.be/ETdnuqlL-_4

Thats good to know I was considering cancelling my order for the 8gb retina and changing to 16gb version. However I think im just being a little paranoid lol

Is performance on the native OS and the VM good with 8GB with a few apps running in both? Any noticeable lag switching between the two?

 

[phyrexia]

I do run with 1GB and get things done. SSD again to the recue. I never said SSD was the same as DDR3. All I said is you can be quite productive with less than 16gig.

Since you obviously never tried it I recommend you do.

Don' need to. Got 16 GB RAM

I'll give it a shot. Maybe I am scarred. In 1996, saved up many months of 12-year-old-boy wages to buy 16MB RAM so I could run Earthsiege on a Packard Bell 486SX-33 (20MB Hard Drive. 2400 Baud Modem. Windows for Workgroups, bitches.) 'Twas a glorious experience.

Swear to god, I spent more on the 16MB than I did on the 16GB.

 

[ugp]

Thats good to know I was considering cancelling my order for the 8gb retina and changing to 16gb version. However I think im just being a little paranoid lol

Is performance on the native OS and the VM good with 8GB with a few apps running in both? Any noticeable lag switching between the two?

I was able to use both effectively with no problems.

 

[ZipZap]

Don' need to. Got 16 GB RAM

I'll give it a shot. Maybe I am scarred. In 1996, saved up many months of 12-year-old-boy wages to buy 16MB RAM so I could run Earthsiege on a Packard Bell 486SX-33 (20MB Hard Drive. 2400 Baud Modem. Windows for Workgroups, bitches.) 'Twas a glorious experience.

Swear to god, I spent more on the 16MB than I did on the 16GB.

No doubt about that but you did not need to spend the extrat $$'s and thats the point.

All kidding aside, if you feel things are better with bigger VMs great, bit for most the extra expense is not necessary.

 

[Trey M]

I had the same laptop, a 2009 13'' MBP, and it was almost unbearable to VM. I just stopped VM'ing because it was so tedious and laggy and crappy. Then a guy at my work had a 2011 MBP running VM Ware with tri monitors and it was just as responsive as my work Windows machine. The 15'' models will run it fantastically, for whatever reason. I think it has to do with amount of ram, CPU, and most importantly I think the GPU is the key to running it like it's native. Seriously though, it probably runs Windows better than my Windows machine in his VM. It's that good.