I would like to know if windows 10 in parallels can run smooth on macbook 2016 or if would be better on 2017?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
windows 10 in parallels can run on 2016 and 2017 macbook
- Thread starter al404
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes it runs perfect on my M5 2016 model.
But 3-4Gb RAM for each OS depending on your workload can get cramped
If you want to run Parallels, you want 16 GB. For a MacBook, that means 2017.
Yes, it will run fine on an 8 GB machine, but after you allocate the 3-4 GB to Windows 10, you only have 4-5 GB left for OS X, which isn't enough for a pleasant OS X experience, unless you're only running Safari and Mail, etc.
Yes, it will run fine on an 8 GB machine, but after you allocate the 3-4 GB to Windows 10, you only have 4-5 GB left for OS X, which isn't enough for a pleasant OS X experience, unless you're only running Safari and Mail, etc.
when I will run windows I don't need to run OS X
I could dual boot but I can't really see an advantage over a VM, I don't need to be top speed so VM let me roll back to a screenshot is something mess up, I can start and stop windows with our reboot
I could dual boot but I can't really see an advantage over a VM, I don't need to be top speed so VM let me roll back to a screenshot is something mess up, I can start and stop windows with our reboot
well m3 should also be fine as i don't think you will see here the 10% CPU difference.
[doublepost=1502210779][/doublepost]
but I use parallels and Win10 often and it works just fine. of course a MBP with 16GB would be better sometimes but would cost 50% more and I would loose portability. so this is my compromise...
[doublepost=1502210779][/doublepost]
true. on the other side for even better performance bootcamp will be your way to go.
but I use parallels and Win10 often and it works just fine. of course a MBP with 16GB would be better sometimes but would cost 50% more and I would loose portability. so this is my compromise...
Last edited:
I ran Parallels on my 2016 Macbook and now my 2017 Macbook.....8 GB on both.
Both ran fine...the 2017 seems much snappier when running both but it's not a fair comparison since I had an M5 on the '16 and now have the i7.
IMHO you don't need 16 GB for a decent experience....
Your sacrificing some performance to run a VM anyway.
Both ran fine...the 2017 seems much snappier when running both but it's not a fair comparison since I had an M5 on the '16 and now have the i7.
IMHO you don't need 16 GB for a decent experience....
Your sacrificing some performance to run a VM anyway.
You don't need 16 GB to run Parallels alone, but if you're multi-tasking significantly with OS X, having just 8 GB total will be annoying. Luckily, the OP has said s/he won't be multitasking when running Parallels.
Can't say I've had any issues with either 2016/2017 MacBook doing just that.....
A lot of variables.....results may vary.
It works quite okay but it won't be fast (I've run on m3/m5/2016).
In my opinion the most common problem with virtualisation is that people give the VM way too much resources. 1-2GB of ram and 1 CPU core is usually more than enough to run a VM smoothly. It's counter productive giving the VM 4GB of ram and multiple cores on any low end Macbook.
If you need to run resource hungry apps on the Windows VM the Macbook might be too limited. If you are going to run word processing, browsers etc. it will be fine!
In my opinion the most common problem with virtualisation is that people give the VM way too much resources. 1-2GB of ram and 1 CPU core is usually more than enough to run a VM smoothly. It's counter productive giving the VM 4GB of ram and multiple cores on any low end Macbook.
If you need to run resource hungry apps on the Windows VM the Macbook might be too limited. If you are going to run word processing, browsers etc. it will be fine!
The difference between the two with VMs is pretty pronounced to me in regards to the base models. I did not feel that the 2016 with the base m3 could meet my personal needs. The 2017 with the base m3 can meet those needs, and can meet most of those needs almost as well as my base 2016 MacBook Pro can (the big exception being the MB can't use the same external hard drives for running VMs as the MBP.) If it were me personally, the 2017 would absolutely be my system of my choice, even if it meant spending a couple of bucks more. I'm notably biased because I also really like what they did with the keyboard on the new revision - this makes me see the new model in a more positive light on a subconscious level.
What do you plan to run?
The 2016 m3 was noticeably slower than the m5 (about the same speed as the 2015 m5). That said, it should be adequate if you are running something basic like Quicken.
just web browser or lightweight application, let say that if windows 10 runs smooth and is fine for web browsing for me is ok
if I have to spend more money I would prefer to buy the basic 2017 instead m5 2016
if I have to spend more money I would prefer to buy the basic 2017 instead m5 2016
Ahh, Gotcha.....
I figured either you didn't know what you doing or I didn't know what your doing.........obviously the later.
