Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mac Mini Can't Handle Parallels

N

No1iSaHero

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jun 12, 2012
16
0
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.
 
No1iSaHero said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.)
 
Giuly said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
chrfr said:
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.
Click to expand...

16GB Crucial are $99.96 incl. shipping, the HyperX are $126.74. That's merely $26.78.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Giuly said:
16GB Crucial are $99.96 incl. shipping, the HyperX are $126.74. That's merely $26.78.
Click to expand...

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/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820313301

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/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231580

and now we are at $46.

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

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148614

That's a $40 difference than hyperx which is pretty much 50% more.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Giuly said:
16GB Crucial are $99.96 incl. shipping, the HyperX are $126.74. That's merely $26.78.
Click to expand...
You can find Crucial and other brand RAM for less, but regardless, 25-30% for an intangible performance difference is a waste.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Giuly said:
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?
Click to expand...
I'd stick with something that's within Apple's specifications.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
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.
 
No1iSaHero said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
No1iSaHero said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
FreakinEurekan said:
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.
Click to expand...

For the relatively minor cost of a 16GB upgrade you get very good bang for your buck.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
foofan said:
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.
Click to expand...

The apps generally suck in the first instance, we don't need more sucky Mac apps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back