[Watsey]

Brief background.

Because of an issue (which cannot be fixed - the functionality simply isn't available) with maintaining links between files Excel for Mac when collaborating with others in a shared area (i.e. Dropbox) I need to use Parallels / Windows 10 / Excel for Windows. The Windows version of Excel does have the functionality that we need.

This is proving to be a problem.

My iMac (21", 2012; quad core i7 3.1ghz, 16GB RAM; 1TB FusionDrive; NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M GPU; Catalina) cannot operate the Windows Virtual Machine from the SSD part of the FusionDrive - the file size limitation (4GB in the SSD) means that Parallels and Windows Virtual Machine (20GB including the Windows versions of Office) has to be stored on, and run from, the traditional hard drive (platters).

Processing the Virtual Machine from the traditional hard drive is making Parallels and Windows VM cripplingly slow.

It's possible to DIY upgrade the FusionDrive to a 1TB SSD for sensible money (£170), and I don't need a capacity increase because the majority of my storage (music, videos, backups, etc) are in a combination of external HDD and NAS (with duplication for backup purposes across these devices).

My question is this - will uprating to an SSD for the iMac make the read/write speeds blazing fast, especially for large files (I frequently work with Excel files >100Mb, with lots of embedded calculations, for analytics purposes), or would this feel like a modest speed bump ?

If anyone has had personal experience of an SSD upgrade on their Mac(s) I'd be interested in what differences it made, and whether you'd recommend it.

Thanks.

[Simon89]

It'll make a noticeable difference, I put an SSD in an old 2008 MacBook I had and even thought it was only SATA2 interface it made it snappier.

Just be aware that you'll need a 3.5" to 2.5" caddy to install the SSD within your iMac.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by Watsey

Brief background.

Because of an issue (which cannot be fixed - the functionality simply isn't available) with maintaining links between files Excel for Mac when collaborating with others in a shared area (i.e. Dropbox) I need to use Parallels / Windows 10 / Excel for Windows. The Windows version of Excel does have the functionality that we need.

This is proving to be a problem.

My iMac (21", 2012; quad core i7 3.1ghz, 16GB RAM; 1TB FusionDrive; NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M GPU; Catalina) cannot operate the Windows Virtual Machine from the SSD part of the FusionDrive - the file size limitation (4GB in the SSD) means that Parallels and Windows Virtual Machine (20GB including the Windows versions of Office) has to be stored on, and run from, the traditional hard drive (platters).

Processing the Virtual Machine from the traditional hard drive is making Parallels and Windows VM cripplingly slow.

It's possible to DIY upgrade the FusionDrive to a 1TB SSD for sensible money (£170), and I don't need a capacity increase because the majority of my storage (music, videos, backups, etc) are in a combination of external HDD and NAS (with duplication for backup purposes across these devices).

My question is this - will uprating to an SSD for the iMac make the read/write speeds blazing fast, especially for large files (I frequently work with Excel files >100Mb, with lots of embedded calculations, for analytics purposes), or would this feel like a modest speed bump ?

If anyone has had personal experience of an SSD upgrade on their Mac(s) I'd be interested in what differences it made, and whether you'd recommend it.

Thanks.

I think its in English. I recognise a few words so it must be in English... is it?

Watsey - get a beer, enjoy the sun!

[Watsey]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

I think its in English. I recognise a few words so it must be in English... is it?

Watsey - get a beer, enjoy the sun!

I thought the dinosaurs were extinct, but obviously there's still a few around

Am enjoying this ongoing lovely weather - just built a football goal in the back garden for the children; now time for a cuppa

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by Watsey

I thought the dinosaurs were extinct, but obviously there's still a few around

Am enjoying this ongoing lovely weather - just built a football goal in the back garden for the children; now time for a cuppa

We have tech people for that shit, if I want my computer sorting I give it them and they give me another one... (in normal times!)

I never touched a computer until I was 19, and I would be quite happy to have as little to do with them as possible now. To me they are like cars, I get in and drive, know enough to know what I like but I have no interest in playing with the bits that make it go....

Different strokes for different folks....

[EvilDrPorkChop]

I upgraded my Mac Mini 2011 6 years ago now (Which I still use as my daily machine), and my Macbook Pro at the time both to SSDs. Transformed both machines, and even now my Mac Mini is still relatively quick - only downside being it's now classed as a legacy machine so doesn't officially receive updates.

[Tengocity]

Can't answer the technical parts of your question, but I upgraded my 2011 Macbook with a 1TB SSD back in 2015 and it transformed it, so much so that it was still going strong this year, until the motherboard failed.

I have bought a new one (not much choice), but I've kept that SSD in a caddy as a back up drive.

However, that SSD, plus some more RAM meant I was able to keep that Mac going for many years.

What blew me away was having instantaneous access to every single photo, file or bit of music, like it was current in the RAM.

[Watsey]

Thanks for the input chaps.

My MacBook Pros both have SSD but the processors and RAM are both less than that in the iMac so the overall performance can't be directly compared.

On balance it does seem that an SSD upgrade for the iMac will be worthwhile. A job for next week.

[sahajesh]

Did my Mac Mini 2011 with an SSD and it's much faster, go for it.

Unrelated - which NAS do you have? I'm thinking Synology.

[EvilDrPorkChop]

Originally Posted by sahajesh

Did my Mac Mini 2011 with an SSD and it's much faster, go for it.

Unrelated - which NAS do you have? I'm thinking Synology.

I have Synology which also runs my CCTV system. Very impressed, although you could do with upgrading the RAM in some models. I've upped mine to 8GB.

[Watsey]

Originally Posted by sahajesh

Did my Mac Mini 2011 with an SSD and it's much faster, go for it.

Unrelated - which NAS do you have? I'm thinking Synology.

I have used QNAP for years, several models, and they've been reliable. However, the UI and the technical architecture of storage pools, volumes, snapshots, etc has become increasingly complicated and is a management 'overhead' that I increasingly can't be bothered with. My current 6-bay QNAP spends most of its time asleep these days and is really just a large backup 'drive'.

That said, if I was starting again I'd think carefully about what I need - a NAS is not necessarily the best solution.

For synchronised files and easy of access across several devices I use Dropbox + third party encryption software.

I don't use it as a media server as I stream ~90% of what I watch or listen to these days.

If I was buying home CCTV I'd opt for a stand-alone solution which includes local storage and copy any files manually (or automated) to computer/external storage (i.e. I wouldn't pay for additional Cloud storage from the likes of Ring, and I probably couldn't be bothered with licence costs and NAS CCTV setup and management).

For large network storage such as photos and video files I'd be tempted with Drobo. The ability to hot-swap discs for incremental capacity upgrades is tempting, but they tend to be less customisable in terms of storage management (which is kinda the point - they are more of a 'simple' solution to RAID storage). Drobo had some bad press a few years ago regarding controller failures, and resulting data loss, because of its bespoke file formatting but any good backup strategy should include an entirely separate copy of all important files for this eventuality.

It's easy to spend a lot of money on these systems so it's worth thinking carefully about what you need.

[Rukka]

I was running a 2012 21" MAC like yours up to just last week.

It had the 5400 standard spinny drive which had dire read/write speeds.

Rather than open the MAC up (pizza wheel and go in via the screen) I put an SSD into an external USB: caddy and installed MAC OS onto that. It transformed it!

I also run parallels and have no issues with it.

The MAC had underlying issues though and crashed once a day so last week I ordered a 4K Retina 21" with a fusion drive. To be honest, although it's newer etc etc my 2012 with the SSD was faster. So much so that I'm thinking of doing the same again and running off an external SSD again - keeping the internal fusion drive for backups.

One other point to note. If you do go inside it and upgrade your existing drive, you will need a module to make up for the lack of thermal monitor on the SSD or your MAC will throw hardware errors. Google it.

Personally I would go the external route. Less hassle and does what it says on the tin.

Hope that helps.

[ZedsRedBaby]

I'm sensing sledgehammer to crack nut here. Never had a problem running Parallels and Windows 10 alongside OSX on a 500GB SSD. Am I missing something? Also, why would file linking be any different? I frequently link to files in OneDrive, SharePoint, iCloud etc from both Mac and PC and haven't had a problem. Maybe you just need to link to the local copy rather than the remote?

On the NAS question, Synology over QNAP every time. Much easier to manage, and I have four cameras running 24/7 and constantly syncing to the 5TB that comes with an £80 a year Office 365 sub. Surveillance Station is a doddle to set up and mostly reliable.

[Craig-SM]

I’m missing the issue too. I’ve had no problems running Parallels or dual boot with Windows 10 on 256gb ssd. Likewise the majority of my files aren’t stored locally but in Dropbox online with only the the regularly used ones held on the drive.
I used dual boot then at a later date Parallels as MS Office programs were poor on a Mac, especially Excel, but now using an MS 365 subscription with their latest versions I have no problems with very little difference and only use Windows for programs that are only available on that platform.

[Watsey]

Originally Posted by Rukka

I was running a 2012 21" MAC like yours up to just last week.

It had the 5400 standard spinny drive which had dire read/write speeds.

Rather than open the MAC up (pizza wheel and go in via the screen) I put an SSD into an external USB: caddy and installed MAC OS onto that. It transformed it!

I also run parallels and have no issues with it.

The MAC had underlying issues though and crashed once a day so last week I ordered a 4K Retina 21" with a fusion drive. To be honest, although it's newer etc etc my 2012 with the SSD was faster. So much so that I'm thinking of doing the same again and running off an external SSD again - keeping the internal fusion drive for backups.

One other point to note. If you do go inside it and upgrade your existing drive, you will need a module to make up for the lack of thermal monitor on the SSD or your MAC will throw hardware errors. Google it.

Personally I would go the external route. Less hassle and does what it says on the tin.

Hope that helps.

Cheers Rukka - that's really helpful. I'd not come across the need for a thermal monitor. Good tip.

Read/write speeds, especially with Parallels / Win 10 / Excel are absolutely dire ~1MB/s. This is what's making Parallels v15 unusable. It's the first time I've used Parallels - can't say I'm impressed.

I've tested the read & write speeds for the Fusion Drive and they're fine : ~400MB/s read / ~250 MB/s write.

It might just be that Parallels v15 is shite - there's certainly plenty of evidence of that in the Parallels forum.

A while back I upgraded my MBP SSD and I still have the old 128GB SSD in a USB3 enclosure. I transferred Parallels VM to this, along with the Excel file I'm trying to work with (~100MB) and ran them both from there. There's pretty much no speed improvement and Windows Excel is still unusable.

Upgrading the iMac to run OS X from an external SSD may still provide a speed bump, but I don't think it's going to sure the problem with Parallels.

Next test is to install the Windows versions of Office in Boot Camp and see what speeds I get.

[Watsey]

Originally Posted by ZedsRedBaby

I'm sensing sledgehammer to crack nut here. Never had a problem running Parallels and Windows 10 alongside OSX on a 500GB SSD. Am I missing something? Also, why would file linking be any different? I frequently link to files in OneDrive, SharePoint, iCloud etc from both Mac and PC and haven't had a problem. Maybe you just need to link to the local copy rather than the remote?

On the NAS question, Synology over QNAP every time. Much easier to manage, and I have four cameras running 24/7 and constantly syncing to the 5TB that comes with an £80 a year Office 365 sub. Surveillance Station is a doddle to set up and mostly reliable.

There's specific problem with Excel for Mac which Google research and Microsoft have confirmed.

Linking files creates a file path name from the perspective of the computer which creates the link, i.e. the full path name for the document (i.e. the source file) being linked (i.e. C:\Documents\etc). This is the actual path , not the virtual path.

In the Windows version of Excel the path can be amended so as to use a virtual path, i.e. a Dropbox folder location. This means that more than one person, using different computers, can use the linked files as the virtual path still 'makes sense' to their respective computers.

In the Mac version of Excel it is not possible to ament the path name to the linked file. A C:\Documents\etc file path created by User A clearly won't make any sense to the computer for User B.

Now, Microsoft online tech support was hardly the last word in expertise in Microsoft products. If anyone knows the solution to this file linking problem across Windows & Mac versions of Excel then I'm all ears.

[ZedsRedBaby]

Originally Posted by Watsey

There's specific problem with Excel for Mac which Google research and Microsoft have confirmed.

Linking files creates a file path name from the perspective of the computer which creates the link, i.e. the full path name for the document (i.e. the source file) being linked (i.e. C:\Documents\etc). This is the actual path , not the virtual path.

In the Windows version of Excel the path can be amended so as to use a virtual path, i.e. a Dropbox folder location. This means that more than one person, using different computers, can use the linked files as the virtual path still 'makes sense' to their respective computers.

In the Mac version of Excel it is not possible to ament the path name to the linked file. A C:\Documents\etc file path created by User A clearly won't make any sense to the computer for User B.

Now, Microsoft online tech support was hardly the last word in expertise in Microsoft products. If anyone knows the solution to this file linking problem across Windows & Mac versions of Excel then I'm all ears.

OK I see what you mean now. I thought you just needed a local file to link to a remote file, but you are working on a remote file which has links to another remote file. Therefore the links between the remote files have to make sense to all users. Have I got that right?

[Craig-SM]

If it’s the first time you’ve used Parallels have you checked how much memory resources have been allocated to Windows when in use as it normally only provides the minimum.

https://kb.parallels.com/120658

[Rukka]

Originally Posted by Watsey

Cheers Rukka - that's really helpful. I'd not come across the need for a thermal monitor. Good tip.

Read/write speeds, especially with Parallels / Win 10 / Excel are absolutely dire ~1MB/s. This is what's making Parallels v15 unusable. It's the first time I've used Parallels - can't say I'm impressed.

I've tested the read & write speeds for the Fusion Drive and they're fine : ~400MB/s read / ~250 MB/s write.

It might just be that Parallels v15 is shite - there's certainly plenty of evidence of that in the Parallels forum.

A while back I upgraded my MBP SSD and I still have the old 128GB SSD in a USB3 enclosure. I transferred Parallels VM to this, along with the Excel file I'm trying to work with (~100MB) and ran them both from there. There's pretty much no speed improvement and Windows Excel is still unusable.

Upgrading the iMac to run OS X from an external SSD may still provide a speed bump, but I don't think it's going to sure the problem with Parallels.

Next test is to install the Windows versions of Office in Boot Camp and see what speeds I get.

Not sure if my version of parallels without looking but I can assure you it absolutely flies when running off SSD.

Re the fusion drive. They only have 24gb of flash storage (think yours might have 32 as it's older) so next to bugger all resides on them so I'm not sure that running the Parallels VM off your SSD would help that much given that the main app is still on crap disk. Rather poor of Apple and must admit, I didn't know this when I bought my 4K MAC a couple of weeks ago.

FWIW I would just try running the full OS and parallels off the external SSD. You only need to restore from Time Machine and you're done. Won't affect your existing install - just pick which drive to boot from. At least you'll know then.

[Watsey]

Originally Posted by ZedsRedBaby

OK I see what you mean now. I thought you just needed a local file to link to a remote file, but you are working on a remote file which has links to another remote file. Therefore the links between the remote files have to make sense to all users. Have I got that right?

Yea, exactly right.

[Watsey]

Originally Posted by Rukka

FWIW I would just try running the full OS and parallels off the external SSD. You only need to restore from Time Machine and you're done. Won't affect your existing install - just pick which drive to boot from. At least you'll know then.

I'll have a look at that - thanks.

[EvilDrPorkChop]

Originally Posted by Watsey

I'll have a look at that - thanks.

Your main issue here will be you're using USB2.0 to run the SSD (unless your older iMac uses 3.0) which by the time you've transferred the data will be nearly the same speed as your internal standard drive rendering it pointless.

Ideally you need to be upgrading the internal drive to see any decent performance upgrade - unless of course it has USB3.0.