Page 2 of 6 (101 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last »
This post has 100 Replies | 15 Followers

Posts 39
John Morgan | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 23 2020 5:08 PM

Phil Gons (Faithlife):

Ken Brown:
Any timeline for Logos to be made compatible without the use of Rosetta?

No. We don't even have a production machine yet to do performance benchmarking. We have a pre-production development machine that may or may not reflect the production machine's performance. We should be getting one or more very soon, and we'll start to do more extensive compatibility testing, performance benchmarking, etc.

Based on some early indications that we're seeing among tech reviewers, there's a chance performance could be slightly improved even with the emulation layer. If that's the case, there won't be as much urgency to build a native solution. We're exploring different options for native, but that's still a research project.

So, we need more information before we can determine where to fit this in our priority queue:

  • What is performance on M1? Slower, faster, about the same?
  • How many of our users are migrating to Apple's new processors?
  • What are the expected performance gains of being fully native?
  • What are the anticipated costs of migrating to a native solution?

Once we have more detail on these points, we're happy to come back and provide a relative priority and more in terms of expectation than "we're not sure yet."

I'm sorry we don't have more to share at this point.

I am migrating to Apple's new processors. I plan to stay with Apple products

Posts 17
Matthew Speakes | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 26 2020 5:55 AM

I hate to say this, and I'm not trying to be mean-spirited, but this answer shows that Logos has very few, if any, competitive concerns.  I'm seeing other software publishers, some big, some very small - all with acute competitive concerns, already delivering universal or native M1 apps.  I've enjoyed an outstanding experience with these apps on my new MacBook.

It's a little disheartening that Logos is  still developing a criteria on whether they'll even begin M1 development. Logos understands many of their customers have invested thousands in their software and libraries so Logos has the luxury of not meeting the higher expectations that other software publishers are setting.    

With this said, I have an M1 MacBook Air with 16GB RAM and 1TB SSDs and Logos is noticeably slower.  I'm not enjoying the experience.  I'm unsure if others with the new Macs are having similar issues.  I'm not going anywhere anytime soon as it would be far too painful for me financially.  So yes, Logos, you have little reason to be concerned about me jumping ship and I've set my expectations considerably lower based on this response.  I do appreciate the candor though.

Posts 9
Dan Lioy, Ph.D. | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 26 2020 9:24 AM

Matthew, thank you for sharing your observations about how Logos is running on your M1 MBA under Rosetta 2. This is the sort of user experience I’m keen to know more about from other users of Logos on Apple Silicon computers. And I concur that it is rather disconcerting that Logos has not even yet begun to port their product to run natively on Apple Silicon. To me, this corporate decision seems rather shortsighted.

Posts 731
JH | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 26 2020 11:49 AM

Dan Lioy, Ph.D.:

Matthew, thank you for sharing your observations about how Logos is running on your M1 MBA under Rosetta 2. This is the sort of user experience I’m keen to know more about from other users of Logos on Apple Silicon computers. And I concur that it is rather disconcerting that Logos has not even yet begun to port their product to run natively on Apple Silicon. To me, this corporate decision seems rather shortsighted.

It is not slower for me - it is noticeably faster than running natively on my 2015 Intel iMac. That said, I do think it would be in Faithlife's best interest to work on a native M1 version because all Macs will go that way over the next couple of years.

Posts 208
Tony Walker | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 26 2020 5:22 PM

What did Faithlife do when Apple switched from PPC to Intel? How long was it before they announced a plan, etc? Obviously, they made the switch otherwise they wouldn't be here.

Im not a software developer, so I have no clue what goes into planning something like this. My claim to computer fame was working part-time at the Apple Store for about a year back in 2010. 

That being said... I can't imagine any major software company (that already has a Mac user base) not thinking how to make the migration.

I look fwd to whatever Faithlife does to make use of the new chip and battery life the M1 offers. I have spent quite a bit in the last 6 years as a Logos user. It would be sad if "all" I got to do with it in the future is read on my iPad. The mobile experience just doesn't compare to the desktop one. I hope they don’t try to soup-up the iPad app and turn that into a desktop app—I hope that it will always be the true desktop experience. 

Posts 29205
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 26 2020 5:54 PM

Tony Walker:
What did Faithlife do when Apple switched from PPC to Intel?

I dont think FL had a version compatible with PPC. 

I think I am wrong. Smile

macOS, iOS & iPadOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 29205
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Nov 26 2020 6:02 PM

L4 Mac came out in November 2009. I don't know when the earlier "Logos for Mac" was released. The transition from Power PC to intel happened in 2006. 

macOS, iOS & iPadOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 10817
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Nov 27 2020 7:55 AM

JT (alabama24):

L4 Mac came out in November 2009. I don't know when the earlier "Logos for Mac" was released. The transition from Power PC to intel happened in 2006. 

Logos for Mac Version 1 Alpha was released in March 2008, abut 2 years after it was first announced. This is the reason FL is now very, very reluctant to announce projected release dates. 

Since I was running Logos via Virtual PC, I was ready for my Christmas present in 2006 (or was it 2007), but alas, there was no Logos in my stocking that Christmas Crying

Posts 29205
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Nov 27 2020 8:53 AM

So my original belief was correct: FL did not go through the last transition. 

Unlike the previous transition, FL has a vested interest in making this move... but there is no hurry to make the app "native" until closer to the drop date for support of Rosetta 2. 

It is my understanding that the biggest issue is support of the third party items. 

macOS, iOS & iPadOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 2102
LogosEmployee
Phil Gons (Faithlife) | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Nov 27 2020 11:06 AM

Update:

I have the base M1 Mac Mini, and I've performed a series of benchmarks comparing it to my 2018 i9 MBP, my 2018 custom-built PC (with an Intel Optane drive), and my 2013 work Windows desktop.

The performance is mixed. In some cases, it's faster than all the others (e.g., subsequent opens of resources with lots of visual filters on and certain searches). In other cases, it's slower (e.g., startup, webviews). In most cases it's pretty comparable. On the whole, I'd say it's fairly comparable to a machine from a few years ago due to the emulation layer, with a few outliers in both directions.

The one place in my experience where it is clearly subpar is with webviews that leverage CEF (the Chromium Embedded Framework), especially if they demand a higher framerate. So, interactives and shared web components range from tolerable (Notes) to mostly unusable (Psalms Explorer). We're looking into this to see if there's anything we can do in the short term to improve performance. Perhaps a new version of CEF will be released that we could use.

Side note: I'm surprised I've not see others report this yet. Maybe I've just missed it. Is this others' experience, too?

The two mostly likely pathways to native support probably look like this:

  1. Mono adds support for Apple's M1 ARM processor, allowing us to generate and compile directly to ARM. Mono already supports other ARM platforms. I haven't seen any advertised time frames, but maybe this path could be 6–12 months out? That's a wild guess, so I wouldn't put much stock in it until we hear something official from Mono. But this path should be faster, since they already support other ARM platforms.
  2. We move to .NET 5 (planned to start in Q1 for other reasons) and then to .NET 6 a year later, which plans to add full support for Apple's Silicon: code generation, compiler support, official testing and support by Microsoft. .NET 6 is due in February of 2022, so this pathway puts us at least 15–18 months out, I'd guess.

We're watching this space closely (performance testing and reports from users, the release of more Macs with Apple's Silicon, the adoption rate by our users in particular and the market in general, and various technology paths for getting to native support). We'll keep you updated as we learn more and our plans solidify.

Update: See also the clarification below.

Posts 17
Matthew Speakes | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Nov 27 2020 3:10 PM

Well, a little disheartening, but based on the original FL message, not unexpected.  I suppose the Faithlife starting point is different than many other software publishers.  Apple is keeping a growing list of sw publishers who have already converted their Intel apps to Apple silicon native.  Adobe, a big one for Mac users (including myself), is expected to release both Lightroom Classic and Photoshop Apple silicon native versions in the next few months.  Adobe originally said December, but that may be ambitious on their part...  Anyway, thanks for the update.

Posts 2102
LogosEmployee
Phil Gons (Faithlife) | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Nov 27 2020 6:25 PM

I created a feedback item for this, which you're free to vote for. Voting will help us see how important this is collectively to the Logos community, but it may not change the actual timeline, which is the fastest possible path to native support. See this clarification below.

Posts 59
Karl Fritz Jr. | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Nov 27 2020 6:40 PM

I can only speak for my own inclinations, but the adoption rate, for me anyway, is something of a chicken and egg scenario.  At the moment, I don't need a new machine, but when FL releases a version of Logos (and Proclaim) that runs natively on Apple's ARM processors, then I would almost instantly buy a new Apple desktop.  Logos is the main reason I even have a desktop computer.  And once it runs natively on Apple's ARM, then I'm assuming performance would be enhanced.  And I'm a huge fan of a faster Logos, so that would easily persuade me to upgrade my desktop.  Maybe there's others that are in the same boat?

Also, I voted for that!Big Smile

Posts 17
Matthew Speakes | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Nov 27 2020 7:07 PM

Thanks, for this and I stand corrected - the list Apple is updating is for apps that have been "optimized" for M1.  

Posts 17
Matthew Speakes | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Nov 27 2020 7:09 PM

Logos is the only reason I use a laptop and not an iPad Pro.  I can adjust my workflow to work well with an iPad Pro for everything I do except Logos.

Posts 2102
LogosEmployee
Phil Gons (Faithlife) | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Nov 27 2020 7:40 PM

Matthew Speakes:

Logos is the only reason I use a laptop and not an iPad Pro.  I can adjust my workflow to work well with an iPad Pro for everything I do except Logos.

Which is more important to you, Logos 9 Mac native on M1 or the iPad app with all the features it's missing? What features are missing for you?

Posts 42
Mike Prewitt | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Nov 27 2020 7:48 PM

Phil Gons (Faithlife):

Which is more important to you, Logos 9 Mac native on M1 or the iPad app with all the features it's missing? What features are missing for you?

For me, I would prioritize Logos running natively on an Apple Silicon Mac over enhancements to the Logos app on the iPad.

Posts 2102
LogosEmployee
Phil Gons (Faithlife) | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Nov 27 2020 9:19 PM

Phil Gons (Faithlife):

The two mostly likely pathways to native support probably look like this:

  1. Mono adds support for Apple's M1 ARM processor, allowing us to generate and compile directly to ARM. Mono already supports other ARM platforms. I haven't seen any advertised time frames, but maybe this path could be 6–12 months out? That's a wild guess, so I wouldn't put much stock in it until we hear something official from Mono. But this path should be faster, since they already support other ARM platforms.
  2. We move to .NET 5 (planned to start in Q1 for other reasons) and then to .NET 6 a year later, which plans to add full support for Apple's Silicon: code generation, compiler support, official testing and support by Microsoft. .NET 6 is due in February of 2022, so this pathway puts us at least 15–18 months out, I'd guess.

A couple of clarifications:

  1. Getting Logos 9 running natively on Apple's Silicon is planned and very important to us. It's not a matter of if but when. The M1 shows promise for making Logos run faster on Mac, and we're excited about that.
  2. The two paths I laid out above are the fastest paths to native support. The two alternatives—rewriting the app and building M1 support into .NET 5 and/or Mono—would both take longer. The first alternative would probably take a dozen developers 4–6 years. Not sure about the second, but it's not a feasible path for many reasons.

So, we'll get to native support as quickly as we can, but we're blocked by .NET and Mono and can't go any faster than they do.

The priority for us right now, while we wait for these third parties, is making sure Logos 9 runs well via Rosetta 2. We have some work do to in our web views based on CEF's slow performance. We'll keep testing and working to make sure M1 users are well supported both now and after we're able to deliver native support.

Posts 3992
Forum MVP
PetahChristian | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Nov 27 2020 9:27 PM

Phil Gons (Faithlife):
Which is more important to you, Logos 9 Mac native on M1 or the iPad app with all the features it's missing?

For me, it’s all about screen real estate.

  • At most, you have a split view in the iPad app. To see a different pane, you have to swipe the current pane offscreen.
  • On the desktop, there are many visible panes laid out in an arrangement of our choosing. Bible, Information tool, Factbook, Notes, Bible word study, Highlighters.

For that reason, the iPad can supplement the desktop app, but it can’t replace it.

As for missing iPad functionality, support for Apple Pencil would be a big deal. Highlighting, note taking, and markup.

Thanks to FL for including Carta and a Hebrew audio bible in Logos 9!

Posts 17
Matthew Speakes | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Nov 28 2020 5:02 AM

Good question - The Factbook is now on mobile I believe which is a very nice upgrade for mobile users.  The main issue with Logos on the iPad Pro is an iOS issue.  I want to have at least four windows on one screen.  I can't do that with the iPad Pro.  I fully understand that some Logos users couldn't imagine using such a small screen, but it's a trade-off for me.  I really enjoy interfacing with the iPad.  Anyway, with this in mind, the Mac is much more flexible than the iPad when it comes to Logos so I would like to see the focus on native M1 development.  

With this said, I would think that FL would have development teams for each platform, and this wouldn't be an either/or scenario.

Page 2 of 6 (101 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last » | RSS