Logos 4 Mac. . . VERY POOR PERFORMANCE

Page 4 of 8 (150 items) « First ... < Previous 2 3 4 5 6 Next > ... Last »
This post has 149 Replies | 3 Followers

Posts 56
Seth Huckstead | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Dec 17 2010 2:57 PM

If I am to be accurate, than I have been using this since early February, starting with Alpha 7 or 8. If I could get a refund right now, I would bid adieu to Logos. I say that with reluctance, in some sense. It offers more resources than any other product right now. But it doesn't work effectively for the classwork I need to accomplish. 

I am not a novice Mac user. I don't count myself an expert, but certainly not a novice. I have never had to try so much to optimize my computer to get this program to function. Usually optimization has been involved to get an already working program smokin fast. The optimization in the case of Logos is just to get is usable. This should not be the concern of the end user, but of the programers and ultimately the CEO of this company. 

 

Posts 15
MikeV81 | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Dec 17 2010 3:04 PM

Hi All,

Well, I just got off the phone with Logos. The young lady was very gracious and said that a version 4.2 is in the pipe for Mac that will include a lot of optimizations for those of us with issues. She also said that we would be entitled to a refund if the program was not performing for us.

GB,

Mike

Posts 5292
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Dec 17 2010 4:04 PM

Seth Huckstead:

If I am to be accurate, than I have been using this since early February, starting with Alpha 7 or 8. If I could get a refund right now, I would bid adieu to Logos. I say that with reluctance, in some sense. It offers more resources than any other product right now. But it doesn't work effectively for the classwork I need to accomplish. 

I am not a novice Mac user. I don't count myself an expert, but certainly not a novice. I have never had to try so much to optimize my computer to get this program to function. Usually optimization has been involved to get an already working program smokin fast. The optimization in the case of Logos is just to get is usable. This should not be the concern of the end user, but of the programers and ultimately the CEO of this company. 

 

I am sorry this software is not working for you well enough, hopefully you get your money back and can get something that can serve you better. I apologize if I inferred you had to be a computer geek to use things. I just meant to suggest that slowness might not be logos fault (it may well be their fault). And you are right ultimately the program working well is Logos responsibility. Reading the message  below this it looks like you might be able to get your money back if 4.2 is not to your liking. 

-Dan

Posts 762
Patrick S. | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Dec 18 2010 1:37 AM

It is interesting to read the comments, but a bit sad to see, again, that they are mostly subjective and not quantitative.

Also I don't understand how someone can talk about performance realistically when his Logos install, as he says, crashes. It seems pretty clear to me that their Logos install on their machine has some problems - I would be focusing on that and any comment on performance from that computer would have to be completely disregarded at this time.

Logos doesn't crash on my machine, and for many (other) people it runs without issue on their machines, the performance of the product for them also is satisfactory. So unless they are a) deluded, b) have low expectations of software performance, or c) liars then there are two groups having, it seems, two different experiences.

No one (me included) is saying that L4M is perfect, it's genesis (spin off of Windows app) could not be said to have been 'ideal' (from a purist's perspective) but... so? Again for me I look at the functionality in the package.

Also, comments (threats) to go back to using paper books and/or dark statements like Amazon or Sony or other eReaders are going to bury Logos — really, please.... you really think Amazon is going to make a product like Logos 4? You really think an ebook reader can match the analysis tools in Logos? Feel free to think those statements to yourself (can understand if you are frustrated) but spare us from putting them on the forum.

We're all trying to talk about performance - yes? Performance can be a very subjective point. A much more beneficial, positive, likely to help the developers and lead to improvements in the product for us, approach is to get some numbers and analyse them.

I posted a result from a hardware test program that listed a rating for my machine, (No wonder he's) Smiling 4 Jesus (with that 27" beast of a machine) followed that with number for his machine (which was almost double mine Crying) that gives an indication of raw performance difference between machines. Below I have posted results of stopwatch timed tests I did on my L4M installation. It would be interesting to see what numbers others get — and what Logos says should be typical. Of course the size of the library can/will have an affect but still the numbers provide hard info.

 

=============================

Test 1 - Program startup (I have broadband 10Mbit+ connection at home)

Click icon in dock to display of home page with following options selected in home screen (Lectionary, Library Slideshow, Recent Reading Lists, Devotionals, Excerpts, Logos Blog, Logos News, Logos Pre-Pubs, My Logos Messages)

Result = 33 seconds

 

Test 2 - Open passage in layout

From home page use Go to open passage, I used one verse, John 3:16, to focus on how long it would take to open all resources.

Use standard layout

- Passage Guide panel with Commentaries expanded, all the rest (Cross References through to Sermoncentral.com) collapsed
- Exegetical Guide panel
- Bibles panel with 5 Bible tabs (ESV, NAS, NIV, Lexham, NLT)
- Commentary panel
- Information panel (set to click not hover)
- Text Comparison panel

Result = 10.4 seconds

 

Test 3 - Information panel

Click on word 'God' in Bible text ('God' being a word which returns large number of results). Time till Information panel finishes display — spinning wheel stops.

Result = 7 seconds

 

Test 4 - Basic Query (588 resources built from original Scholar's Library)

Search 'All Text' in 'Entire Library'

Query text "resurrection WITHIN 8 words (love,kingdom)" finds

> My Content 0 in 0 docs (0.24 sec)
> New Resources 16 results in 7 articles in 5 resources (0.25 sec)
> Library 794 results in 299 articles in 88 resources (0.65 sec)

Time to end of query with results fully displayed

Result = 5.8 seconds

 

Test 5 - Morph Search

In ESV version text in John 3, right click on word "darkness", from context menu choose 'Morph Search : σκότος'

Search panel - 'All Morph Text' in 'All Passages' in 'English Standard Version' with 'Logos Greek Morphology' for "lemma:σκότος"

Time to end of query with results fully displayed

Result = 2.8 seconds

 

"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein

Posts 56
Seth Huckstead | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Dec 18 2010 4:38 AM

Patrick, 

It would be better to say that the user experience is not consistent. My machine has a decent Geekbench score. However, my tests are vastly different regarding startup time and getting a new passage layout to populate.

My startup time for a usable Logos was 4.5 minutes. For a layout (once Logos had stopped pegging my processor) it is about 3 minutes.

However, there are the program slowdowns and crashes that are killing me. I find many issues when using BDAG (dully reported) that cause program crash. That means I have to go through the whole startup process again. I purchased BDAG to save time, but it is now faster for me to go to my shelf and get my hard copy. 

Search times have always been fast, so there is no complaint there. 

I feel like I am back in the OS8 and OS9 days when you would have to start-up the machine with the extension manager turned off and than turn on all of this little puzzle pieces on one at a time. Then try it again with combinations of extensions. Days wasted. 

OS 10 has come a long way since 8 and 9 and I can't remember the last time I've had a program hobble my computer like this (well Pages, an Apple product can have a remarkably long startup time, but it is flawless after that). I just want a consistent user experience. 

My hardware is not the problem, I don't need to defrag (this is a UNIX OS, degfrag is not needed, but actually unwanted in UNIX, from what I understand-could be wrong), repaired my preferences (which I just read you actually don't need to do with OS 10) I don't have conflicting programs (tried that). I have reinstalled Logos, cleaned out my caches, removed preference files, etc, etc. I have done everything, but the program still has problems. 

We just want some answers from Logos about these issues. We realize that programming is difficult, but perhaps this product still should be marked beta rather than GM. When you have that beta tag, expectations are quite a bit different. When it is GM, we all expect a product that we can depend upon. 

Posts 15
MikeV81 | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Dec 18 2010 5:21 AM

My Logos runs slow, and crashes. I started the thread. I have run it on a CoreDuo MacBook Pro, a Core2Duo iMac, and my Core i7 iMac, all with similar performance. I have used Alpha, Beta, and final versions. I am having a hard time pasting the results here, but my GeekBench score is 10,728.... 

Logos is an amazing program, probably without competition on the Mac side. However, it is indisputable that there are programming flaws and the software is not optimized for all scenarios. This is a premature release. Someone mentioned a programming philosophy of code first, optimize later. Yes, it shows.

There are over 60 posts here and, as far as I know, not 1 Logos employee has chimed in or contacted me privately. When I spoke to them yesterday, though the young lady was very nice, right from the beginning her position was that the software is great and runs awesome for many people, so I must be a fluke. I think that Logos, since they are charging an exorbitant amount for God's word, should be browsing these forums and reaching out to users to ensure we are satisfied. This is one of the busiest forum threads I've seen, so if the statistics hold true, this must be a prevalent problem.

This was my first time posting on this forum. I don't understand why so many people go of on tangents, start bickering with one another, or feel compelled to discipline each other. Thank God were dealing with Christians, otherwise we may have gotten death threats on this forum....I will be signing off of "my" forum, this has just gotten ridiculous, and with the exception of Keep Smiling, no one has provided useful optimization tips. I think some people need to examine the intent of a forum and keep that in mind. Also, we should remember that we are all Christians, and are not here to argue, but to help each other. At least that is why I started the thread.I have no problem with people venting, heck, I have gotten a few laughs out of it. Some people just need to lighten up and stop trying to rebuke those that are venting, they are venting with all the right in the world. This is not a cheap software.

GB,

Mike

 

Posts 762
Patrick S. | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Dec 18 2010 6:10 AM

Seth Huckstead:

My machine has a decent Geekbench score. However, my tests are vastly different regarding startup time and getting a new passage layout to populate.

My startup time for a usable Logos was 4.5 minutes. For a layout (once Logos had stopped pegging my processor) it is about 3 minutes.

However, there are the program slowdowns and crashes that are killing me. I find many issues when using BDAG (dully reported) that cause program crash. 

Without knowing your Geekbench score (most likely still more than mine) regardless, from what you say about startup time & load layout times which are so, so much longer than mine and the fact that running BDAG (I have also) causes crashes it would suggest to me that your installation is corrupted. Of course this is not your fault (or anyone's necessarily) it is just stating the fact. I would believe that if you had times the same as mine you would be much happier.

So the question becomes what needs to be done to get a stable installation on your computer and/or what may have messed it up in the first place. I've (re)installed a number of times over the Alpha/Beta/Release process and have it installed on two machines (desktop and baby Macbook) and it has not had performance issues like you list since release version.

 

MikeV81:

My Logos runs slow, and crashes. I started the thread. I have run it on a CoreDuo MacBook Pro, a Core2Duo iMac, and my Core i7 iMac, all with similar performance. I have used Alpha, Beta, and final versions. I am having a hard time pasting the results here, but my GeekBench score is 10,728.... 

Mike can you define "slow", did you run the same tests as I list (they are pretty specific) what numbers do you get. Isn't this exactly the point I am saying... people are trying to help one another but there needs to be quantitative discussion. "Slow" is subjective: 10.4 seconds vs 180 seconds to open a layout, and a GeekBench score of 5,483 vs 10,728 (I should be so lucky!) is objective.

 

MikeV81:

This is not a cheap software.

Well actually the [primary] cost is not the software, but the library resources. You're not forgetting that base package you got at a fraction of the printed book price are you?

 

MikeV81:

and with the exception of Keep Smiling, no one has provided useful ...we should remember that we are all Christians, and are not here to argue, but to help each other. 

Mmm... Mike it didn't take me zero time to run those tests and record and post the information you know. And instead of venting yourself about "slow" and chastising others perhaps you would do better to provide some concrete information.

Anyway, a little argument is good for the soul, and if we're in the same company as Paul and Barnabas we can't all be that bad/unusual.

 

"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein

Posts 56
Seth Huckstead | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Dec 18 2010 6:12 AM

Ouch. I guess I have been getting a little heated when you read these. When I write I am composed and calm. I hope I have not offended anyone and do not want to give the impression that I am degrading the name of Christ. If I have, please, all, forgive me for my impertinence. 

Posts 762
Patrick S. | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Dec 18 2010 6:18 AM

Seth Huckstead:

Ouch. I guess I have been getting a little heated when you read these. When I write I am composed and calm. I hope I have not offended anyone and do not want to give the impression that I am degrading the name of Christ. If I have, please, all, forgive me for my impertinence. 

Don't worry Seth — I think anyone who was in your shoes, getting the times like you have been would be getting close to the point of chucking the computer out the window. I would.

We just hope it can improve so you can get the use out of Logos which you are obviously looking forward to.

Here's a picture I've always liked...

just don't jump out after it, no computer is worth it  Smile 

"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein

Posts 56
Seth Huckstead | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Dec 18 2010 6:21 AM

I think the BDAG problem is related to the way graphics are rendered. 

I am going to try a clean install, but now that I think about it, my son has my second install on his laptop (he is only 15 and so the computer is technically mine). He is experiencing the same problem(s)-the only issue I can think of is that he is essentially running the same setup, just on an older Macbook, which I transferred via Time Machine.

I will report on how the clean install interacts. 

Posts 10740
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Dec 18 2010 10:24 AM

Seth Huckstead:
I will report on how the clean install interacts. 

If you still experience slow times, please start a new thread and post some log files so the Mac Dev Team can analyze the difficulty. If you title the new thread something like "But: very slow startup", it will get the attention of those whose expertise is greater than mine.

Instruction for posting logs are contained in the first link in my signature and the second link describes Logos Log Scribe which automates much of the process.

Let us focus on getting your installation to work the best it can. I know L4 Mac still has some irritating problems, but it is far, far better than is was just a few weeks ago. There is a new Beta due Tuesday that may address some of the most serious concerns.

Posts 19
Rich | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Dec 18 2010 10:28 AM

fgh,

You are probably right.  It usually does fall to the manager.  I know there is no way I would have approved the release of this software.

 

-Rich

Posts 1416
Wes Saad | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Dec 18 2010 10:37 AM

Throwing in my 2 cents, performance issues are ongoing and agitating. Each release shows a little improvement, but I'm still using the PC version far more than the Mac version. New features are great, but I continue to be agitated that more focus is not given to cleaning up existing features. I am happy for those (in the minority, I think) who do not experience issues. I would like to know the trick. But for me, the performance problems are generally too annoying and inhibitive to put up with.

Posts 1861
LogosEmployee
Tom Philpot (Faithlife) | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Dec 18 2010 1:40 PM

Jeremy:
Unfortunately I think this could be where Logos 4 Mac is right now performance wise.
Jeremy:
Logos 4 Mac is just not exactly where I would like it speed wise

While the Mac team is extremely proud of what we accomplished so far, we're always trying to improve performance. (The same goes for the Windows team, incidentally). Unfortunately, there's no silver bullet when it comes to performance. Usually, speed gains are made a little a time and the cumulative result is a faster product. We've done some work in the 4.2a Beta to speed up search result display and a few other areas. We have some ideas about other areas we can work on to make things faster, but we don't have a magic switch we can flip. A lot of our focus in speed and optimization is deep under the hood. It's work that takes much more time and has much greater chance for regressions and requires much more testing. 

There isn't a day that goes by that I don't talk with the other Mac developers about some aspect of performance. It's on all of our minds in the midst of working on bugs, and implementing new features. We can't abandon working on new features, or improving the existing ones. So, when Monday rolls around, we'll all be back at work working on requested features, fixing bugs and improving performance.

Mobile Development Team Lead

Posts 1861
LogosEmployee
Tom Philpot (Faithlife) | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Dec 18 2010 1:44 PM

Seth Huckstead:
My startup time for a usable Logos was 4.5 minutes. For a layout (once Logos had stopped pegging my processor) it is about 3 minutes.

As Jack suggested, start a new thread, save your troublesome layout as a named layout, post your Layouts.db and we'll take a look. Also, let us know what machine configuration you're running, i.e. processor & ram.

 

Mobile Development Team Lead

Posts 103
Simon | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 19 2010 5:39 AM

Performance tweaks.

So far I have attempted the following.

>> Full OS X reinstall, wiped the drive and started again. This did help. For some unknown reason the previous 10.6 upgrade resulted in slow OS performance the first time around. ::: I was pleasantly surprised by a noticeable significant overall performance boost in OS X and Logos4Mac.

>> Noted the post regarding the 32-bit / 64-bit state of things for ~pre 2009 MacBook Pro's. My MBP is now running the 64-bit kernel by default. ::: Noticeable but minor performance gain.

>> Removed / shutdown every possible running application but saw no appreciable performance gain with Logos4Mac.

>> With regard to stability. I have now decided to perform a full re-installation of Logos4Mac in an attempt to clear out any potential data or application hiccups / corruption, suspect legacy layouts or configuration files etc.

Next step will be to retest Logos4Mac to see how it performs in the areas of stability and speed. Will let you know how I go.

Posts 103
Simon | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 19 2010 6:01 AM

Will take quite some time for the next reply as the download is 11+ gig.

What I have learnt from the postings on this topic.

I did not previously know Logos4Mac was sitting on a .Net compatibility layer. Now I can understand why the performance of the Mac version is poor. I now also feel like a second rate citizen to my Windows brothers and sisters running a native Logos engine. Will Logos continue with its policy for Mac OS X or will Logos get serious about a native Logos engine for Mac OS X? This is, in my view, very disappointing.

Would anyone from Logos be willing to comment here?

If the previous post mentioned next steps prove to be less than I would hope for, at the very least improved stability, I will reinstall Windows XP on VMware Fusion 3 and Logos for Windows and see how it fares. I'd be curious to know if others have pursued this option to work around the Logos4Mac issues enthusiastically discussed on this post and what their experiences have been.

Blessings to you all and my the Lord of all time bless you with the time needed to enter into eternal fellowship with Him.

Posts 5615
Todd Phillips | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 19 2010 6:56 AM

S Mack:

I did not previously know Logos4Mac was sitting on a .Net compatibility layer. Now I can understand why the performance of the Mac version is poor. I now also feel like a second rate citizen to my Windows brothers and sisters running a native Logos engine. Will Logos continue with its policy for Mac OS X or will Logos get serious about a native Logos engine for Mac OS X? This is, in my view, very disappointing.

Would anyone from Logos be willing to comment here?

They've commented many times in the past:

http://community.logos.com/forums/p/13210/102596.aspx#102596

http://community.logos.com/forums/p/12648/99060.aspx#99060

http://community.logos.com/forums/p/12648/101970.aspx#101970

A lot of Logos employees' comments in the forums are indexed here on the wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Logos_Speaks

Wiki Links: Enabling Logging / Detailed Search Help - MacBook Pro (2014), ThinkPad E570

Posts 103
Simon | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 19 2010 7:06 AM

I do not not frequent this forum on a regular basis, don't have the time, and have had no reason to consider Logos would make such an... ...interesting design decision for Mac OS X.

Posts 5292
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 19 2010 10:55 AM

Todd Phillips:

S Mack:

I did not previously know Logos4Mac was sitting on a .Net compatibility layer. Now I can understand why the performance of the Mac version is poor. I now also feel like a second rate citizen to my Windows brothers and sisters running a native Logos engine. Will Logos continue with its policy for Mac OS X or will Logos get serious about a native Logos engine for Mac OS X? This is, in my view, very disappointing.

Would anyone from Logos be willing to comment here?

They've commented many times in the past:

http://community.logos.com/forums/p/13210/102596.aspx#102596

http://community.logos.com/forums/p/12648/99060.aspx#99060

http://community.logos.com/forums/p/12648/101970.aspx#101970

A lot of Logos employees' comments in the forums are indexed here on the wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Logos_Speaks

These were most informative links, I apologize for suggesting mono was a hampering effect on Mac logos ultimate performance. From others saying it I had assumed that it was true, but that does leave me scratching my head slightly and thinking the users complaining about speed now actually have a very valid complaint. If mono isn't a bottle neck why is the released mac version slower (I can only assume it is, I have no experience with Logos4 windows only the mac).

-dan

PS:While I find logos slow compared to other BIble software I own, I personally have no complaints other than general start up slowness and the occasional bug which i report when they pop up. But I have been on the forum long enough to see speed complaints listed on Windows machines, and personally under no illusion that everyone here would be happy if they were running the windows version.

Page 4 of 8 (150 items) « First ... < Previous 2 3 4 5 6 Next > ... Last » | RSS