Logos 4 Mac. . . VERY POOR PERFORMANCE
Comments
-
Rich
I believe you are being very unfair to the wrong people here. I know nothing about programming, but the impression I have gotten is that the Mac developers are more than capable. It's their boss who has chosen to release an unfinished product. He seems to have this idea that as soon as something is even remotely possible to use, it shall be out the door, even if it's full of holes and has the speed of a snail. Mending and optimization can take place later. And most people on this forum seem to agree with him. Like you, I don't, but don't blame the developers for their boss' policy decisions. Imagine yourself in their shoes: being constantly swamped with complaints, and even called incompetent, because you haven't done what you haven't yet had a chance to do (or have been explicitly told to postpone).
As for hiring, Logos has been advertising for developers a long time (http://www.logos.com/about/careers), but have problems finding people qualified enough.
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
Tommy Tapscott said:
I wish I had never purchased this expensive non-functioning product.
Contact Logos, and you will almost certainly get your money back.
Mac Pro (late 2013) OS 12.6.2
0 -
Hi Tommy,
Have you contacted support regarding your problems? I know you have not posted your issues here since this is your first post. If you want help let us know your problems. If you want your money back, then call Logos customer service. If you just want to vent then....
0 -
I have L4 on both a pc (HP Pavilion dv7-1130us) laptop with 4 gigs of ram running Windows Vista 64 Home Premium,and an iMac with 4 gigs of ram and an intel i3 core processor. I have not experienced the problems with speed mentioned by others in this thread. In fact, my Mac runs the program significantly faster than my pc. Am I pleased with Logos 4 Mac? Generally, yes. I just with it had all of the functionality of the Windows version. I had never owned a Mac until just about a moth ago. So far, so good. I pray that all of you who are having issues get them resolve to your satisfaction.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Randy
0 -
I am at a loss to peoples complaints here.
1) To use the car analogy the engineers were told to take this good Gas car and reengineer it to run diesel, yes it is possible but it's going to take work to get it running smoothly, and if you insist the spark plugs have to stay in place (read .net framework). It's going to be more complex and difficult.
2) Performance is barely an issue for me after start up, I just opened a random resource and scrolled it as fast as i could and it was perfectly smooth. I do have an i7 macbook pro, but it's not that fast a machine.
3) People say Parallels and Logos don't like each other... I usually have 12 applications running at once including Par 6, sheephaver to run a couple older mac apps and sometimes even sims 3. I have never known Logos to perform better, even if it is the only application running. When I do searches of the entire library they happen as fast in Logos as in accordance and the Library in Logos MIGHT be slightly larger, but they are at least of a similar size.
4) I will agree with anyone who says there are bugs and that it was a premature release, but as people have said over and over call and get you money back. Logos may have forced it out the door a bit early but for most people I bet it is working well. Logos tries to make it;s costumers happy. I bought some items a few months ago and turned out they really were not what i was looking for. Logos credited them back to me without problem, and these were 3 expensive items combined over $1800 (admittedly a Logos sales person talked me into the one item). Logos is happy to revoke your licences and give you your money back in a reasonable amount of time (I would halfway guess even though it's been approaching 90 days since mac release, you should be able to request a refund).
5) Logos is a business as it has been pointed out many times, yes they are responsible for releasing a product not 100% done but if you look on the issues page you will see items on the Windows side not working too, software is not like a car or a toaster. It rarely comes out being a perfectly serviceable item in every way. Mac OS has updates to correct errors as does windows and most other applications. Continuing on the fact Logos is a business, I would guess the software was 95% running normally on October 1st. I am sure getting it out there for the fall semester of students (albeit a bit late) and for pastoral appreciation month was something they really wanted to have happen, let alone risking missing the Christmas season.
We can complain about Logos and we have that right but even if we have similar wrk experiences we do not have Logos mac programers ones. I do not know if there are better mac programers out there (most likely there are, there is almost always someone better out there, none of us are Jesus, and very few people attain close to an imitation of our Master). I have been told that every post in this forum is read by the mac development team, and while it might be a kick in the butt for them to do better it seems to me to be more a crushing blow to their spirits. THEY DO NOT NEED THAT.
Please request a refund if you are completely unhappy. Do report any and all problems so they can work on them, but basically calling them incompetent and in need of replacing is not only unbefitting a follower of Jesus, but also perhaps the most short sighted suggestion you can have. These people have been working hard for many months, they fix items fairly quickly and obviously know at minimal how everything works and how to fix the bugs. You toss in a dozen knew programers unfamiliar with the code and issues, I would guess you would set the mac development back months for a new team to get all settled in and know whats going on.
-Dan
0 -
Rich said:
I'm not sure what you are getting all emotional about.
I was not being emotional. However, I felt that your attack on the programmers was uncalled for. Perhaps I should have noted there that the present state of L4 Mac (and Win) is the direct result of Bob Pritchett's programming philosophy which has been mentioned several times on these forums: "Code first; optimize later." Since he is the CEO, the programmers must follow his guidelines or become unemployed.
I apologize that my response sounded emotional and gave the impression that I was attacking you. I should have noted Bob P's philosophy earlier. I believe Logos has a very competent group of Mac programmers who have devoted their own personal time to this project. Tom Philpot and Cameron Walters have responded to posts late into the evening and on weekends.
Rich said:You sound as if to expect a program to run fast is not reasonable.
No, that is not unreasonable.
Rich said:Are you really happy with its performance?
No. But then, I was expecting L4 Mac for Christmas 2006. so I have been watching this application for a long time, and I see vast improvement. I guess when I look at where it has been it looks much better to me that just seeing it as it is now.
0 -
Dan,
Many of us have been using this program for over a year, waiting expectantly for a usable program, anticipating that once it went through the Alpha an Beta process, we wouldn't be having these performance issues. Thus, how can we expect a full refund (unless I am mistaken).
I don't think it is un-christian to express our disappointment with the product or to call in question the capabilities of the individuals who write the program. For my part I have found the Mac team wonderful and quick to respond to problems. However, though we have quick response in some cases, it does not answer the question concerning the performance issues that are apparent.
We are customers and we have given money for this product and we can expect those we paid, especially Christians, to give us an ear and answer to the issues this program is exhibiting. There are times (too many to count) that the program is unworkable. If I could get my money back, I just might abandon Logos. After a year of waiting we expected a finish product. I love the resources and the program (in theory), but if I cannot consistently get it to work, it behooves me to find another product so I can best do my job. Right now, it appears to be Accordance. Further, it does not appear that Logos will soon have a product that works with the speed we anticipated, that is, unless, we can get an update on the product roadmap.
0 -
Having been an alpha and beta tester, I know how frustrating it is to have something bug free.
All i meant is NO SOFTWARE is ever 100% bug free.
I have agreed with all who have said the Mac program was released prematurely but I do understand Logos wanting to get the product out.
I by all means think you have a right to a refund.
I meant to inform people that Logos had chose a path that meant the product would be out sooner than later but also meant there would be some built in performance issues.
I have what in the end is a very middle of the road computer, fast for a Macbook but the i7 imac is faster and I have not experienced many of these issues. Speed starting up and initial passage guide are slow but compared to the pre release product seem acceptable.
To say someone should be fired because the product is not what you expected seems harsh when you realize that programming it from scratch would have required years (suggested at one point up to 10 years to duplicate logos 10 years of coding). To convert over the coding requiring them to use an emulation layer is not the fault of the programers. They did what they were instructed too. And as some people have pointed out in a different thread Logos on their mac is working faster than on their windows machine.
If Logos is not what you expected by all means request, demand a refund. If it isn't working properly and others are having no issue, something maybe wrong on your computer (it may be a bad logos file, it may be a fragmented disk, it may be a bad directory file or permissions file). I fully understand the frustration, but don't people attacked for doing their job, even if it's not up to the standards you expect, they are doing it to the standard Logos expects or they would be gone.
-Dan
0 -
PS: For those who have been using it for over a year, if you are not happy with the release maybe Logos customer service can help you. But I also do know that Logos has constantly said they want a mac program equal to their PC one as soon as the programers get it done. Now it is officially released you do have the right to complain but you were not promised a time line with Logos 4.
PPS:Libronix 1.2.2 works great which is what you would have actually bought one year ago.
0 -
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.
0 -
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
0 -
Seth Huckstead said:
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
0 -
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 [:'(]) 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 panelResult = 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
0 -
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.
0 -
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
0 -
Seth Huckstead said:
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 said: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 said: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 said: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
0 -
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.
0 -
Seth Huckstead said:
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 [:)]
"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein
0 -
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.
0 -
Seth Huckstead said:
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.
0 -
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
0 -
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.
0 -
Jeremy said:
Unfortunately I think this could be where Logos 4 Mac is right now performance wise.
Jeremy said: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
0 -
Seth Huckstead said:
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
0 -
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
S Mack said:
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
MacBook Pro (2019), ThinkPad E540
0 -
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.
0 -
Todd Phillips said:S Mack said:
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.
0 -
Dan Francis said:
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
One advantage with Mono, as devs have pointed out, is that Logos devs can add their own enhancements since Mono is an open source library. So if there are places where Mono is found to cause performance issues, devs can work on a patch for Mono. I have no idea how often this actually happens, but I've seen comments before indicating that it does happen.
So performance issues are probably found in the UI code or somewhere in the controller. Improving performance would be a matter of tweaking/improving code written specifically for the Mac app. Refactoring can be quite tedious, is not as exciting as adding new code and features, and is not always as noticeable to users so users continue to clamor for new features. But without refactoring problems have a way of piling up in code. I think Logos is doing enough to avoid long-term issues in their code, but I still wish more attention were being given to improve existing code.
All that to say, I don't think Mono is the issue, and whatever issues exist in Mono can be addressed by Logos, so it is within Logos' power to clean up most of these performance issues, it will just take time. Eventually we will see a Logos for Mac with both the features and the performance of the PC version. We may even see the Mac team begin to add some Mac-only enhancements (in fact, there are some in place already!) and then the PC users will experience a new level of Mac envy.
0 -
Seems kinda lame to blame this on the abstraction layer..
Considering I can run the windows version of Logos inside Parallels in crystal or coherence mode and it STILL out performs the Mac version.. Go figure....
Now that's an abstraction layer.
0 -
Seth Hewitt said:
go to Settings and under Energy Saver, at the top, select Higher Performance Graphics instead of Better Battery Life.
i went under Settings - Energy Saver... and i don't see this as an option... where do i find this??
River of Life Church: http://LifeOverflowing.org
Visit my blog: http://LifeOverflowing.org/pastor0 -
Dan Francis said:Todd Phillips said:S Mack said:
I did not previously know Logos4Mac was sitting on a .Net compatibility layer.
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
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).
I'm the guy who started the 'controversy' mentioned in those posts above in the first place — and suffered for it. However I still hold to my technical opinion that any 'translation/intermediary' layer is going to impact the performance of a system. It was put to me back then that the decision to go down that road was a commercial one — I believe I said then, and I will elaborate now, I trust the commercial decision does not overly impact technical aspects, in which case those technical aspects may start to impact commercial aspects. I respect Logos' decision, it is their decision to make. I also trust, and hope, that it does not impact the product (speaking as a consumer).
Of course it is also a shame that likely L4M cannot take advantage of other, Apple unique, (performance) technologies — but this side of the resurrection it's not a perfect world.
At the same time I have been very balanced in comments in the forum, and actually have pointed other people back to speaking in quantitative terms instead of saying statements like "it's slow". And in at least one case in this thread made it clear that an installation someone was calling slow was actually an installation that was corrupted.
Chris Roberts said:One advantage with Mono, as devs have pointed out, is that Logos devs can add their own enhancements since Mono is an open source library. So if there are places where Mono is found to cause performance issues, devs can work on a patch for Mono.
I really do see that as a work around (hacking Mono) on top of a work around (Mono in L4M). It takes the L4M Mono implementation out of the 'mainstream' Mono codebase which makes it then more difficult/more time to implement updates to Mono.Anyway... I'm running L4M and it's not (painfully) "slow" for me [:)]
"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein
0 -
Patrick S. said:
Anyway... I'm running L4M and it's not (painfully) "slow" for me
Usually it's pretty good for me too. I just experienced the scrolling problems i have heard about from other people, and when trying to quit Logos had to force the quit. But I am using the latest beta and expect hiccups like that now and then.
-dan
0 -
Patrick S. said:
I really do see that as a work around (hacking Mono) on top of a work around (Mono in L4M). It takes the L4M Mono implementation out of the 'mainstream' Mono codebase which makes it then more difficult/more time to implement updates to Mono.
Not if they are submitting their patches to the Mono project, which I assume they are.
0 -
Chris Roberts said:
Not if they are submitting their patches to the Mono project, which I assume they are.
Several of Logos Mac devs have contributed patches to Mono.
Mobile Development Team Lead
0 -
Patrick S. said:
Anyway... I'm running L4M and it's not (painfully) "slow" for me
For me it is not 'painfully slow', but slower than L4 Windows and certainly slower than earlier versions. I purchased my Macbook Pro in February... and have considered going to 8mb, but that shouldn't be necessary as I don't run a lot of 'extras' and Logos shouldn't be that heavy resource wise.
Anyhow, I figure that this is part of the maturation process of Logos developing for the Mac platform. Keep in mind that while the label has Logos for Mac version 4, this is a product that is only months old on full release. At least as far as I am concerned, this is version 1 if you don't take into account the windows history and the obsolete version 1.2 that was ditched about a year ago.
0 -
So we basically have a windows port running through a translator? That is not what I thought I was purchasing when I was sold a Mac application (L4M). Nowhere do I remember seeing this in the pre-sale literature, all I remember seeing was that they were going to try and make an application that looked and functioned similar to each other not that they were developing a Mac app from a windows platform. Wow, it just keeps getting worse, and this after their epic fail the first time around. You would think they would learn their lesson and do it right this time. But no, cost wins out over quality once again in the corporate world.
0 -
Dennis Miller said:
So we basically have a windows port running through a translator?
No, that's not the case at all. Nearly all major applications that are available for multiple platforms (Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Excel, Word, Adobe's applications, etc.) have code that is shared between the platforms—to do otherwise would be silly and wasteful.
In designing Logos 4, we made a choice to write much of the logic using C# and the CLR, which, while originally developed by Microsoft, is also registered with an internationally-recognized standards organization (http://www.ecma-international.org/). On OS X, we use the most popular non-Microsoft implementation of these technologies (http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page). However, this only applies to the core logic of the application. The UI was written entirely from scratch using Apple's technologies.
David Mitchell
Development Lead
Faithlife0 -
Dennis Miller said:
So we basically have a windows port running through a translator?
No. Something like that would mean Logos comes bundled with an emulator, which is certainly not the case. The heart of Logos' code is written in a language originally designed by Microsoft for Windows but the language specifications are available and Mono is a set of libraries that will build those programs natively on OS X (and some other platforms, though that doesn't apply to Logos). So even though the language specification was originally designed for Windows, it will build natively on the Mac. What you are running is a native Mac app, not something running through an emulator or translator. And as David pointed out, all of the UI code is written using language specifications designed specifically for the Mac.
0 -
Good to know, thanks for the info, I can rest more peaceful now.
0 -
Hi I also us Logos and I have two Macs one that is new a Macbook pro 15' with a i5 the other is a desk top iMac with a 2.16 I got it in 2006.Both of my Macs are able to run. Logos. I have only had one problem running Logos and it seems to have been caused by flash. After I installed the program ClickToFlash the problem went away. This program turns flash on only then you need it. This is the link http://clicktoflash.com/
Also I hope that you have already ran disk utility and repaired your permission.
Eric
0 -
S Mack said:
>> 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.
Reinstall completed.
>> Already set the energy settings to higher performance.
>> Verified and repaired file permissions, suggested in one posting.
>> Deleted all Layouts in case there were legacy beta issues.
So far since yesterday, Logos4Mac has crashed once and hung once. Monitored memory usage when the app hung and memory usage steadily increased from ~420meg to 700+ meg over about 7 minutes at which point the rate of increase slowed down but still continued to increase at a very slow rate. Note:- Logos4Mac is set to display the home screen by default. When the app hung all that appeared was a blank white region where the app should have been displaying itself.
Next step will be to try and repeat / induce crashes to determine the events leading up to these events for bug submission.
>> Some postings have mentioned L4W in a VM runs quicker than L4M. Currently installing Logos4Windows on Windows XP Pro with SP3 (clean install) plus all updates to date on VMware Fusion 3 to compare performance and test this claim.
0 -
I've been out of the country for several weeks and just now brought up L4 Mac. It has really slowed down. Bringing up a layout takes 10 seconds or more. Please work on getting this up to speed, guys.
Elder/Pastor, Hope Now Bible Church, Fresno CA
0 -
I am assuming you downloaded updates and that supposedly slowed it down? If not I don't see how not using L4Mac for a couple of weeks could slow it down.
0 -
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I wanted to add a word regarding the concerns some have express regarding Logos being built around a Mono core.
A number of people have assumed that Mono is some sort of "compatibility" layer, that allows the Mac to run Windows software. This is not true.
Most modern Windows software is developed using Microsoft's .NET technologies. .NET is a set of core libraries, compilers, and the CLR (Common Language Runtime). The CLR is basically a virtual machine, kind of like the Java Virtual Machine (but very different than the JVM under the hood). Windows software built using .NET runs on top of the CLR, which in turn runs on top of Windows.
Mono is exactly the same thing. It is an open-source implementation of the .NET CLR, core libraries, and compilers. The only difference is that Mono can be compiled for Mac, Linux, or even Windows (although that would be kind of dumb).
To get semi-visual, on Windows, you have a layered platform that looks like this:
Logos GUI (Built using WFP)
-----------
Logos Core
-----------
.NET CLR
-----------
OS (Windows)And on Mac, it looks like this:
Logos GUI (Built using Cocoa)
--------------
Logos Core
--------------
Mono CLR
--------------
OS (Mac)See? Same number of layers. In other words, if Logos for Mac is using a "compatibility" layer, then so is Logos for Windows.
0 -
Martin Diers said:
To get semi-visual, on Windows, you have a layered platform that looks like this:
Logos GUI (Built using WFP)
-----------
Logos Core
-----------
.NET CLR
-----------
OS (Windows)And on Mac, it looks like this:
Logos GUI (Built using Cocoa)
--------------
Logos Core
--------------
Mono CLR
--------------
OS (Mac)See? Same number of layers. In other words, if Logos for Mac is using a "compatibility" layer, then so is Logos for Windows.
Yep... That pretty much sums it up.
Mobile Development Team Lead
0 -
It is still "porting" is it not?
My question is why not just write it for Mac OSX straight from the Logos core, why put the other layer in there at all?
Would it mean "rewriting" the Logos Core, is that where the issue comes in?
Not being critical here, just trying to understand better.
Thanks.
0 -
Fr. Charles R. Matheny said:
It is still "porting" is it not?
My question is why not just write it for Mac OSX straight from the Logos core, why put the other layer in there at all?
Would it mean "rewriting" the Logos Core, is that where the issue comes in?
Not being critical here, just trying to understand better.
Sharing code base cross platform allows compatibility for resources, language display, interaction, etc - minimal differences between platforms. Also as new features are added to Logos 4 code base, much quicker availability on Mac - only needs GUI addition to expose functionality for use.
With Logos 4.2a Beta, appears cross platform feature parity now a priority [:D] along with performance enhancements for both platforms [8-|]
Logos for Mac 1.2.2 was written exclusively for Mac OS X, but lacked many features compared to Libronix 3 (e.g. notes, PBB's, reading plans, resource update scripts, etc) - also took years for Logos to deliver (much longer than Logos 4 user interface "porting" to Mac - impressive progress in past 14 months).
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
My macbook 3,1 2ghz (4gb ram) runs L4 great, I would like to upgrade soon, but with all the talk about bad performance on machines better than mine...... i don't want to take a chance
0
