Logos 4 Mac. . . VERY POOR PERFORMANCE

Page 6 of 8 (150 items) « First ... < Previous 4 5 6 7 8 Next >
This post has 149 Replies | 3 Followers

Posts 1336
Mike Tourangeau | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Dec 24 2010 2:46 PM

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 :)

Posts 762
Patrick S. | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Dec 24 2010 3:34 PM

Martin Diers:

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.

Sorry, but your statement is not correct. The last time I looked .EXE and .DLLs were native Windows software. Look inside the Logos app bundle, you will find many Windows executables. OS X does not run Windows executables (directly) in Logos it is doing so via a compatibility layer.

So whichever way it is spun, it is still the fact that parts of L4M are not running native OS X code. They are running native Windows code, via....

Also WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation) is part of .NET. A .NET application, UI & logic, is built on top of, coded to, the .NET coding protocol. That means that your Windows 4 layer diagram is not strictly correct - the first two layers are together in Windows.

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

Posts 757
Fr. Charles R. Matheny | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Dec 24 2010 8:48 PM

Thank you smiling.

Ok, I have another question which may show my great ignorance, but I will "have a go" anyway as I just don't what to stay ignorant forever.

If one wants to keep the program running as it is feature wise, resource wise and is going to have to "port" it to do so, then why does it not make sense to just make a deal with a company like Fusion or Parallels to customize an emulator for the program and send it out with the emulation.

 

It would "seem to me" that they have far more experience in cross platform compatibility between different Operating Systems.

It would seem this would be more cost effective overall, most of the R&D budget would stay focused on the main platform and secondarily on funding towards specialized emulation which would be static to the Logos program.

Would this not result in a more stable , consistent Logos platform with less technicals issues?

 

Just asking,

 

Rusty+

Posts 762
Patrick S. | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Dec 24 2010 11:23 PM

Fr. Charles R. Matheny:

If one wants to keep the program running as it is feature wise, resource wise and is going to have to "port" it to do so, then why does it not make sense to just make a deal with a company like Fusion or Parallels to customize an emulator for the program and send it out with the emulation.

Because Fusion and Parallels provide a way to run Windows applications in the Mac OS X environment. They are, though, 100% Windows applications and you also need to run a complete (virtual) Windows 'machine' to then run that Windows application, they are not 'native' Mac applications. The two companies even provide a 'seamless' way to run the Windows application (but still running a complete Windows virtual machine) in a window inside Mac OS X.

The downside is that you are running two 'computers' instead of one (performance loss) and that the Windows application is not a Mac application and does not behave like a Mac application.

Unfortunately it is not a possible solution. How Logos has done it , while, unfortunately, not being a 100% native Mac application, is the only way.

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

Posts 762
Patrick S. | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Dec 24 2010 11:36 PM

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :):

Sharing code base cross platform allows compatibility for resources, language display, interaction, etc - minimal differences between platforms.  

Sharing code base cross platform ends up with the reality of having to accept the 'lowest common denominator' and accepting compromises. That is the nature of cross platform development — there are always compromises and the loss of not being able to exploit the best functionality natively available on the other platform. Please don't portray it as a 'plus'.

It was a clear business decision taken by Logos to get a Windows application onto another popular platform as quickly as possible. And that is OK, given the gain of us having a Logos for Mac application. It is not the ideal, and it means that in the Mac environment we are lumbered with Windows baggage, and we will never have a program as good as it could be — but it is better than nothing.

But please... don't ever portray running a Microsoft Windows .NET emulator as a plus.

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

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Dec 24 2010 11:48 PM

Fr. Charles R. Matheny:
If one wants to keep the program running as it is feature wise, resource wise and is going to have to "port" it to do so, then why does it not make sense to just make a deal with a company like Fusion or Parallels to customize an emulator for the program and send it out with the emulation.

VMware Fusion, Parallels Desktop, and Oracle's Virtualbox provide virtual machine capabilities for Mac OS X => needs more memory and disk - enough for Mac OS X and virtual machine.  For Logos 4, an appropriate Microsoft Windows license is needed that can legally run in a virtual machine.

By the way, Mono project has no plans to implement Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF)

=> http://www.mono-project.com/WPF 

Note: Silverlight subset of WPF losing some luster in favor of HTML 5 open standard => http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9195838/Microsoft_Adobe_proclaim_their_love_for_HTML5

For faster Windows performance on Mac hardware, can use Apple's Boot Camp to partition hard drive - boot up to Mac OS X or Windows - also needs genuine Microsoft Windows license.  Apple provides hardware drivers for Windows.

 

Mike Tourangeau:

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 :)

Upgrade depends on how using Logos 4.  On an older 2.4 GHz iMac, noticed Logos 4 upgrade to Scholar's Platinum took more time to download resources and index - search library returns more results (expected - Thankful for Logos 4 performance improvement displaying search results).

Keep Smiling Smile

 

Posts 1416
Wes Saad | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Dec 25 2010 5:14 PM

Patrick S.:
Sorry, but your statement is not correct. The last time I looked .EXE and .DLLs were native Windows software.

The DLL's are just packaged libraries. These contain the .NET code being interpreted by Mono. The only exe in the package contents is bootstrap.exe which is used by .NET files to get things going. Bootstrapping is a first step in just about any application and it simply sets configuration paths and such. I'm not sure just how Mono deals with a bootstrap.exe file, but I know Mono is not an emulator. Anything it is doing with that file is specific to that file and does not involve arbitrarily executing Windows applications.

Many of the files in the package are dll's which, again, contain the .NET code being interpreted by Mono (which, for the record, is how every program executes - libraries interpreted/linked at runtime). But be sure to note as well the numerous .nib and .dylib files. These are generated through xcode and interface builder and are the elements of code built specifically for the Mac.

Devs, my apologies for any of this explanation that I have mangled.

Posts 757
Fr. Charles R. Matheny | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Dec 25 2010 6:49 PM

Hi guys, I just asked about the emulation software as it seems the folks using it are indeed using less memory resources, not having fans running full speed and processors pegging, thus it seemed perhaps a more stable function, while indeed, not the best world.

Blessings,

 

Rusty+

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Dec 25 2010 10:05 PM

Fr. Charles R. Matheny:

Hi guys, I just asked about the emulation software as it seems the folks using it are indeed using less memory resources, not having fans running full speed and processors pegging, thus it seemed perhaps a more stable function, while indeed, not the best world.

Technical observation: emulation bit different than virtualization => http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/338993/Emulation_or_Virtualization_?

On older Mac's with PowerPC and Motorola processors, to run Windows software needed emulation - Intel processor instructions were emulated for PowerPC or Motorola execution - noticeably slower performance (took significant time to translate Intel instructions and hardware calls to corresponding Mac hardware).

Fan speed is proportional to processor heat.  Rebuilding Logos 4 indexes can cause processor to be quite busy - need cooling from fans running full speed (especially since indexing Logos 4 on MAC and PC can take hours - larger libraries take longer).

Personally place laptop computers on external fan cooling units.  Some desktop computers benefit from a fan circulating air (e.g. iMac).

Wiki page currently includes virtualization => http://wiki.logos.com/Logos_4_Mac#Need_Logos_4_PC_feature.3f - as Logos 4 Mac has improved, several Mac forum threads mentioned deletion of Windows virtualization (frees up many GB's of disk space and memory usage - not need virtualization manager and Windows operating system running).

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 219
Dennis Miller | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 27 2010 4:14 AM

Well, my patience finally ran out and I decided to try the other Mac app and all I can say is, WOW!! Now that's how a Mac app should work. I've still got too much invested in Logos to drop it completely but with the new investment I can now get some serious work done while I wait and watch Logos continue to be developed.

Posts 762
Patrick S. | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 27 2010 4:16 AM

If I could make some (hopefully final) comments:

 

  1. Please, Logos, can this thread be locked? I think it's been done to death by now. Just tell Bob Pritchett I posted here and he will be happy to lock the thread (just joking).
  2. Logos team — I really think it would be beneficial for you to post some honest & detailed technical information about Logos 4 Mac architecture with explanation of usage of Mono. And also to reasonably explain the commercial and technical reasons behind it. I know it might be tempting to 'keep quiet' and hope that the storm will blow over, but unfortunately your audience are people who 'go the extra mile' and make conscious decisions to pay extra for what they consider (rightly) to be superior systems — Macs. They sort of have the mindset that — the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to Windows hell, and those who enter by it are many (only [half] joking Windows users - no flames please!). So if they perceive that they are not getting the best possible for their Macs well they might just speak out. if they got some reasonable (and not condescending) information then that would help.
  3. Further to point two, it would be helpful to post sample performance times that people could reasonably expect to get using L4M. Yes... I know every machine is different and it is extremely difficult to post numbers but look at it this way — I made up some rough tests, posted numbers to the forum and one person who was strongly criticising L4M could look at the numbers and realise that quite possibly his installation was corrupted and to re-install it. In the absence of something concrete people will tend to (continually) make statements like "it's slow". How will that help us all (us giving feedback to you guys) move forward in improving L4M? Get the Geekbench number of an average Mac machine with an average installation, Scholars or Scholars' Silver (not the mega installs), devise some standardised tests and post the results. Or if you want to be cautious - juts make standard tests and don't post your results, let owners just do themselves.

 

Anyway, my thoughts. I think my efforts show I am trying to support the platform and others.

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

Posts 1416
Wes Saad | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 27 2010 8:48 AM

Patrick S.:
I know it might be tempting to 'keep quiet' and hope that the storm will blow over, but unfortunately your audience are people who 'go the extra mile'

I believe they have explained both the decision to do things this way, and the way things work with Mono, on several occasions... If prior explanations were not accepted, why would new ones be accepted?

Posts 762
Patrick S. | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 27 2010 9:47 AM

Chris Roberts:

I believe they have explained both the decision to do things this way, and the way things work with Mono, on several occasions... If prior explanations were not accepted, why would new ones be accepted?

Yes I have seen and read them, however they they seem to have not covered or dealt with people's queries/issues adequately or not been clear and/or people have been unaware of them. Otherwise we would not be repeatedly seeing statements like "I didn't know Logos 4 Mac did that", or "why is Logos 4 Mac not as speedy as other Mac applications"?

In the end what is important is peoples' perception — and if their perception and/or expectation does not match what is reality then it cannot really be said that people (users) are 'wrong'. Perhaps they are not being properly communicated to, and given that the performance question comes up over and over then perhaps it would be prudent to proactively 'head off' the questions in an effective way. I tried to have the app. architecture clarified by drawing a graphic of it in one post only to be told by someone pretty high that they "didn't have time to draw diagrams". So I gathered from that that the point didn't seem important to them — but it's important to customers & users as evidenced by the continual stream of questions in the same vein.

Also (bringing back again the rest of my point) given all the above again it would be helpful to have some actual tests with guidelines as to average numbers to set expectations of users — again that can head off questions and move on from reading continual postings with the same litany "it's too slow".

Anyway I've said my 2c worth, and again I hope this discussion could be effectively wound up.

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

Posts 5317
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 27 2010 11:14 AM

Dennis Miller:

Well, my patience finally ran out and I decided to try the other Mac app and all I can say is, WOW!! Now that's how a Mac app should work. I've still got too much invested in Logos to drop it completely but with the new investment I can now get some serious work done while I wait and watch Logos continue to be developed.

Glad for you it is a wonderful program, to such an extent I have heard of some professors who recommend it to their students and the company generously makes the information available as to how to run mac emulation to allow it to a larger audience. As this thread may well soon be closed off, I just wanted to voice once again, I in general do not consider this program to have unusable performance, it is certainly no speed demon but then it is not in windows either, I am happy to have Logos working as well as it is and I know it will get better.

 

Merry Christmas to all, and Happy St. John the Divine today.

-dan

Posts 13
Hanson | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 28 2010 2:30 AM

I'm just thankful that I am not the only one having issues with performance. With everyone expressing their disappointment I have a hard time believing Logos will ignore what seems to be a very common problem; one that will cost them costumers. At least I hope they won't. My laptop has handled everything I've thrown at it (games and professional movie and photo editing software) and it has never slowed until it met Logos 4. 

Hanson

Posts 87
Ray D | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 28 2010 7:56 AM

Dennis Miller:

Well, my patience finally ran out and I decided to try the other Mac app and all I can say is, WOW!! Now that's how a Mac app should work. I've still got too much invested in Logos to drop it completely but with the new investment I can now get some serious work done while I wait and watch Logos continue to be developed.

Sad that it would have to come to that, but glad that you are liking it. :-) I am trying to justify going that way too. Because as subjective as it might sound to some, the user interface and scrolling choppiness when doing word studies and such are seriously impacting my effectiveness in my weekly studies. None-the-less, I probably won't be able to to justify going to Accordance due to the fact that I'd have to drop close to $1000 to get the necessary original language resources for my study. Bummer for me. :-) Am at the mercy of Logos in hopes that they will make noticeable performance improvements in quick fashion. BTW, just to make sure I give the right perspective, I love many things about the design of the UI and all the nice features, but permanence for me puts a major damper on all that.

Posts 456
Roger Feenstra | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 28 2010 8:31 AM

Jeremy:
f not I don't see how not using L4Mac for a couple of weeks could slow it down.

 

I don't either.  

Elder/Pastor, Hope Now Bible Church, Fresno CA

Posts 219
Dennis Miller | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 29 2010 4:23 AM

There is nothing like clicking on your app icon in the Dock and having your app pop up, ready for use almost instantaneously. Now that is a Mac App.

Posts 97
Martin Diers | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 6 2011 12:54 PM

Patrick S.:
Sorry, but your statement is not correct. The last time I looked .EXE and .DLLs were native Windows software. Look inside the Logos app bundle, you will find many Windows executables. OS X does not run Windows executables (directly) in Logos it is doing so via a compatibility layer.

Patrick,

I don't think you really understand what qualifies as a "native Mac application". Are Carbon apps "native Mac applications"? They aren't built using Cocoa, nor with ObjectiveC. Yet they run just fine on a Mac, and it is good that they do because otherwise we would have no Illustrator, InDesign, or (at least until CS5) Photoshop. There are many Java apps that run just fine on a Mac, with native Mac widgets. Eclipse, anyone?

Any number of libraries can be built on top of .NET. That WPF is bundled with .NET is meaningless. WPF is nothing but a set of .NET assemblies, just like the .NET assemblies that are included with Logos. No voodoo here. WPF is not native Windows code.

Likewise, the fact that .NET assemblies end in .DLL or .EXE is meaningless. They aren't Windows executables, because they do not contain compiled machine code like normal Windows executables do (or to be accurate, they contain a tiny bit of Windows machine code which basically says, "Hey! I'm not a Windows program. Don't run me that way."). They run on the CLR, which compiles the .NET byte code to native code on any given architecture. On a Mac, Mono does this. Persisting in calling Mono a "Windows compatibility layer" is just wrong, and only confuses the issue.

Martin.

Posts 15
MikeV81 | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Jan 6 2011 4:44 PM

I know that this has become a programming forum, which is fine I guess, but I originally started it as a mac performance problem thread. In that spirit, I wanted to let the group know that I went ahead and switched to Accordance 9. BIG MISTAKE! While it is fast, very fast, the interface and usability cannot even COME CLOSE to Logos. I have switched back and will wait, hope, and pray that the Mac performance improves.

 

Even with the performance quirks, Logos 4 Mac blows away the competition.

God Bless,

Mike

Page 6 of 8 (150 items) « First ... < Previous 4 5 6 7 8 Next > | RSS