Logos 5 slow on MAC?

Page 1 of 2 (22 items) 1 2 Next >
This post has 21 Replies | 3 Followers

Posts 5
klbrugger | Forum Activity | Posted: Wed, Feb 13 2013 11:12 AM
I know I am probably a bit late on this, but just upgraded to 5. It seems incredibly slow at times. I have checked and have RAM to spare. anyone else have this problem? fixes?
Posts 27775
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 13 2013 11:19 AM

I think most users would say that L5 is running faster than L4. That isn't your experience? I would suggest that you enable and post logs:

http://wiki.logos.com/Diagnostic_Logging#Mac

OSX & iOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 767
Alan Charles Gielczyk | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 13 2013 12:26 PM

Welcome to the forum. Are you sure it has finished indexing? Just a thought.

Posts 24
Garry Glaub | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 22 2013 2:05 PM

Sadly, it is incredibly slow, though it is faster than Logos 4.  As a longtime user, I am disappointed, but have too much invested to jump ship.  

With the same hardware specs on a PC, Logos works just fine.  Sadly, it works better on an iPad than it does on a MacBook Pro.  Only an I-3, but with 4 GB RAM. I have a friend with an i3 and 4 gigs of RAM on PC and side-by- -side, the difference is ridiculous, even with one Bible open with the interlinear. I expected better from Logos. When will they get that MONO is no the answer?  

Posts 33
Andrew Blye | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 22 2013 2:42 PM

Same problem here. Seems to be very slow on my 2009 Macbook Pro. Additionally, why does it seem there's always some update that is going on.

Posts 316
Thinking | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 22 2013 5:36 PM

L5 is an improvement. It is more stable, but it remains sluggish for me as well. I have started using it more and leaving it running in the background. From time to time I have to restart the computer, but this seems to be less frequent than with L4. L5 is useable for me. The defenders say it is slow because it does a lot of things in the background. I believe it is sluggish because of design decisions. But it gets the job done.

Posts 233
Charles | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 22 2013 7:03 PM

I'm currently running Logos 5 on a 2011 iMac with 8 GB of memory, a 500 GB hard drive with plenty of room, and have not encountered any slowdowns.  As a matter of fact, I find Logos 5 to be faster than Logos 4 when searching or doing just about anything that I previously did with version 4.  I can't compare to running it on a PC because we no longer use them in the ministry.  Perhaps your Mac needs some routine maintenance and optimization.  A nice free tool to accomplish that is OnyX which can be downloaded from:  http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/11582/onyx

Regards, Charles

2017 27" iMac 5K, Mojave, 10.5" iPad Pro, iPhone 7+, iPhone 8, iOS 12.0, Catalina beta, iPadOS Beta  

Posts 24
Garry Glaub | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Feb 22 2013 7:52 PM
You didn't mention what processor you are using, which has much more to do with it all than RAM or the size of your hard drive. Logos might want to consider changing the Mac specifications in the minimum system requirements. Sadly, my Sony Vaio i7 crashed, though it ran L4 magnificently. I can't afford another like it, and purchased a reburbished Mac.. Perhaps CEO Bob would like to pitch in and buy i7's for the extremely patient Mac users. When I have 1 Bible open with an interlinear, it takes 5-10 seconds if I scroll tq the next paragraph. If I open a commentary and link it with the Bible, the same process approaches 30 seconds. Some recommend not to use links, but what is the point of purchasing a program for over $1,000, and spending money on Morris Proctor's seminar to learn how to use it more effectively if it doesn't work? I still think it is an issue with Mono and .net. Why else would another Apple product work fine (iPad) with much less power? No spinning beach ball there ever. Bought the Gold package on libronix, upped to L 4 and just upped to L5. Would really like to hear there is a plan to get the Mac version more in line with the Windows version. Thanks for the suggestion, nonetheless. My 500 GB hard drive is only 15% filled.
Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Feb 23 2013 4:50 AM

klbrugger:
I know I am probably a bit late on this, but just upgraded to 5. It seems incredibly slow at times. I have checked and have RAM to spare. anyone else have this problem? fixes?

Logos 5 is resource intensive on Mac & PC – benefits from fast processor, graphics, and quick storage along with adequate memory (i.e. newer hardware since Logos 5 being designed for use over 5 to 8 years); Solid State Disk (SSD) is noticeably faster than hard disk.

Wiki has => http://wiki.logos.com/Getting_Started_with_Logos with many Tips and links. Working offline can be noticeably more responsive. Periodically clearing History can noticeably speed up Logos on Mac and PC. Personally learned having less open is more responsive and can quickly open more as desired. When a resource is active (blue bar on tab), clicking "+" in same panel opens a tab with similar resources, clicking a resource quickly tries to open to the same location.

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 20
Marc van Eijden | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2013 4:29 AM

I found Logos 5 most often extremely slow, actually it drags. I'm running it on MacBook Pro, 10.6.8, Intel i5 dual core, 8mb, 500HD with plenty of room still. All my other programs run very smoothly, even when many are open at the same time. It even runs fast when running at the same time Windows 7 on Parallels 7 with multiple programs. L5 drags way to often and to much, even when I just want to move one line! This even happens when L5 is the only program open. I haven't tried to install L5 on W7 to see if that's better.

To load up L5 takes 45 secs, and another 30 secs to begin reading. Which is acceptable, due to the sync. But it sync too much and too often, as if one wants to sync it all the time.

It is unacceptable that a program of this quality is so slow. It's like surfing on Internet with a 56kbs connection! I hope that a solution will be found soon.

Posts 168
Mark Nigro | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2013 5:16 AM

I am one of those who cannot complain. L5 for Mac has been performing quite well. It's not the fastest application in its class for the Mac, but peppy enough for an impatient user like me :) 

To be clear, I am running on a 2012 MBP 13 inch, Intel Core i5 at 2.5GHz and 8GB RAM. 256 SSD by Crucial. No doubt the SSD boosts clock speeds some, but Marc van Eljden's problem sounds uncommon even for a standard HD. I wouldn't know what to suggest there, other than his is not the experience of all L5 for Mac users that I know.

Mark Nigro

Pastor/Teacher/Student/Writer

www.calvarychapelbiblecollege.com

Posts 227
LogosEmployee
Mike | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2013 11:03 AM

Hey Guys,

Development is always working to improve performance in the app. We're also constantly adding new content and more data for better, more efficient results on searches, etc. In older generation CPUs, even CPUs of the same name, we see less improvement as we take advantage of the newer technology. For instance, an Intel i7 CPU purchased new, may have a similar clock speed as one produced 3 years ago, but the chip architecture has been made much more efficient, giving it a benchmark rating (total performance index) significantly higher. Not all "i7"s are created equal (the same for i5, i3, "Core 2 Duo", etc).

Check out this Laptop CPU Benchmark chart for examples: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/laptop.html

Intel Core i7-3820QM @ 2.70GHz = Rating 8,633

Intel Core i7 M 640 @ 2.80GHz = Rating 2,742

That's a clock speed difference of ~100MHz or 0.1Ghz (essentially beans), but the benchmark rating is nearly 3x higher on the newer chip. The same applies to other hardware, especially GPUs and even RAM is rated differently for speed and efficiency at the same capacity.

As we compare performance across computers, especially Macs which can be harder to know specifically what chip is in what model, it's important to understand that they may be called the same name but contain significantly different hardware depending on when they were made and which chips were used at the time (even chips with the same name). In fact, some Macs of the same generation contain different hardware depending on where they were manufactured. We've seen different DVD drives used on different Macs of the same model and year, but made in different places.

What's all this mean?

I don't intend to negate your speed concerns, but it's important to know the differences when reporting these issues so that Development has better data to go on. If you can include specifics about which model CPU and which model GPU your Mac has, along with the amount of available RAM and its speed, this may help identify trends across specific processors and maybe even help with optimizing for a broader range of hardware.

So how do you get this information?

  1. Click on the Apple in the top-left corner of your Mac.
  2. Choose "About this Mac".
  3. Click on "More Info.."
  4. Click on "System Report..".

You can see your CPU model info here. Please include your Processor Name, Speed, Number of Processors, Total Cores, Cache, Memory and Bus Speed from the Hardware Overview, and the Chipset Model and VRAM from the Graphics/Displays list, when reporting speed issues, and continue to include a description of what you were doing that was slow, like what panels are open, linked, etc, this should be helpful for improving your experience in future updates.

Mike

Faithlife Tech Support
Win Logs|Mac Logs|Training

Posts 762
Patrick S. | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 27 2013 12:15 PM

Dear Mike

Thanks for your posting.

I do have a couple of concerns/comments though.

Are you aware of what is saved in the System Information Report on the Mac? Along with innocuous information like processor type and speed there is information which I don't believe Logos users will be wanting to share with Logos and/or posting on public forum software. Things like... the serial number of the machine; a complete list of software installed on the Mac; networking details; firewall information. 

For privacy and security reasons I would be advising Logos users not to upload their Mac's system report.

Secondly that link you posted is PC centric — not interesting to Mac users. The benchmarking software is Windows only, useless to Mac users.

If you want a comparative idea of performance of Macs I would be suggesting the 'Geekbench' benchmarking software which has a native Mac version (as well as a Windows version). There is a free version and paid version, the only limitation of the free version is that it runs tests in 32 bit only. For my system I got the following numbers:

32 bit benchmark = 11,739
64 bit benchmark = 14,040

People can find Geekbench here — http://www.primatelabs.com/geekbench/

You can also upload a test result which has a lot of technical detail — minus your systems' serial number.

"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: Wed, Feb 27 2013 6:51 PM

Patrick S.:
If you want a comparative idea of performance of Macs I would be suggesting the 'Geekbench' benchmarking software which has a native Mac version (as well as a Windows version). There is a free version and paid version, the only limitation of the free version is that it runs tests in 32 bit only.

Another free alternative is Novabench => https://novabench.com/ that has a Top Mac page => https://novabench.com/topmacs.php

For 2nd Generation i5 CPU's in iMac 2011 models, noticed 2.5 GHz i5-2400S in 21" iMac has an average score of 882 while 27" iMac with 2.7 GHz i5-2500S has a noticeably faster average of 1147.

Likewise noticed MacBook Pro 2011 models having a benchmark range of 608 to 1082.

Reply => http://community.logos.com/forums/p/24555/255412.aspx#255412 has a NovaBench 1.0 score of 1457 on a 2.93 GHz i7 iMac; NovaBench 1.1 has lower graphics score numbers for better comparison with Windows.

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 227
LogosEmployee
Mike | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Feb 28 2013 8:27 AM

Thanks Patrick.

I'm sure it's somewhat obvious that I'm more of a Windows guy at heart and was not aware of exactly how much extra information was in that report. I'd certainly encourage the use of any less invasive alternatives.

As for the benchmarks I posted, while the Processor Benchmarks I posted were done on PC, the general performance of the processor is going to be similar anywhere. I didn't mean to suggest running your own benchmarks, although you're more than welcome to do so; I simply intended to point out the variance in performance under similar name and clock speed. Benchmarks from Mac performance sites are also welcome evidence.

Thank you for your suggestions and posting your concern.

Mike

Faithlife Tech Support
Win Logs|Mac Logs|Training

Posts 1861
LogosEmployee
Tom Philpot (Faithlife) | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Feb 28 2013 8:48 PM

Garry Glaub:
When I have 1 Bible open with an interlinear, it takes 5-10 seconds if I scroll tq the next paragraph.

Garry,

How's the scrolling performance for you if you close the interlinear ribbon? When you scroll with the interlinear ribbon open, we reload a lot of data off disk to show you in the interlinear ribbon. If you try to scroll while the ribbon is in the middle of updating, yes, it can be choppy. You can also hide rows in the interlinear ribbon if you don't want all the data, which might help performance.

We're also aware that the drawing of that particular control has not been very optimized either on Windows or Mac, but I believe we have plans to address it in a future release.

Mobile Development Team Lead

Posts 762
Patrick S. | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 3 2013 4:38 AM

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :):

Another free alternative is Novabench => https://novabench.com/ that has a Top Mac page => https://novabench.com/topmacs.php

Hmmm — that software gets some negative feedback on the Mac App store. Including wouldn't load on Mountain Lion, wouldn't recognise NVIDIA graphics cards, wouldn't test external HDD.

If people were planning to get comparative rankings on machines it would be best to standardise on one testing software. If people thought it beneficial.

The main (only) value of these sort of testing programs is to run test on your own machine and to then compare it to others. If your machine ranks significantly lower then the average — both for the case where you have the pretty well same machine as someone else, and the case where you compare your machine to what is generally currently in use — then you know you have a problem with your machine. It either has some issue unique to your machine, or the model of your machine is getting 'long in the tooth' and you need to consider upgrading.

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

Posts 16
Patrick Lacson | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 18 2013 10:39 AM

I have a Windows 7  PC running i5-3320m @ 2.60Ghz w/ 8 GB of RAM with a Windows Experience rating of 5.9 and L5 runs very slow.  Is there a way to increase the speed of L5 through some configuration settings?

Posts 27775
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 18 2013 10:58 AM

Patrick Lacson:
I have a Windows 7  PC running i5-3320m @ 2.60Ghz w/ 8 GB of RAM with a Windows Experience rating of 5.9 and L5 runs very slow.  Is there a way to increase the speed of L5 through some configuration settings?

Please create a new thread and explain your issue clearly. 

OSX & iOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 1
John Peachey | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 26 2013 3:47 AM

Dear Mike,

Is there any advice on the forum on how to speed up Logos 5? I am running on:

 2011 MacBook Pro 13",  Model Identifier: MacBookPro8,1; Processor Name: Intel Core i5; Processor Speed: 2.3 GHz; Number of Processors: 1; Total Number of Cores: 2; L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB; L3 Cache: 3 MB; Memory: 4 GB; Serial-ATA, 320GB Drive at 5400.

Logos 5 is the slowest and most unstable application I use.  It has a very slow start up time.  It is constantly updating and indexing. I rarely use it due to the long delays and I am just using it in a very basic way.

At this point I couldn't recommend the application due to the sluggishness and instability. I often have to Force Quit.  I don't leave it on in the background due to the fear that it is hogging resources. Would leaving it on improve things?

Thanks John

Page 1 of 2 (22 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS