Logos 5 for Mac

Page 1 of 2 (26 items) 1 2 Next >
This post has 25 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 191
Rev. 14:6 | Forum Activity | Posted: Wed, Mar 20 2013 11:04 AM

I had L4 platinum on my Macbook Pro and the salesmen told me L5 was much faster now.  Is it just me, but I don't find it any faster at all.  When I try to open it from start it seems to take almost two minutes at least.  Logos 4 opened much faster.  

Next, I don't like staring at an all white background.  I noticed a friend who has both Accordance and Logos showed me how to get Logos background to look like accordance.  The feature is called "resource panel background", I can keep it white, make it grey, or make it like a pinkish/orange looking color.  The "paper" option really helps my eyes; however, I notice that sometimes it looks white still and I have not altered the settings to go back to default "white".  I check and it is in "paper" mode but looks white.  Then other times I'll reopen and it looks like the pinkish/orangish color again.  What is that all about?  Does this happen to anyone else?  This seems to be constantly happening.  I asked him if Accordance ever does that and he said no.

Then doing a biblical word search seems to take forever.  Am I doing that incorrect?  I use search (while typing) surface text in All passages in Top Bibles for.  I find that I can go to google and do it so much faster and find the texts I am needing.  Hence defeating some of the purpose of L5.  In my friends accordance, his macbook pro gets the results faster than google, I mean that thing is sick fast!  He said he got the biblical languages pack because he felt L% was just too slow.  While I would like to do the same I can't afford it at the moment. 

Another thing I get is when I'm trying to shut down it always seems to try to be synchronizing or indexing something and it takes forever to shut down.  I don't remember this happening to me with L4. I really love the newer features in L5 but I'm wondering if I made the wrong decision to upgrade to gold?  Am I doing things wrong or do others find themselves with these same results?  My mac is a 2008 MBP, 4gb, 2.4 ghz, intel core 2 duo, 10.6.8.  My friends is a 2011 MBP, not sure what its internals are.  My MBP sometimes has nothing else opened and I first click on logos and I encounter all these things.  

Posts 311
Michael Hite | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 20 2013 11:21 AM

Quick question - has Logos 5 completely finished indexing? The program can be very sluggish while indexing. You should have an icon in your menu bar that will show you when Logos is downloading and indexing.

2015 13" MacBook Pro - 2 Ghz Intel i7 - 16 GB RAM - 500GB SSD - 2018 iMac Pro - 3.2GHz 8-core Xeon - both systems running OS 10.14.3 (Mojave)

 

Posts 27778
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 20 2013 11:25 AM

Rev. 14:6:
Logos 4 opened much faster.

I think most users have reported L5 being faster, but not all. 

Rev. 14:6:
My mac is a 2008 MBP, 4gb, 2.4 ghz, intel core 2 duo, 10.6.8.

Your computer is certainly an outlier. I am complaining about my 2011 MBP… (but L5 IS running faster for me than L4). Out of curiosity… what does your HD free space look like? 

Rev. 14:6:
I check and it is in "paper" mode but looks white.

I also have mine set to paper. NOTE: this effects the resources only… other boxes & panels are still white.

Rev. 14:6:
Then doing a biblical word search seems to take forever.  Am I doing that incorrect?

Can you give an example?

Rev. 14:6:
In my friends accordance, his macbook pro gets the results faster than google

I have not used accordance, but others sing its praises for language work. Since I massacre the english language, I try to stay away from those as much as I can… However, is it really fair to compare your friends MBP (which is 3 years newer)? Wink

OSX & iOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 27778
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 20 2013 11:25 AM

Michael Hite:
Quick question - has Logos 5 completely finished indexing? The program can be very sluggish while indexing.

Good point! Smile

OSX & iOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 191
Rev. 14:6 | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 20 2013 11:47 AM

I do notice when it is indexing on the top, I see the blue icon, but every time this is not the case and when I go to shut it down there is nothing being indexed on the toolbar.  When I go to shut down I get a grey box saying that it is synchronizing and then the option to exit now.  I click that and nothing happens. I go to the dock and have to force quit.  I never had that with L4. 

Posts 27778
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 20 2013 11:52 AM

Rev. 14:6:
When I go to shut down I get a grey box saying that it is synchronizing and then the option to exit now.  I click that and nothing happens. I go to the dock and have to force quit.  I never had that with L4. 

I have had this a few times, but there are some other users who are reporting the same thing is happening more frequently for them. You might want to try and clear your history and see if that helps.

OSX & iOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 191
Rev. 14:6 | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 20 2013 11:56 AM

"what does your HD free space look like?"

Well that is a good question.  Capacity is 199.71 GB, used is 164.8 GB on disk, available is 34.9 GB; so this may be a big reason.  Does it really matter that much? I have been looking into a iMac 27inch screen it seems to be capable of 32 gb memory, so the genius told me.  Then empty my 2008 MBP and use as my mobile computer. 

2013 iMac 27inch

  • 3.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i5
  • Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
  • 8GB (two 4GB) memory, capable of 32GB
  • 1TB hard drive
  • NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX with 1GB
Posts 191
Rev. 14:6 | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 20 2013 12:01 PM

 "is it really fair to compare your friends MBP (which is 3 years newer)?"  No you may have a point there, but what I am saying is my friends MBP, while newer than mine, is really slow in L5, and accordance is just rippin fast.  I really can't believe it can be that fast.  He has vm ware fusing running in the background, itunes open, google chrome open, word, ppt, etc, etc, and accordance just fast.  

Posts 757
Fr. Charles R. Matheny | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 20 2013 1:45 PM

Dear Rev. I own Accordance and Logos. Comparing the two is just futile.

Accordance is, as you say " ripping fast " and is so at everything.

Accordance is based on Apple technology , started there, grew up there and makes use of software and hardware on Macs.

Unfortunately the library is pretty limited. If you are doing primarily exegetical work, it's fine, all the tools you need. But if you look at a lot of resources, history etc, they just don't have access to those licenses.

Logos is a huge library, the Mac version is still based in Windows technologies and thus, is slower, much slower.

Large libraries take more time to go through, if in person or, by computer, just does.

The primary thing you are running into those is the bottlenecks created by the interface used to bridge between Windows code an Mac code. It is what it is.

I use Logos as my library system and Accordance as my Exegetical tools and it's a pretty happy mix that way. Hope this helps.

Posts 27778
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 20 2013 1:56 PM

Rev. 14:6:
Capacity is 199.71 GB, used is 164.8 GB on disk, available is 34.9 GB; so this may be a big reason.  Does it really matter that much?

Does it really matter much? Yes. Traditional hard drives can really slow down when they get full. Personally, I think "half full" is a good target for the high end. 

Rev. 14:6:
I have been looking into a iMac 27inch screen

The specs look good… but the absolute best performance will be found by using a solid state drive (SSD). One option is to look into a "fusion drive" from Apple. This combines a traditional hard drive (for storage capacity) with an SSD for speed. 

Fr. Charles is a good source of info between the two systems on the Mac platform. Yes

OSX & iOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 5251
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 20 2013 8:24 PM

For me on my Mid 2010 i7 MacBook Pro 15" I found that L5 to be much more stable and a bit faster. 

-dan

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 20 2013 9:31 PM

alabama24:

Capacity is 199.71 GB, used is 164.8 GB on disk, available is 34.9 GB; so this may be a big reason.  Does it really matter that much?

Does it really matter much? Yes. Traditional hard drives can really slow down when they get full. Personally, I think "half full" is a good target for the high end. 

Blog has graph showing hard disk transfer speed degradation as disk physically fills up => http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/how-fast-is-linux-sata-hard-disk.html

For longer battery life, Apple uses 5400 RPM hard drives.  Upgrading to 7200 RPM can be up to 30 % faster, albeit usable time on battery decreases.

Concur Solid State Disk (SSD) is noticeably faster for Logos 5 on Mac and PC.

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 191
Rev. 14:6 | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Mar 21 2013 7:03 AM

Fr. Charles R. Matheny:

Dear Rev. I own Accordance and Logos. Comparing the two is just futile.

Accordance is, as you say " ripping fast " and is so at everything.

Accordance is based on Apple technology , started there, grew up there and makes use of software and hardware on Macs.

Unfortunately the library is pretty limited. If you are doing primarily exegetical work, it's fine, all the tools you need. But if you look at a lot of resources, history etc, they just don't have access to those licenses.

Logos is a huge library, the Mac version is still based in Windows technologies and thus, is slower, much slower.

Large libraries take more time to go through, if in person or, by computer, just does.

The primary thing you are running into those is the bottlenecks created by the interface used to bridge between Windows code an Mac code. It is what it is.

I use Logos as my library system and Accordance as my Exegetical tools and it's a pretty happy mix that way. Hope this helps.

Yes this does help.  Thank you to all of your responses.  If this is the case, why does Logos not a true Mac version?  I don't get it?  As I said earlier as you do so my friend does also, use Accordance with Logos.  The thing is I am considering this but yet I'm not sure its worth it because I have all the exegetical tools I could ever need  on Logos5 but the speed is so, so, so annoying.  I think I'm not alone in saying I paid for the upgrade, whether it was steep or reasonable is relative according to each his own.  I already had platinum and could not afford diamond so went with Gold.  I love Logos, I like the way Accordance looks too, but Accordance seems so much more steeper in price for what you get and bibleworks is not even on radar screen.   Conditional if, but "If" Logos was not as you say based on Windows technology, and based on Apple Tech, this would be the ultimate piece.  What else would you need.  At this point I think I rather save my money for an iMac 27in at home, then purchase Accordance for exegetical purposes, then see how L5 operates on there.  If its the same outcome then I will be frustrated.  When I find myself going to google for quick word searches and getting quicker responses there then on Logos, I sort of feel like... Well enough said.  I would just like some more stability and speed.  I may be preaching to the choir.  I guess with L5 the salesmen made it seem like I was going to be in the new jerusalem.  
Posts 27778
Forum MVP
JT (alabama24) | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Mar 21 2013 7:41 AM

Rev. 14:6:
If this is the case, why does Logos not a true Mac version?  I don't get it?

Logos will tell you that they do have a "true Mac" (native) version, but most of us Mac users would qualify that a bit. I think Fr. Matheny knows much more about this than I do, but the software shares code to make it cross platform and uses a technology called "mono" (I was always told that mono is a horrible disease to catch). In any case, if Logos built a "Mac only" version without any shared code, we might never have had a Mac version.

In my opinion, if someone's primary purpose for their bible software is original languages, then Accordance would probably be a better choice... at least on Mac. On the other hand, if someone desires to have a vast library for research purposes, Logos is the best choice, and getting better by the day. 

I would really like to see an new mac with SSD to see how Logos operates. If anyone feels led to donate to a "Mr. Mom's" new Mac fund, please send your checks to, ... Big Smile

OSX & iOS | Logs |  Install

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Mar 23 2013 2:37 AM

Rev. 14:6:
If this is the case, why does Logos not a true Mac version?  I don't get it?  As I said earlier as you do so my friend does also, use Accordance with Logos.  The thing is I am considering this but yet I'm not sure its worth it because I have all the exegetical tools I could ever need  on Logos5 but the speed is so, so, so annoying.

Thread => Open note to David Mitchell & Bob Pritchett includes a reply from Bob Pritchett with business insights about sharing code base plus development time.  Wikipedia has a Mono software article => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_%28software%29

Logos User Voice Suggestion for Menu Responsiveness has 31 votes => https://logos.uservoice.com/forums/42823-logos-bible-software-5/suggestions/2091619-improve-logos-4-menu-responsiveness

Thankful for Logos visual filter highlighting that can combine hundreds of search results for simultaneous display.  Wiki has => http://wiki.logos.com/Extended_Tips_for_Highlighting_and_Visual_Filters#Examples_of_visual_filters

alabama24:
In any case, if Logos built a "Mac only" version without any shared code, we might never have had a Mac version.

Libronix 3 was partially ported to Mac using native code.  Libronix 3 uses the Internet Explorer javascript engine while Logos for Mac v1 used javascript in Safari 4 for display rendering.  After Apple upgraded Safari to version 5, Logos for Mac v1 essentially became an eBook reader.  Logos for Mac v1 lacked many Libronix 3 features plus had a substantial time lag between announcement and availability.

During Logos 4 alpha pre-release development, often felt like Christmas as more features became visibly enabled on Mac.  Wiki => http://wiki.logos.com/Mac_Release_Notes_and_History has Logos 4 and 5 release history. Thankful for many, many improvements Big Smile

Wiki also has feature parity list => http://wiki.logos.com/Mac_and_PC_User_Interface_Differences#Feature_Parity

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 762
Patrick S. | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 24 2013 10:44 AM

Rev. 14:6:

Fr. Charles R. Matheny:

Dear Rev. I own Accordance and Logos. Comparing the two is just futile.

Accordance is, as you say " ripping fast " and is so at everything.

Accordance is based on Apple technology , started there, grew up there and makes use of software and hardware on Macs.

Unfortunately the library is pretty limited. If you are doing primarily exegetical work, it's fine, all the tools you need. But if you look at a lot of resources, history etc, they just don't have access to those licenses.

Logos is a huge library, the Mac version is still based in Windows technologies and thus, is slower, much slower.

Large libraries take more time to go through, if in person or, by computer, just does.

The primary thing you are running into those is the bottlenecks created by the interface used to bridge between Windows code an Mac code. It is what it is.

I use Logos as my library system and Accordance as my Exegetical tools and it's a pretty happy mix that way. Hope this helps.

Yes this does help.  Thank you to all of your responses.  If this is the case, why does Logos not a true Mac version?  I don't get it?  As I said earlier as you do so my friend does also, use Accordance with Logos.  The thing is I am considering this but yet I'm not sure its worth it because I have all the exegetical tools I could ever need  on Logos5 but the speed is so, so, so annoying.  I think I'm not alone in saying I paid for the upgrade, whether it was steep or reasonable is relative according to each his own.  I already had platinum and could not afford diamond so went with Gold.  I love Logos, I like the way Accordance looks too, but Accordance seems so much more steeper in price for what you get and bibleworks is not even on radar screen.   Conditional if, but "If" Logos was not as you say based on Windows technology, and based on Apple Tech, this would be the ultimate piece.  What else would you need.  At this point I think I rather save my money for an iMac 27in at home, then purchase Accordance for exegetical purposes, then see how L5 operates on there.  If its the same outcome then I will be frustrated.  When I find myself going to google for quick word searches and getting quicker responses there then on Logos, I sort of feel like... Well enough said.  I would just like some more stability and speed.  I may be preaching to the choir.  I guess with L5 the salesmen made it seem like I was going to be in the new jerusalem.

Logos is a Mac application with, unfortunately, 'feet of clay' or, put another way, a dark secret. Meaning the user interface is a Mac application, and is coded with Mac tools but underneath, the part that interfaces with book data on disk, it uses Windows technology. And not just that, for Mac users it means to run this (ugh) Windows code there has to be an 'emulation layer' called 'Mono' running so the Windows code runs on your Mac. If you look inside the Logos 5 application (Applications | Select Logos 5 | Right click and choose 'Show Package Contents' and then navigate in Finder to Contents >> MacOS >> lib the 'dark secret' will be revealed.

Certain persons don't like me pointing this out, in fact I was made fun of by none other than the big boss a few years ago, but I think Logos should just come clean in this area and tell customers up front that that is how they have a cross platform product. This is the downside, the plus with Logos 5 being cross platform is that the installed base is much larger and therefore we get other benefits like bigger libraries.

If one understands the (cough) limitations of Logos 5 running on the Mac being held back by Windows pollution, for example also it is not a 64 bit application, even running on Mountain Lion, also, compared to other big apps like Safari & Photoshop, it seems it does not take advantage of virtual memory, and one does what is possible to get around those limitations then the performance can be reasonable.

Get a modern fast Mac with a fast processor if possible, a 2008 MacBook is holding you back. Get as much RAM as you can afford, any OS, any system and application benefits from having RAM to spare.

Many people have found running Logos on an SSD improves things as that makes accessing data off the disk much faster.

Finally we can hope and trust that Logos continues to improve Logos for Mac and to minimise the impact of having extra baggage like Mono running.

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

Posts 191
Rev. 14:6 | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 31 2013 6:34 PM

RE: Patrick S...., I had no idea of all this.  I guess I understand why they don't want anyone to know this.  I have also been told this is one of the biggest culprits in holding the Mac version back in terms of speed.  I have to be honest, I am a bit disappointed that L5 is not a "true" Mac"ie" app, again salesmen tell you that it is and after your report, when the rubber meets the road, it truly is not.  Could be why all the bugs still and always will be until they decide to leave all trace of windows (yuk!) files.  Thank you Patrick, very helpful and insightful indeed.  

Blessings...

Posts 53
Daniel Bergquist | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 31 2013 8:47 PM

Patrick S.:

Logos is a Mac application with, unfortunately, 'feet of clay' or, put another way, a dark secret. Meaning the user interface is a Mac application, and is coded with Mac tools but underneath, the part that interfaces with book data on disk, it uses Windows technology. And not just that, for Mac users it means to run this (ugh) Windows code there has to be an 'emulation layer' called 'Mono' running so the Windows code runs on your Mac. If you look inside the Logos 5 application (Applications | Select Logos 5 | Right click and choose 'Show Package Contents' and then navigate in Finder to Contents >> MacOS >> lib the 'dark secret' will be revealed.

If one understands the (cough) limitations of Logos 5 running on the Mac being held back by Windows pollution, for example also it is not a 64 bit application, even running on Mountain Lion, also, compared to other big apps like Safari & Photoshop, it seems it does not take advantage of virtual memory, and one does what is possible to get around those limitations then the performance can be reasonable.

Get a modern fast Mac with a fast processor if possible, a 2008 MacBook is holding you back. Get as much RAM as you can afford, any OS, any system and application benefits from having RAM to spare.

Greetings, I am a Mac and iOS software developer who works for a company other than Logos.

This isn't some "Dark Secret" that has been kept from Logos users. The use of Mono in the Mac version is well known on these forums and, if I recall correctly, something that Logos has looked back on as perhaps not the best move in the world.

Nor is Mono a "emulation layer" for Windows or any kind of application. No Windows code is involved with Mono. Mono is an open-source implementation of Microsoft's .NET application framework and the C# language. It's parallels would be the old Carbon API combined with C++ or Cocoa with Obj-C.

The lack of 64-bit support is due to the lack of support in the Mono project, not because of any "Windows Pollution." Indeed, if it were actually Windows code being used, there would probably be 64-bit support already as .NET has had 64 bit support for years.

Virtual memory is not something that Mono has control of and is solely under the control of OS X. That is to say, Logos has virtual memory support because OS X has VM support.

Do not underestimate the need to share common code across platforms. There is a principal in programming called "Don't Repeat Yourself." The idea being that you only have one definitive place where data or code is expressed. By having duplicated code, you make the application more difficult to maintain and greatly increase the risk of bugs.

That being said, Logos probably would have been better off implementing the back in something other than .NET and Mono. Even with the Mono backend, I believe that Logos could be better than it is. I do no think Logos should be blamed for minimizing code duplication on a vital portion of code. Nor do I think that "Windows Pollution" is solely to blame for any Logos performance issues. And that is my professional opinion.

12-Core Mac Pro, MacBook 2.0 GHz Core Duo, Mac mini

Favorites: http://www.piratechristianradio.com http://issuesetc.org

Posts 53
Daniel Bergquist | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 31 2013 8:52 PM

I ought to add one more thing.

Those "Windows files" you found are actually Mono files. Why then are they .exe and .dll files? Because those are the file formats that Mono uses.

12-Core Mac Pro, MacBook 2.0 GHz Core Duo, Mac mini

Favorites: http://www.piratechristianradio.com http://issuesetc.org

Posts 53
Daniel Bergquist | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Mar 31 2013 8:55 PM

Rev. 14:6:
 I have to be honest, I am a bit disappointed that L5 is not a "true" Mac"ie" app,

I wouldn't necessarily say that any more than I would say Safari is not a "true" Mac app because most of it's code came from a Linux project. (Apple started Safari by taking the web rendering engine from the KDE web browser and putting a Mac GUI on it.)

12-Core Mac Pro, MacBook 2.0 GHz Core Duo, Mac mini

Favorites: http://www.piratechristianradio.com http://issuesetc.org

Page 1 of 2 (26 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS