OSX Mavericks and Performance

Page 1 of 2 (39 items) 1 2 Next >
This post has 38 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 492
Mr. Simple | Forum Activity | Posted: Sat, Jan 11 2014 2:53 PM

It seems to be getting a bit ridiculous that Logos 5 is lagging so far behind what the hardware environment enables these days in the Mac World.

Given that Logos can only support 32 bit memory map, 4 threads etc when the hardware can support 24 processor threads, 128 gig RAM  you would think things would move along

Posts 25663
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 11 2014 9:51 PM

There has been a discussion about the 'limitations" of the software and the reasons for 32-bit vs 64-bit (http://community.logos.com/forums/t/75492.aspx, etc) The "4 threads" is imposed by indexing up to four resources at a time; otherwise Logos allocates as many threads as it needs (without limit).  128 GB RAM makes sense for 64-bit software, but 32 bit software would only benefit from 16 - 32 GB for multi-tasking, whilst each program is locked into a 2 GB / 4 GB space!

Dave
===

Windows 10 & Android 8

Posts 322
Thinking | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jan 12 2014 8:26 AM

http://community.logos.com/forums/t/75492.aspx is not a working link.

Posts 22749
Forum MVP
Graham Criddle | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jan 12 2014 9:06 AM

Phil Mills:

Dave may have meant http://community.logos.com/forums/t/74295.aspx - but we would need him to confirm.

Posts 757
Fr. Charles R. Matheny | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jan 12 2014 10:44 AM

The fact remains- Logos is one of the most poorly written programs one can buy and load unto a Mac.
I really don't care to her all the excuses any more- what I want is a library system that works in accordance with it's cost.
Logos is not cheap, yet , there is no software I can find, of any kind, that runs as poorly on a Mac- as  Logos.

They should actually be quite ashamed of themselves in my opinion.

I used to race cars- If I could not field a competitive car- it stayed on the trailer or at the shop. If something broke, We fixed it, if it needed improvements, they were made, but never, ever, would I put a noncompetitive car on the track and then make excuses.

I don't allow a bunch of excuses at Church either - one does their work or they don't .

Being responsible, owning up and taking care should be things Christians do at a higher level than others.

Logos has made in plain-  there is "NO PLAN" to make Logos Mac any better than its current state.

I find this extremely sad. 

Posts 10731
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jan 12 2014 6:31 PM

Fr. Charles R. Matheny:
The fact remains- Logos is one of the most poorly written programs one can buy and load unto a Mac.

If you are this unhappy with Logos, you really should move to Accordance. Frankly, I find L5 Mac's performance quite acceptable.

Posts 692
Otto S. Carroll | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jan 12 2014 8:06 PM

Fr. Charles R. Matheny:
Logos has made in plain-  there is "NO PLAN" to make Logos Mac any better than its current state.

I'm pretty pleased with the current state of Logos 5 on my Macbook!

__________

15" rMBP 2.6 GHz i7 | 16 GB RAM | 1.0 TB Flash Drive | OS X 10.12.3 | Logos 7.0 (7.3.0.0062)

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jan 12 2014 8:24 PM

Found several tips to improve OS X Mavericks performance => http://blogs.computerworld.com/mac-os-x/23025/how-improve-mac-performance-os-x-mavericks-edition and => http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/mac/mac-too-slow-tips-speed-apple-mac-computer-3490637/

Apple Support has => OS X Mavericks: If graphics-intensive tasks slow down your Mac

Fr. Charles R. Matheny:
I used to race cars- If I could not field a competitive car- it stayed on the trailer or at the shop. If something broke, We fixed it, if it needed improvements, they were made, but never, ever, would I put a noncompetitive car on the track and then make excuses.

To be competitive, appropriate hard ware is needed.

Logos is a resource intensive application whose performance is affected by hard ware choices.  For example, a Windows tablet with an Atom Z670 CPU always responds slowly; am using performance tweaks of always running Logos offline (have not connected Tablet to a network) and not running anti-virus software.  Noticed Z670 CPU is # 729 on a benchmark list => http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html  Thankful for slow tablet that can show Logos 5 visual filter highlighting, which cannot be done on an iPad.

Keep Smiling [:)}

Posts 25663
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jan 12 2014 10:53 PM

Graham Criddle:

I meant http://community.logos.com/forums/t/75492.aspx. Smile

Dave
===

Windows 10 & Android 8

Posts 757
Fr. Charles R. Matheny | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 13 2014 4:41 PM

Missed the point Jac: If you bought a brand new, top of the Line Mac Pro: Logos would be the most poorly written program running on it.

Keep smiling: Hardware does not change software code.

Jac: I have accordance and, have to use it most days for original language work.
Yet, I should be able to use Logos with the same level of reliability. These are not "toys" for me. I have thousands invested. It's not my hardware, as Logo's tech support tells me.

Usual response is: Yes, this is a known issue, we have an open case on it, but will add yours. They are very nice about it- they just can't fix it or, when fixed to at least run, cannot get it to stay that way. I am, like some, scared to death to get a program or resource update, once I get Logos working functionally.
I will also give Logos tech support praise for their honesty- they understand the frustration and, don't try to sugar coat it- they know these problems are there.
Thus, your comment is not helpful at all.

There are many, like myself, who just want the program to operate as advertised and do so with stability, for us, it is a tool, workmen need to have dependable reliable tools.

Its as simple as that, its no more than that.

Not expecting perfection, just a much higher norm .

Posts 5285
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 13 2014 6:42 PM

Jack Caviness:
If you are this unhappy with Logos, you really should move to Accordance. Frankly, I find L5 Mac's performance quite acceptable.

I will agree that Logos MAC is not as stable or fast as Accordance but I use both programs and do not find Logos unusable. I would agree with Jack, if you are unhappy consider using only Accordance. I do know Logos is improving all the time but i am not sure it is going to get to a point you are happy with.

-Dan

Posts 5285
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 13 2014 6:47 PM

Fr. Charles R. Matheny:
Not expecting perfection, just a much higher norm .

Sorry you are feeling this way. I hope you have better luck with other tools. God help you in your search for the proper tools for you..

-Dan

Posts 10731
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 13 2014 6:57 PM

Fr. Charles R. Matheny:
Missed the point Jac:

I did not miss your point—not in the dozens of times you have expressed it.

Fr. Charles R. Matheny:
If you bought a brand new, top of the Line Mac Pro: Logos would be the most poorly written program running on it.

I may have a top of the line iMac now, but my previous machines were an eight year old Mac Pro and a 4 year old Mac Book Pro. I got good performance from L5 on both. You talk as if every Mac user is unsatisfied with the performance of L5 Mac, and that is simply not true. I understand that there are some with problems, and I sympathize, but those few do not warrant the blanket condemnations of the software that you continually post.

Now, I have said enough on this subject—Many would probably say more than enough.

Posts 492
Mr. Simple | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 13 2014 7:12 PM

Uh, gee. The original point of this thread was to highlight the fact that the software is way behind the curve when it comes to utilizing current hardware capabilities in the Mac Pro line. That's all.

Posts 757
Fr. Charles R. Matheny | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 13 2014 8:10 PM

Om not speaking to your install Jac, so glad your happy.

Im not, and it's ok for me so say so, I paid about 3 grand , I guess so I could say so. According to Logos support, these problems are widespread , their own words, so, you are wrong. They are aware, they know, they have tickets on them. 
Lord have mercy.

Posts 757
Fr. Charles R. Matheny | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 13 2014 8:16 PM

Agree Mr Simple: Its behind. My understanding is it's in the Mono and .net ( if I got that correct, that Logos has a bottleneck and, is where most of the intermittent issues seems to arise.

Performance and issues seems to "float" and some of this is due to differing resources with different tagging etc, from what Logos tells me.

I think the UI is written for Osx, but thats it.

I am told the software interface between the windows platform and Mac ( Mono .NET) will not be changing. I do not know how that effects cores/threads. I do not know when they we get more memory address than 32 bit.

Hope that helps.

Posts 492
Mr. Simple | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 13 2014 8:24 PM

Makes sense - It seems unfortunate that the  foundational fundamental infrastructure/architecture for the product has these issues. It may be the case there is no way out of the box  canyon for logos on the mac side of the house. It probably would cost more $$ to fundamentally  fix than the revenue stream it  might protect and/or generate down the road on the mac side of the house. Otherwise they would fix it. I am not going to delude myself, that will not likely  happen. Two years forward my sense is this will still be an issue on these forums.  Could be wrong, hope I am, but I am a sceptic.

When I first bought the software I thought I can live with the growing pains because surely it will get addressed and improve over time. Sadly in terms of quality/stability that has not been the case and I am truly surprised by that outcome.

Posts 25663
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 13 2014 8:54 PM

Fr. Charles R. Matheny:
My understanding is it's in the Mono and .net ( if I got that correct, that Logos has a bottleneck and, is where most of the intermittent issues seems to arise.

Yes. The Mono code emulates .NET so that Logos can ostensibly use the same code for both Windows and Mac, but any emulation software will have its weak points and bugs (as does .NET).

Fr. Charles R. Matheny:
I am told the software interface between the windows platform and Mac ( Mono .NET) will not be changing. I do not know how that effects cores/threads. I do not know when they we get more memory address than 32 bit.

Previous responses from Logos (quoted in this thread) have stated that cores/threads are handled the same. So if the code changes thread behaviour it will be reflected in both Windows and Mac e.g. the OP's assertion about  4 threads is misleading as I indicated; so if Logos decide to index up to 6 resources at a time you will see (in Logos.log) six threads allocated for those resources. To effectively use more memory (e.g. 128 GB) the software would have to be 64-bit, but a 32-bit version would also have to be available for users on 32-bit hardware (many Windows 8 tablets) or who have only 4 - 6 GB memory!

Dave
===

Windows 10 & Android 8

Posts 492
Mr. Simple | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 13 2014 9:02 PM

 Conditional coding and testing  for 32/64 universal binaries is not cutting edge. Nothing is misleading regarding 4 threads. It is what it is for whatever reason.

The bottleneck is there because of human decisions. I have often led software development teams where some "genius" tells me why they can't do something. I generally just found someone who "can do" and replace the "can't do".

Posts 25663
Forum MVP
Dave Hooton | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Jan 13 2014 9:14 PM

Mr. Simple:
Nothing is misleading regarding 4 threads

It is when Logos can support more than 4 threads! You need to clarify your assertion.

Dave
===

Windows 10 & Android 8

Page 1 of 2 (39 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS