Logos 4 (Mac): An unacceptably premature product release

Page 1 of 2 (32 items) 1 2 Next >
This post has 31 Replies | 4 Followers

Posts 33
John Featherstone | Forum Activity | Posted: Fri, Oct 29 2010 3:27 PM

I'm reading all the posts for Logos 4 and nowhere do I find people experiencing, "searching hundreds of resources within seconds" as the opening screen online suggests. Most of us are waiting minutes, and finding the computer unresponsive to other tasks during that wait, keeping us from using other bible software.

The cooling fan runs, and the machine heats up, and we wait.... and wait. That happens for every text I type in. Research slows to a crawl. Now lest we forget, much of this took hours in the library, but still it's not as fast as we'd like. At least it's exponentially slower than any other Bible software I have. I don't even want to launch it except as a last resort because it makes the windows that are open in other applications scroll in such a jerky fashion that I can't use other resources either. Nor can I scroll smoothly through the Bible when everything else is linked to the Bible, because as it attempts to "think" and update those other screens, it freezes the Bible that I'm trying to scroll forward in, or is so jerky that it jumps past the verse I want to examine.

I'm often encouraged to send in my "logs," but have to go online, view a you-tube tutorial, and then navigate down somewhere on my hard drive and find (never have found the mac logs) their folder, create a shortcut, and mail them in.

These are not characteristics of an alpha release product. We're still in an early beta stage here, and whether it's a problem with my computer (none of my other programs do this) or a failure on the part of the Logos installer to configure it properly, its still not a mature release. I don't want to be a tech guy, I want to just use it, and I'm not hearing about any user having that seamless experience yet. 

I've got over $2,000.00 (spent over the years) in resources that i'd love to access  as rapidly as the commercial states, but it's just not there yet. I'd gladly move back to the 3.0 version except that I've plowed forward buying resources that no longer are recognized by the  installer under the 3.0 platform. I'm now locked into going forward.

Is anybody happy with this product's performance? Not design, not features, not libraries, those are all above reproach, but i mean raw performance.  Please respond (users, not techies) if this is the case. This product is beautiful in concept, but it crushes my duo-core 2.4 ghz MacBookPro with it's 4 gig of ram, and 256 dedicated vram.

Keep working on it guys, you're good enough that it will get there, it's just not there yet, at least for me.

Posts 1674
Paul N | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 29 2010 4:00 PM

John Featherstone:

Is anybody happy with this product's performance? Not design, not features, not libraries, those are all above reproach, but i mean raw performance.  Please respond (users, not techies) if this is the case...

I must say I've never had to upload my logs in recent memory.  In fact I haven't even gone through the tutorial on how to do this.  I'm happy with the performance, but this most certainly comes down to the machine that is running the program.  I can begin to see the stress uploading a greek NT layout has on my machine, but honestly it runs like a champ.  I even keep Logos running 24/7 on a second monitor, so its always there.  Optimization still has its opportunities I'm sure.  I believe I need to represent a population of users that enjoys running Logos.

 

BTW, I just searched the word "sin" in Logos and opened Word '11, and Dreamweaver, while watching a DVD on my computer, and when Logos finished first I turned around and searched "shame" (in 1.05 seconds) and simultaneously opened up Flash and Excel. Yes

Next I just tried loading my NT Greek Layout to Eph. 2 (modeled after the Mark Barnes tutorial) while importing Tenth Avenue North's first cd, while opening Photoshop and using Southwest Airlines' Ding application to book a flight from Kansas City to Albuquerque.  Albuquerque is too expensive with Thanksgiving around the corner!  The layout took about 11 seconds to load with Parallel Passages lagging way behind everything else.  Is this the type of thing we're talking about? (I understand I'm being silly now Stick out tongue)

Posts 5253
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 29 2010 4:19 PM

I find that it is slow too... (I am on a 2.66 i7 macbook pro with 8 gb ram). My frustration level is a little less since I tend to not so any searches beyond passage guides which takes long enough to open up, and parallel  resource switch takes far too long to pop down. I have just come to accept that this is Logos and maybe on a mac pro with 12 cores it is fast, but on my machine it works a bit slow. I have my other programs and they search quickly. Hopefully one day Logos catches up.

-Dan

Posts 1674
Paul N | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 29 2010 4:24 PM

Daniel W. Francis:

I find that it is slow too... (I am on a 2.66 i7 macbook pro with 8 gb ram). 

 

Dan, your MacPro is technically bigger and faster than my desktop.  Is my problem that I'm not pushing Logos hard enough due to my relative newness to the program?

 

Posts 214
Dan | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 29 2010 4:50 PM

John Featherstone:

I'm reading all the posts for Logos 4 and nowhere do I find people experiencing, "searching hundreds of resources within seconds" as the opening screen online suggests. Most of us are waiting minutes, and finding the computer unresponsive to other tasks during that wait, keeping us from using other bible software.

The cooling fan runs, and the machine heats up, and we wait.... and wait. That happens for every text I type in. Research slows to a crawl. Now lest we forget, much of this took hours in the library, but still it's not as fast as we'd like. At least it's exponentially slower than any other Bible software I have. I don't even want to launch it except as a last resort because it makes the windows that are open in other applications scroll in such a jerky fashion that I can't use other resources either. Nor can I scroll smoothly through the Bible when everything else is linked to the Bible, because as it attempts to "think" and update those other screens, it freezes the Bible that I'm trying to scroll forward in, or is so jerky that it jumps past the verse I want to examine.

I'm often encouraged to send in my "logs," but have to go online, view a you-tube tutorial, and then navigate down somewhere on my hard drive and find (never have found the mac logs) their folder, create a shortcut, and mail them in.

These are not characteristics of an alpha release product. We're still in an early beta stage here, and whether it's a problem with my computer (none of my other programs do this) or a failure on the part of the Logos installer to configure it properly, its still not a mature release. I don't want to be a tech guy, I want to just use it, and I'm not hearing about any user having that seamless experience yet. 

I've got over $2,000.00 (spent over the years) in resources that i'd love to access  as rapidly as the commercial states, but it's just not there yet. I'd gladly move back to the 3.0 version except that I've plowed forward buying resources that no longer are recognized by the  installer under the 3.0 platform. I'm now locked into going forward.

Is anybody happy with this product's performance? Not design, not features, not libraries, those are all above reproach, but i mean raw performance.  Please respond (users, not techies) if this is the case. This product is beautiful in concept, but it crushes my duo-core 2.4 ghz MacBookPro with it's 4 gig of ram, and 256 dedicated vram.

Keep working on it guys, you're good enough that it will get there, it's just not there yet, at least for me.

Been thinking many of the same things. I'm running L4Mac on a Core2 Duo 2.53 ghz MacBookPro with 4GB RAM and 512 VRAM. My experience is similar to yours.

1. No other software slows down the entire system near as much (especially if I open iTunes). The drag on the system is worse than Parallels 6. L4Mac makes every other app I have open run slower.

2. Logos4 in Parallels still performs most functions faster than L4Mac. (Note: I had the early alpha problem and reinstalled everything from the ground up with the full product release as instructed by Logos tech support. Now L4Mac runs much faster, but is not near as responsive as Logos4 under Parallels.) BTW, Logos 3 & Logos 1 for Mac are both incredibly faster too.

3. L4Mac does not seem like it's quite ready for prime-time. It's close, but still seems like a beta in too many ways. Constant beach balls usually send me to Logos4 with Parallels if I use it too long. In many ways it reminds me a version 1.0 of a Microsoft product that doesn't really work like it's supposed to until after several bug fixes.

4. No other full-release commercial software asks me to manually find logs and send them to their tech team--not one.

5. No other Mac product I own looks and feels less like a Mac application and more like a Windows port than L4Mac. Others on this forum have made lists of the specifics which seem mostly ignored by Logos.

6. Too many things just don't work yet on the L4Mac. Some buttons do nothing, etc. Again, all you have to do is read the forums.

7. I really WANT to like L4Mac, but the user experience is so poor that it frequently becomes frustrating--so much so that I can not recommend to my friends to buy the Mac version yet. Someday I hope to be able to recommend it.

8. Mac apps are supposed to "just work" and this is where L4Mac just doesn't measure up to other Mac apps (bible apps or otherwise). Mac users expect this. Companies that develop for the Mac need to understand that Mac users have different expectations for their software. The companies that don't understand this have historically done poorly developing for the Mac. Hopefully, Logos gets this. From my observations I think the jury is still out on this one.

Posts 2235
Forum MVP
John Fidel | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 29 2010 5:09 PM

Hi John,

If you want to see if you can make L4 Mac work for you, I am pleased to offer a few suggestions based upon my experience with the product. It is my opinion that Logos set up things to be easy by having the home page open first, then you type in a verse and a layout fully populates. While this shows off what the program can do, it also takes lots of time to populate. Here are my suggestions and how I use the program and really enjoy almost every aspect of it:

1. Don't let the program open to the home page. Click customize and deselect open at start up.

2. Set up a workspace you want the program to open with. Customize the Passage guide for only the items of interest to you and save it as My Passage Guide. Close each of the sections and only open them when you need them. To be honest, in our studies, no one really should have that much information at once. For the Exegetical Guide, customize your own and have the word by word setup this way:

this way the individual words will not populate when you  open the word by word section. Interested in a word, then click on it and it will populate. Does anyone really need the entire pericope of words analyzed at one time?

3. Next when L4 Mac first opens it takes some time to fully open. Open your preferred workspace and leave it alone for 5 minutes or so. Then leave it running in the background rather than closing it.

4. Areas that are still slow, but they are working on them are: Parallel Passages, Parallel Resource Associations, Syntax searches, and text comparisons.

5. If you have a Windows emulator open sharing the RAM, you will experience some slowdown.

Hope these ideas help. If you need more details on the above let me know.

Posts 648
Jeremy | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 29 2010 5:16 PM

I think that this original post is unacceptably premature in its critique of Logos 4 Mac STABLE RELEASE 3.0 Smile. Even if there are a few too many bugs (which there are), I would rather have access to Logos 4 Mac right now than to wait another few months for the Logos team to work out all the kinks themselves. The Mac users really help Logos find all the bugs. We are needed.

John I have the same MacBook Pro you do with the same specs. Logos seems pretty quick to me, although I would like it to be faster. But Logos is a BIG program and big programs need really good hardware. But don't lose heart, the Mac team has said that they are close to coming out with updates that will speed it up.

Posts 33
John Featherstone | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 29 2010 6:29 PM

Thanks for the group feedback. I wanted some, perspective, an informal poll. Certainly it may not be statistically valid but seems to find some responsive chords.  But  frankly I wouldn't like to be without it (Logos) either, I'm just  impatient with it's growth pains.  

I left Apple, and bought a Windows machine back in 2003 purely because of Logos/Libronix. The Win emulation software was too slow to run it efficiently.  In 2008 the performance of the intel Macs, and Parallels, and VMware Fusion was enough better that i could come back to the Mac, and now I'm getting choked again.

Now, admittedly I'm expecting a lot, and while running Logos 4, in OSX.6.4, I'm also running Parallels 6 in the background with WinXP back there, BibleWorks 6, BW8, Word(win) Word(mac), Safari, etc. When checking the activity monitor, I always note that Parallels6 is a huge huge resource hog. The top four in terms of resources are Parallels, Logos 4, i-tunes, and Safari. I  suspect that software developers  add  features faster than our hardware will support everything running.  But in the responses I am seeing that even with the quad-core processors ( i7 ) that performance is lagging. I've thought of changing my virtual machine to Win 7, since perhaps the vaunted "memory leak" in XP is also hurting performance. Rebooting helps a tiny bit, but there is more to it than that. in the application.

Posts 10634
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 29 2010 6:36 PM

Dan Giese:
all you have to do is read the forums.

That is never a good gauge of the average performance of any application. Those who are comfortable with performance rarely post, but those seeking solutions to problems post frequently.

I agree that L4 Mac is slow in many areas, but I have never seen it affect any other application's performance.

Posts 33
John Featherstone | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 29 2010 6:43 PM

To John Fidel,

I've thought of that too. Because of the possibilities I become "information greedy." I want to see what all 7+ of my linked commentators have to say about the text in tabs as I'm reading the text, and as I run the cursor over each word I like that that far upper right window is giving me word information and cross referencing text information. Hence, I'm forcing everything to synchronize as I move. Software trumps hardware in this case.

I still need to use the Windows emulator in the background because 3 of the Bible study programs that I like to use with Logos are Windows only. I've developed preferences for doing certain tasks with certain programs, because some things are more intuitive in one program or another, and not all modules are "apples to apples," across all study programs. 

i'll experiment with that.

Thanks, 

 John F (also)

Posts 33
John Featherstone | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 29 2010 6:57 PM

Paul,

Wow, you have much faster running experience than I, and yes, your example of application sharing is just what i'm doing, though you've listed the bigger resource hogs than I'm using, and (sadly) i don't have the 1 second response, but rather minutes, mostly 2-3. Kinda' like the days of dialup when we used to click the hyperlink, and go to the kitchen and do something else while waiting for the page to load.... Remember those days/ That's my current Logos experience.

Yes, I keep it running full time in the background also, on my office computer (2.66 ghz imac wi 4 gig ram) . We have worship in the office in the morning, and i like to be able to access it as we talk about the morning's reading.  Since that's running under "user 1' ( I've set up a second user for the office admin) and since WinXP runs constantly in the background too, I'd probably be better off to reboot every morning, and clear out the applications that are using resources. I'm afraid I do the same with my laptop (run 24/7) , though I only have one user on that.

Posts 1674
Paul N | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 29 2010 7:35 PM

John I appreciate the grace in your reply to my rather cheeky post.  I honestly think I'm not asking Logos to do the things you're doing to get the slower load and response times.  I'm on a 3.06 GHz Core 2 Duo desktop with 8 GB of 1067 MHz DDR3 ram.  Since buying my computer I've come to understand I bought the low end processor (as compared to the I7 apparently) but the extra ram seems to do the trick.

However, as ram goes, it shouldn't speed up an indexed search unless it was one that was done very recently (as I understand it)

I searched the word 'a' returning 9,675,605 results in 936,548 article in 2,521 resources in 27.36 seconds

Is this an example of a task in Logos that you are finding sluggish or completely unresponsive?

Posts 33
John Featherstone | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 29 2010 7:36 PM

Dan,

Yes, and as you've seen, I have my issues with it's hardware compatibility level too, but the features are so incredible that I wouldn't want to be without it. I just think Logos developers gave us 'everything & the kitchen sink," and either hardware isn't up to it, or the code needs some fine tuning. I'm just accustomed to how much faster 3.0 was. Incidentally, what I've done (and with permission from Logos) was kept a copy of 3.0e on my computer which i use for group or public studies where I need to be very fast, and I open that instead of 4.0. I also have an early MacBook Air 1.6 gig processor, with 2 gig ram with will never see Logos 4 (space constraints), which has 3.0(also by permission). These are the pains that accompany "early adopters," in software updates. As stated, I was motivated by further purchases of resources that weren't compatible with the 3.0 installer, and I desired to put Logos 4 on my phone.

jf

Posts 249
Giovanni Baggio | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 29 2010 7:38 PM

This is why Windows PC will always be better than MAC, I don't care what the commercials say...LOL...Big Smile...well, you said no "Techies" didn't you...Stick out tongue

Posts 33
John Featherstone | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 29 2010 7:52 PM

Paul, your machine is a "monster" compared to my little MacBook Pro. I can't even begin to imagine having 8 gigs of ram available.

But as John Fidel correctly identified, I'm expecting my processor to synchronize 10 commentaries, with the Bible as i scroll down, as well as provide me full time exegetical analysis as my cursor "hovers" over each word that I read, and then I scroll. And of course alongside of this I'm running Parallelsv6 and WinXP ,  BibleWorks(6&8 sometimes) , e-sword, another Bible search program, and sometimes my Windows version of Logs4 besides. 

So you see i'm really expecting a lot of my little 2.4ghz duo-core processor. Your word search is pretty easy by comparison. Even an exegetical word study or a "harmony' is easy by comparison. Like john Fidel has identified, I'm expecting nearly every applicable commentary  to synchronize and scroll with me as i move down the page in my open Bible(s). I'm expecting to have everything open, and everything up to the moment synchronized, and that's just too much right now.

jf

Posts 33
John Featherstone | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 29 2010 7:56 PM

Gio,

Hardware durability was better on my old 1998 PowerBook, than my '03 Sharp running winXp. As a wordprocessor, it took a beating and when I sold it, it was still working fine and booting fast under OS 9.2.2. By contrast my 03' Sharp is in a computer graveyard. But, hardware notwithstanding, I just look for a computer that runs what I need to run.Yes Wink

Posts 9
Michael Newnham | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 29 2010 8:13 PM

John,

I have the same experiences you do...and I'm past frustrated to the point where I just don't use the program unless I have to.

Unfortunately, I have a lot of money in it as well or I would just move on.

 

Posts 249
Giovanni Baggio | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 29 2010 8:23 PM

Oh no you didn't...LOL...I'll give you the "techie side of me"...I'll have you know that I'm a PC and Windows 7 was MY idea...Stick out tongue I'll prolly buy a MAC when I get to be rich some day...Big Smile...or maybe just get a PC with more GBs (Giovannies Baggios).  I only have 4, but it sure is lightning fast.  My collection is growing though, so I may need more memory to keep it running fast.  

Anyway, be patience, once the MAC version gets adjusted, it will be smooth!

Posts 214
Dan | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Oct 29 2010 8:44 PM

Jack Caviness:

Dan Giese:
all you have to do is read the forums.

That is never a good gauge of the average performance of any application. Those who are comfortable with performance rarely post, but those seeking solutions to problems post frequently.

I agree that L4 Mac is slow in many areas, but I have never seen it affect any other application's performance.

My comment on reading the forums was in reference to finding posts concerning things that don't work as they should, not in reference to performance. Although there are many comments about that also.

I never meant to imply that reading the forums would be a gauge of average performance, merely that several people are having many of the same problems/concerns. Many of the challenges of running L4Mac seem to be shared by several users, i.e. these are not necessarily isolated cases.

Also, I tend to keep several (6-8) apps open at once and never have a problem with the performance except when one of the apps is L4Mac. Don't get me wrong, I really like L4Mac, but keeping it open affects the performance of my other apps. The difference is immediately improved when I quit L4Mac.

Posts 10634
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Oct 30 2010 6:08 AM

Dan Giese:
My comment on reading the forums was in reference to finding posts concerning things that don't work as they should, not in reference to performance.

Understood, but many do take forum posts as an indication that everyone is dissatisfied.

Dan Giese:
I tend to keep several (6-8) apps open at once and never have a problem with the performance except when one of the apps is L4Mac.

I also tend to keep several apps open and have not noticed L4 Mac running any slower than when it is the only thing running, but then I do have 11 GB or RAM.

As I said above, L4 Mac is very slow in many areas, but I expect that to improve dramatically. The Windows version has been gaining speed in 4.2 Beta.

Page 1 of 2 (32 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS