I've been considering upgrading to V6 for a while but I was really disappointed in the stories that I heard about the bad performance when it came out.
How's the performance of V6 now?
I forget what performance issues there may have been when L6 first shipped but it performs very well now
I don't recall any performance issues with L6. For me L6 performs better than L5. If I were you I wouldn't wait any longer to upgrade.
It seems to utilize more cores and more modern CPU:s (which is to be expected) better than 5 when adding books and it's a much more seamless process now, and installs new software versions (such as service releases) fairly quickly (except perhaps for the download time as the updates are usually frequent and L6 is a few MB larger download than L5 was) with either a modern CPU or an SSD.Searching the entire library is still not fast but they are working on it - unsure how fast they'll make progress about that.When opening a book it caches it to RAM, which does require much more RAM since the RAM is not freed up when the book is closed. So if You for example double-click a word and the definition comes up from a lexicon and Bible Dictionary You may then close the lexicon or dictionary tab - which saves a bit of monitor space which may not relate to Your question though if You are just looking for raw performance as each new book You open still have to be accessed from the disk.
As Dave Hooton once replied, L6 consumes more battery when running on a laptop with battery, than L5 (L3 consumes the least battery). Also quad core CPU:s consume more battery than triple core or dual core.
Indexing doesn't seem to be noticeably improved from what was already improved in L5. The fastest indexing is experienced when doing a first-time indexing from scratch. Re-indexing is not improved. Overall more cores, up to four, help (or six cores if You want to do things on Your computer meanwhile), but there's one phase in indexing, the last phase, where it doesn't help to add any cores, according to Bradley Grainger. Which means the total length of indexing won't be half if You compare an otherwise similar quad core CPU to a dual core. But still more cores does make a big difference, as does an SSD.An SSD and enough RAM (very few recommend less than 8 GB, many recommend even more) makes a great impact compared to the slowest HDD:s and inadequate RAM.If You want to research CPU:s there are sites with details such as how new Your CPU is and comparative listings. Those sites are also an easy way to find out how much Level 2 and Level 3 -cache You have: Logos will run adequately with 3 MB and just fine in most users experience but more, up to 8 MB, may help.When I choose computers I have so far not chosen any computer with both a modern quad core CPU, OK amount of RAM and an SSD, but find the performance good enough when one of these parts is OK. If You change computers and don't run much more than Logos, a triple core (AMD X3 - unsure if they are available in laptops) CPU would suffice just fine and be much cheaper than an Intel quad core (i5 Q or i7 Q and perhaps there are some other models with four cores such as Intel M - I don't know). If shopping for old computers and going to do very demanding things with Logos and wanting the computer to last for many years, what to look for is preferably a computer where RAM can be upgraded to 16 GB instead of just 8 GB although You can use it with just 8 GB for a while first if it doesn't come with 16 GB when sold to You.A low budget solution or if You want to rescue a computer with a failing drive cheap, is to get a new or slightly used hybrid drive: they used to come in ½TB format but the new ones are now 1TB and up. The benefit of these are much cheaper storage space than SSD:s if You need more than say a 256 GB drive. I managed to make a really low budget laptop usable with this and added RAM. I'm going to test this more times especially when I mirror a drive of any computer that has more than 160 GB in use even if I don't plan to install many more GB. I wish I could sometimes afford a 240 or 256 GB SSD but with the number of computers to maintain I really doubt I will even though the prices on SSD:s of that size are not that high. When I buy a 128 GB SSD I buy it used, there are plenty of them sold as used, even ones that have never breen used. An option would be 180 GB drives but currently I don't have any computer for which that would be the optimal size and I haven't looked at what they cost - I would suppose that they are a little cheaper than new 256 GB drives on a sale. My MacBookPro3,1 with motherboard changed when the computer was 4 years old is the only exception, it came with a 256 GB SSD when sold to me - the SSD is not an original Apple part but was selected specifically for that Mac model and I also got the original SSD package which is important so that I can update the firmware.Keep in mind that drives should NEVER be close to full! If You have a small drive You should start to plan when it's half full, or if You have a mid-size drive when ⅔ is full. I would say that no drive is healthy when less than ¼ of the drive is available as free space.
Load time has been improved whether with a layout or with the Home page.
Search speed was never an issue, but the 64 bit Logos 6 improves wild card searches, whilst the new search syntax for text within a specific Highlighting style is way faster and more convenient.
