Logos 4 Mac. . . VERY POOR PERFORMANCE
Comments
-
Martin Diers said:
A number of people have assumed that Mono is some sort of "compatibility" layer, that allows the Mac to run Windows software. This is not true.
Sorry, but your statement is not correct. The last time I looked .EXE and .DLLs were native Windows software. Look inside the Logos app bundle, you will find many Windows executables. OS X does not run Windows executables (directly) in Logos it is doing so via a compatibility layer.
So whichever way it is spun, it is still the fact that parts of L4M are not running native OS X code. They are running native Windows code, via....
Also WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation) is part of .NET. A .NET application, UI & logic, is built on top of, coded to, the .NET coding protocol. That means that your Windows 4 layer diagram is not strictly correct - the first two layers are together in Windows.
"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein
0 -
Thank you smiling.
Ok, I have another question which may show my great ignorance, but I will "have a go" anyway as I just don't what to stay ignorant forever.
If one wants to keep the program running as it is feature wise, resource wise and is going to have to "port" it to do so, then why does it not make sense to just make a deal with a company like Fusion or Parallels to customize an emulator for the program and send it out with the emulation.
It would "seem to me" that they have far more experience in cross platform compatibility between different Operating Systems.
It would seem this would be more cost effective overall, most of the R&D budget would stay focused on the main platform and secondarily on funding towards specialized emulation which would be static to the Logos program.
Would this not result in a more stable , consistent Logos platform with less technicals issues?
Just asking,
Rusty+
0 -
Fr. Charles R. Matheny said:
If one wants to keep the program running as it is feature wise, resource wise and is going to have to "port" it to do so, then why does it not make sense to just make a deal with a company like Fusion or Parallels to customize an emulator for the program and send it out with the emulation.
Because Fusion and Parallels provide a way to run Windows applications in the Mac OS X environment. They are, though, 100% Windows applications and you also need to run a complete (virtual) Windows 'machine' to then run that Windows application, they are not 'native' Mac applications. The two companies even provide a 'seamless' way to run the Windows application (but still running a complete Windows virtual machine) in a window inside Mac OS X.
The downside is that you are running two 'computers' instead of one (performance loss) and that the Windows application is not a Mac application and does not behave like a Mac application.
Unfortunately it is not a possible solution. How Logos has done it , while, unfortunately, not being a 100% native Mac application, is the only way.
"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein
0 -
Sharing code base cross platform allows compatibility for resources, language display, interaction, etc - minimal differences between platforms.
Sharing code base cross platform ends up with the reality of having to accept the 'lowest common denominator' and accepting compromises. That is the nature of cross platform development — there are always compromises and the loss of not being able to exploit the best functionality natively available on the other platform. Please don't portray it as a 'plus'.
It was a clear business decision taken by Logos to get a Windows application onto another popular platform as quickly as possible. And that is OK, given the gain of us having a Logos for Mac application. It is not the ideal, and it means that in the Mac environment we are lumbered with Windows baggage, and we will never have a program as good as it could be — but it is better than nothing.
But please... don't ever portray running a Microsoft Windows .NET emulator as a plus.
"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein
0 -
Fr. Charles R. Matheny said:
If one wants to keep the program running as it is feature wise, resource wise and is going to have to "port" it to do so, then why does it not make sense to just make a deal with a company like Fusion or Parallels to customize an emulator for the program and send it out with the emulation.
VMware Fusion, Parallels Desktop, and Oracle's Virtualbox provide virtual machine capabilities for Mac OS X => needs more memory and disk - enough for Mac OS X and virtual machine. For Logos 4, an appropriate Microsoft Windows license is needed that can legally run in a virtual machine.
By the way, Mono project has no plans to implement Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF)
=> http://www.mono-project.com/WPF
Note: Silverlight subset of WPF losing some luster in favor of HTML 5 open standard => http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9195838/Microsoft_Adobe_proclaim_their_love_for_HTML5
For faster Windows performance on Mac hardware, can use Apple's Boot Camp to partition hard drive - boot up to Mac OS X or Windows - also needs genuine Microsoft Windows license. Apple provides hardware drivers for Windows.
Mike Tourangeau said:My macbook 3,1 2ghz (4gb ram) runs L4 great, I would like to upgrade soon, but with all the talk about bad performance on machines better than mine...... i don't want to take a chance
Upgrade depends on how using Logos 4. On an older 2.4 GHz iMac, noticed Logos 4 upgrade to Scholar's Platinum took more time to download resources and index - search library returns more results (expected - Thankful for Logos 4 performance improvement displaying search results).
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Patrick S. said:
Sorry, but your statement is not correct. The last time I looked .EXE and .DLLs were native Windows software.
The DLL's are just packaged libraries. These contain the .NET code being interpreted by Mono. The only exe in the package contents is bootstrap.exe which is used by .NET files to get things going. Bootstrapping is a first step in just about any application and it simply sets configuration paths and such. I'm not sure just how Mono deals with a bootstrap.exe file, but I know Mono is not an emulator. Anything it is doing with that file is specific to that file and does not involve arbitrarily executing Windows applications.
Many of the files in the package are dll's which, again, contain the .NET code being interpreted by Mono (which, for the record, is how every program executes - libraries interpreted/linked at runtime). But be sure to note as well the numerous .nib and .dylib files. These are generated through xcode and interface builder and are the elements of code built specifically for the Mac.
Devs, my apologies for any of this explanation that I have mangled.
0 -
Hi guys, I just asked about the emulation software as it seems the folks using it are indeed using less memory resources, not having fans running full speed and processors pegging, thus it seemed perhaps a more stable function, while indeed, not the best world.
Blessings,
Rusty+
0 -
Fr. Charles R. Matheny said:
Hi guys, I just asked about the emulation software as it seems the folks using it are indeed using less memory resources, not having fans running full speed and processors pegging, thus it seemed perhaps a more stable function, while indeed, not the best world.
Technical observation: emulation bit different than virtualization => http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/338993/Emulation_or_Virtualization_?
On older Mac's with PowerPC and Motorola processors, to run Windows software needed emulation - Intel processor instructions were emulated for PowerPC or Motorola execution - noticeably slower performance (took significant time to translate Intel instructions and hardware calls to corresponding Mac hardware).
Fan speed is proportional to processor heat. Rebuilding Logos 4 indexes can cause processor to be quite busy - need cooling from fans running full speed (especially since indexing Logos 4 on MAC and PC can take hours - larger libraries take longer).
Personally place laptop computers on external fan cooling units. Some desktop computers benefit from a fan circulating air (e.g. iMac).
Wiki page currently includes virtualization => http://wiki.logos.com/Logos_4_Mac#Need_Logos_4_PC_feature.3f - as Logos 4 Mac has improved, several Mac forum threads mentioned deletion of Windows virtualization (frees up many GB's of disk space and memory usage - not need virtualization manager and Windows operating system running).
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Well, my patience finally ran out and I decided to try the other Mac app and all I can say is, WOW!! Now that's how a Mac app should work. I've still got too much invested in Logos to drop it completely but with the new investment I can now get some serious work done while I wait and watch Logos continue to be developed.
0 -
If I could make some (hopefully final) comments:
- Please, Logos, can this thread be locked? I think it's been done to death by now. Just tell Bob Pritchett I posted here and he will be happy to lock the thread (just joking).
- Logos team — I really think it would be beneficial for you to post some honest & detailed technical information about Logos 4 Mac architecture with explanation of usage of Mono. And also to reasonably explain the commercial and technical reasons behind it. I know it might be tempting to 'keep quiet' and hope that the storm will blow over, but unfortunately your audience are people who 'go the extra mile' and make conscious decisions to pay extra for what they consider (rightly) to be superior systems — Macs. They sort of have the mindset that — the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to Windows hell, and those who enter by it are many (only [half] joking Windows users - no flames please!). So if they perceive that they are not getting the best possible for their Macs well they might just speak out. if they got some reasonable (and not condescending) information then that would help.
- Further to point two, it would be helpful to post sample performance times that people could reasonably expect to get using L4M. Yes... I know every machine is different and it is extremely difficult to post numbers but look at it this way — I made up some rough tests, posted numbers to the forum and one person who was strongly criticising L4M could look at the numbers and realise that quite possibly his installation was corrupted and to re-install it. In the absence of something concrete people will tend to (continually) make statements like "it's slow". How will that help us all (us giving feedback to you guys) move forward in improving L4M? Get the Geekbench number of an average Mac machine with an average installation, Scholars or Scholars' Silver (not the mega installs), devise some standardised tests and post the results. Or if you want to be cautious - juts make standard tests and don't post your results, let owners just do themselves.
Anyway, my thoughts. I think my efforts show I am trying to support the platform and others.
"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein
0 -
Patrick S. said:
I know it might be tempting to 'keep quiet' and hope that the storm will blow over, but unfortunately your audience are people who 'go the extra mile'
I believe they have explained both the decision to do things this way, and the way things work with Mono, on several occasions... If prior explanations were not accepted, why would new ones be accepted?
0 -
Chris Roberts said:
I believe they have explained both the decision to do things this way, and the way things work with Mono, on several occasions... If prior explanations were not accepted, why would new ones be accepted?
Yes I have seen and read them, however they they seem to have not covered or dealt with people's queries/issues adequately or not been clear and/or people have been unaware of them. Otherwise we would not be repeatedly seeing statements like "I didn't know Logos 4 Mac did that", or "why is Logos 4 Mac not as speedy as other Mac applications"?
In the end what is important is peoples' perception — and if their perception and/or expectation does not match what is reality then it cannot really be said that people (users) are 'wrong'. Perhaps they are not being properly communicated to, and given that the performance question comes up over and over then perhaps it would be prudent to proactively 'head off' the questions in an effective way. I tried to have the app. architecture clarified by drawing a graphic of it in one post only to be told by someone pretty high that they "didn't have time to draw diagrams". So I gathered from that that the point didn't seem important to them — but it's important to customers & users as evidenced by the continual stream of questions in the same vein.
Also (bringing back again the rest of my point) given all the above again it would be helpful to have some actual tests with guidelines as to average numbers to set expectations of users — again that can head off questions and move on from reading continual postings with the same litany "it's too slow".
Anyway I've said my 2c worth, and again I hope this discussion could be effectively wound up.
"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein
0 -
Dennis Miller said:
Well, my patience finally ran out and I decided to try the other Mac app and all I can say is, WOW!! Now that's how a Mac app should work. I've still got too much invested in Logos to drop it completely but with the new investment I can now get some serious work done while I wait and watch Logos continue to be developed.
Glad for you it is a wonderful program, to such an extent I have heard of some professors who recommend it to their students and the company generously makes the information available as to how to run mac emulation to allow it to a larger audience. As this thread may well soon be closed off, I just wanted to voice once again, I in general do not consider this program to have unusable performance, it is certainly no speed demon but then it is not in windows either, I am happy to have Logos working as well as it is and I know it will get better.
Merry Christmas to all, and Happy St. John the Divine today.
-dan
0 -
I'm just thankful that I am not the only one having issues with performance. With everyone expressing their disappointment I have a hard time believing Logos will ignore what seems to be a very common problem; one that will cost them costumers. At least I hope they won't. My laptop has handled everything I've thrown at it (games and professional movie and photo editing software) and it has never slowed until it met Logos 4.
Hanson
0 -
Dennis Miller said:
Well, my patience finally ran out and I decided to try the other Mac app and all I can say is, WOW!! Now that's how a Mac app should work. I've still got too much invested in Logos to drop it completely but with the new investment I can now get some serious work done while I wait and watch Logos continue to be developed.
Sad that it would have to come to that, but glad that you are liking it. :-) I am trying to justify going that way too. Because as subjective as it might sound to some, the user interface and scrolling choppiness when doing word studies and such are seriously impacting my effectiveness in my weekly studies. None-the-less, I probably won't be able to to justify going to Accordance due to the fact that I'd have to drop close to $1000 to get the necessary original language resources for my study. Bummer for me. :-) Am at the mercy of Logos in hopes that they will make noticeable performance improvements in quick fashion. BTW, just to make sure I give the right perspective, I love many things about the design of the UI and all the nice features, but permanence for me puts a major damper on all that.
0 -
Jeremy said:
f not I don't see how not using L4Mac for a couple of weeks could slow it down.
I don't either.
Elder/Pastor, Hope Now Bible Church, Fresno CA
0 -
There is nothing like clicking on your app icon in the Dock and having your app pop up, ready for use almost instantaneously. Now that is a Mac App.
0 -
Patrick S. said:
Sorry, but your statement is not correct. The last time I looked .EXE and .DLLs were native Windows software. Look inside the Logos app bundle, you will find many Windows executables. OS X does not run Windows executables (directly) in Logos it is doing so via a compatibility layer.
Patrick,
I don't think you really understand what qualifies as a "native Mac application". Are Carbon apps "native Mac applications"? They aren't built using Cocoa, nor with ObjectiveC. Yet they run just fine on a Mac, and it is good that they do because otherwise we would have no Illustrator, InDesign, or (at least until CS5) Photoshop. There are many Java apps that run just fine on a Mac, with native Mac widgets. Eclipse, anyone?
Any number of libraries can be built on top of .NET. That WPF is bundled with .NET is meaningless. WPF is nothing but a set of .NET assemblies, just like the .NET assemblies that are included with Logos. No voodoo here. WPF is not native Windows code.
Likewise, the fact that .NET assemblies end in .DLL or .EXE is meaningless. They aren't Windows executables, because they do not contain compiled machine code like normal Windows executables do (or to be accurate, they contain a tiny bit of Windows machine code which basically says, "Hey! I'm not a Windows program. Don't run me that way."). They run on the CLR, which compiles the .NET byte code to native code on any given architecture. On a Mac, Mono does this. Persisting in calling Mono a "Windows compatibility layer" is just wrong, and only confuses the issue.
Martin.
0 -
I know that this has become a programming forum, which is fine I guess, but I originally started it as a mac performance problem thread. In that spirit, I wanted to let the group know that I went ahead and switched to Accordance 9. BIG MISTAKE! While it is fast, very fast, the interface and usability cannot even COME CLOSE to Logos. I have switched back and will wait, hope, and pray that the Mac performance improves.
Even with the performance quirks, Logos 4 Mac blows away the competition.
God Bless,
Mike
0 -
MikeV81 said:
I know that this has become a programming forum, which is fine I guess, but I originally started it as a mac performance problem thread. In that spirit, I wanted to let the group know that I went ahead and switched to Accordance 9. BIG MISTAKE! While it is fast, very fast, the interface and usability cannot even COME CLOSE to Logos. I have switched back and will wait, hope, and pray that the Mac performance improves.
Even with the performance quirks, Logos 4 Mac blows away the competition.
God Bless,
Mike
I like both, but I am glad you are where you feel the most comfortable.
-Dan
0 -
MikeV81 said:
BIG MISTAKE! While it is fast, very fast, the interface and usability cannot even COME CLOSE to Logos.
Glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. IMO Logos and Accordance don't even compare, Logos wins hands down. Even for the iOS apps, Logos is still better (though with room for improvement - Accordance has a big plus with split views). Logos 4 for Mac is not where it needs to be, performance-wise. But it is improving and I believe it will get where it needs to be, hopefully sooner rather than later.
0 -
I guess the learning curve is too much for some people. What I find frustrating is to be right in the middle of a study and have your app crash on you and have to waste time getting back to where you were. What I like is an app that is designed for the Mac, if I wanted Windows appearance and function I'd still be using a PC.
0 -
Chris, I guess you can keep having faith in Logos as Hebrews 11:1 states, "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
0 -
Dennis Miller said:
What I like is an app that is designed for the Mac, if I wanted Windows appearance and function I'd still be using a PC.
I have no intention of offending you with this post, but I am very curious. If you have decided to abandon Logos for Accordance, why are you continuing to post on the Logos for Mac forum?
0 -
Very easy to answer, I have not totally abandoned Logos (I still have Windows capability and too much invested I just prefer using my Mac computers) and am hoping that one day I will see a fully functioning Logos for Mac as promised and my full library on my mobile devices as promised. The problem is making statements and advertising slogans that are not accurate and honest. Logos 4 Mac should not be boldly advertised as "Now Shipping" it should include a qualifier that states "Now Shipping but still under development". The Mobile app should not be advertised as "Your Library in Your Pocket" no, it should state "Some of your library in Your Pocket". This would be fully honest disclosure instead of what we see now. As for now until things have advanced out of development I can continue by using a product that does work and works well and eventually have the best of both worlds.
0 -
Hi Dennis,
You accuse Logos of overstating the facts in their marketing... have you considered that perhaps in your dissatisfaction with the product you have done the same thing.. overstated the issues.. I am sad that you had the experience you did as a fellow Logos user, but do not concur with your opinion of the Mac product or your outlook regarding the program. I am beta testing 4.2 and find significant improvements. I think your statements are somewhat false and misleading as well. There are people behind this product working hard to improve it to meet customer expectations. How do your comments help them?
0 -
Dennis Miller said:
What I find frustrating is to be right in the middle of a study and have your app crash on you and have to waste time getting back to where you were.
Dennis
Perhaps I am not pushing Logos 4 Mac very hard, though I use it to prepare my sermon and two congregational Bible Studies (one OT and the other NT) every week, as well as for academic (mostly GNT language) work, but I find it very stable for all I need to do with it. I haven't had a crash in ages.
I only use Logos 4 Mac, as my only PC is a 2005 Toshiba Tablet M200 which can only run Libronix.
I just acquired an iPad last week and am happy with the app and its ability to synch with my iMac. I plan to use it instead of lugging 4 print Bibles with my people at next week's Bible study.
I hope that your Mac experience will soon be as stable and reliable as mine.
Every blessing
Alan
iMac Retina 5K, 27": 3.6GHz 8-Core Intel Core i9; 16GB RAM;MacOS 10.15.5; 1TB SSD; Logos 8
MacBook Air 13.3": 1.8GHz; 4GB RAM; MacOS 10.13.6; 256GB SSD; Logos 8
iPad Pro 32GB WiFi iOS 13.5.1
iPhone 8+ 64GB iOS 13.5.1
0 -
John, Look directly at the banner for the mobile iPhone/iPad advertisement and tell me that is not a false and misleading statement. Open and honest marketing practices right on the front page and not in
some support page faq somewhere, that is what I am contending for and
what I should expect from a Christian company. I know the programmers are working hard and doing their best and they cannot be held accountable for what marketing chooses to display in their ads. That is the choice of the man/woman at the top who gives the directions.0 -
Dennis Miller said:
John, Look directly at the banner for the mobile iPhone/iPad advertisement and tell me that is not a false and misleading statement.
No one expects an advertising blurb to tell the whole story. So when you see an ad that catches your eye, you follow up on it to learn more. In the case of the iOS app, it could be made clearer that this app does not provide guaranteed access to every book in your library, but it should be noted that the product page does not promise access to every book. Plus, seeing as this is a free app (why do people keep forgetting that detail?) no one is being ripped off any money. Every resource page indicates whether or not it is available for the iPhone, so users can make an informed decision.
0 -
Chris Roberts said:Dennis Miller said:
John, Look directly at the banner for the mobile iPhone/iPad advertisement and tell me that is not a false and misleading statement.
No one expects an advertising blurb to tell the whole story. So when you see an ad that catches your eye, you follow up on it to learn more. In the case of the iOS app, it could be made clearer that this app does not provide guaranteed access to every book in your library, but it should be noted that the product page does not promise access to every book. Plus, seeing as this is a free app (why do people keep forgetting that detail?) no one is being ripped off any money. Every resource page indicates whether or not it is available for the iPhone, so users can make an informed decision.
I will agree with both of you. The banner is misleading, the actual page clearly states "Explore our list of products that work on our iPhone app." I hope one day i can use all my resources, but for me the lack of some of my resources is not nearly as big an issue as the fact that it works so slowly. Until I am able to tell the iOS app to not use the internet (and yes i realize that this will make for a less functional app but I am ok with that) I doubt it will be all that useful to me. If i turn airplane mode on the current logos app works acceptably for me but as soon as it has connectivity it slows down so much as to be more frustration than it is worth. I would like to have the ability to do simple searches in the open book, have a split screen and work offline. The only thing i am sure of at this point is that split screen will be coming soon. Which should have been in there since the start, I have four Bible programs on my phone and Logos is the only one that has no split screen capability. The best one currently I have used since my palm days, and I don't expect any other to match a mature product like it just aim for it. The second i got for it;s rich selection of devotionals. Third which I will mention by name is accordance 1, which works fast but almost NONE of the promised features are there yet, Logos may seemingly mislead in their banner but you get what they tell you. The Accordance app is ok, but it is similar to mac Logos4, works but not all features are there, and I can tell you I am disappointed in it (although I do love having my tyndale commentary and holman commentary on my iPhone.
-Dan
-Dan
0 -
Dan Francis said:
(although I do love having my tyndale commentary and holman commentary on my iPhone.
I also wonder how Accordance managed to be the only company who were able to get the Bible Knowledge Commentary on the iPad?
“... every day in which I do not
penetrate more deeply into the knowledge of God’s Word in Holy Scripture
is a lost day for me. I can only move forward with certainty upon the
firm ground of the Word of God.”0 -
Dewayne Davis said:Dan Francis said:
(although I do love having my tyndale commentary and holman commentary on my iPhone.
I also wonder how Accordance managed to be the only company who were able to get the Bible Knowledge Commentary on the iPad?
They aren't Olivetree (EDIT: and Laridian) have it too. Accordance is not trying to make itself available on a web server. These companies will sell you electronic rights to their platform. They are on your device not being accessed from a central server except for installation. I have heard Logos say in the past that the iOS being a different platform means the rights had to be secured from each publisher, but in the end it seems to hold little water, since the mac is completely different platform and all files were immediately available to us, because we owned logos licenses to electronic resources. I know I also remember logos saying that it was because the iOS was a portable device but again makes little sense to me since laptops and netbooks are portable devices too. If their contracts with publishers states the licenses are only for desktop computers shouldn't there be a way of them stopping installations on laptops??? Logos has said in the past it is not the cloud but the different platform but when push comes to shove it has not been explained in a way my feeble mind can understand it.
-dan
0 -
Chris Roberts said:Dennis Miller said:
John, Look directly at the banner for the mobile iPhone/iPad advertisement and tell me that is not a false and misleading statement.
No one expects an advertising blurb to tell the whole story. So when you see an ad that catches your eye, you follow up on it to learn more. In the case of the iOS app, it could be made clearer that this app does not provide guaranteed access to every book in your library, but it should be noted that the product page does not promise access to every book. Plus, seeing as this is a free app (why do people keep forgetting that detail?) no one is being ripped off any money. Every resource page indicates whether or not it is available for the iPhone, so users can make an informed decision.
I have one excellent notable example of the LOGOS spartan approach to advertising integrity from about two and a half years ago. People will remember the sermon file add-in which was available for Logos 3. What was not mentioned anywhere in the advertising literature of the time was the need to have a copy of Microsoft Word installed on you computer for the add-in to be able to import Microsoft Word documents. Without Microsoft Word the sermon file add-in was dead in the water at this point.
After a pointed email to Logos they admitted their advertising blurb was not clear on the prerequisites, the add-in had to have Microsoft Word installed in order to be able to import Word and Rich Text format documents. A refund was forthcoming. Here is their response to my email...
S Mack said:Dear Rev. Mackenzie,
I apologize for any frustration this has caused you. I admit this was a mistake on our part and I am glad you pointed it out. Our programmers have revised our sermon file article to include that you must have Word installed to import sermons http://www.logos.com/products/details/3164. ...
http://www.logos.com/products/details/3164">
Q: Which file formats can be imported into Sermon File Addin using the import feature?
A: Sermon File Addin can import files saved in Plain Text (.txt) or HTML (.htm or .html) formats. If you have Microsoft Word installed on the same machine as Sermon File Addin, the import feature will also import files saved in Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) or Rich Text (.rtf) format.
My point is, companies which claim to be "Christian" voluntarily place themselves under a Christian ethical and moral obligation to be a "cut above the rest" by virtue of their claim to be "Christian". In the example cited above this was clearly not the case and Logos admitted this to be the case. See quote above.
Interestingly I revisited the link cited in their response and I needed to do some careful reading to even find the reference citing the need for Microsoft Word which again highlights my previous comment about ethical and moral standards of "Christian" companies.
0 -
Dan Francis said:
but in the end it seems to hold little water, since the mac is completely different platform and all files were immediately available to us, because we owned logos licenses to electronic resources. I know I also remember logos saying that it was because the iOS was a portable device but again makes little sense to me since laptops and netbooks are portable devices too. If their contracts with publishers states the licenses are only for desktop computers shouldn't there be a way of them stopping installations on laptops??? Logos has said in the past it is not the cloud but the different platform but when push comes to shove it has not been explained in a way my feeble mind can understand it.
Your mind is not feeble - you're just outside your knowledge comfort zone. Because Logos had planned for a Mac product (and did have Mac 1), I would have expected them to negotiate rights for Microsoft and Mac desktop computers. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they negotiated all desktop and laptop rights. But for many years of their development, the idea of rights for telephones and tablets wouldn't have entered their minds. At the same time I suspect book companies were protecting their revenue stream by ensuring that any rights not specially mentioned in the contracts were still theirs to sell or use as they saw fit.
Does this help you understand Logos' statement?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I am running a fall 2008 MacBook 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 4GB RAM. Not the machine that many have. My harddrive is the basic 5400 RPM.
I was actually looking at a 7200/SSD Hybrid. Just the 7200 should see a boost in speed.
With all that said, just my opinion here so don't flame me too hard, I think the speed issue is really just a user experience/preference. Maybe we are used to certain programs performing certain ways and we expect other programs to perform the same way. That has been my Mac experience. Take an exclusive Mac app...like Mail or iCal. Use something like Microsoft's Outlook for Mac and instantly, it doesn't compare. Or even comparing Word to Pages. Am I off on that or does anyone else agree?
0 -
Dan Francis said:
I have heard Logos say in the past that the iOS being a different platform means the rights had to be secured from each publisher, but in the end it seems to hold little water, since the mac is completely different platform and all files were immediately available to us
Just to add some insight to Martha's explanation of rights for the Mac OS. Logos has been developing a Mac version for many, many years. I am fairly certain they secured rights for that OS long ago. iOS apps were developed much faster; hence, the need to renegotiate some deals after release.
0 -
Added to the rights difference between mac and iOS, the mac OS (while expanding usage through the halo effect of iOS) is still very small. iOS is EXTREMELY popular, making the rights holders much more wary to give up rights for use on iOS (I don't have NIV for either my Accordance or my Logos on the iOS apps). Here in Korea, while very few people use mac computers (there are 2 among all the staff at the large church I work at with 30 full time and part time pastors) almost everybody has an iphone, an ipad, or both (though the lack of Korean interface limits usage of Logos).
And for the record, I have found Logos to be quite straightforward in their marketing and customer service, though both competitors are very good at both.
0 -
Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the parent company for the NIV is attempting to stop permissions for the NIV to get everybody on the later NIV revisions.
0 -
Phil Mills said:
Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the parent company for the NIV is attempting to stop permissions for the NIV to get everybody on the later NIV revisions.
This is typical. When The 1972 revision of the RSV, the previous version were no longer published. When the 1984 version of the NIV came out the 1978 version was no longer available (stock sold out within 2 years). Since virtual licenses are not stocked, the switch over is quicker. No old stock to sell, except physical copies. If someone wants the old NIV now it is true you will need to find a CD with it on. If there is a large enough demand for the 1984, the company may bring it back,
-Dan
0 -
After seeing the changes in the new NIV, (I was never a fan of the original), I am glad this will not be an issue for me. But, I have the same situation with the NASB95, I actually prefer the previous, I believe it was the 1971 version. When texts change because of advancements in textual understanding and research that is one thing but when they change because of cultural whims and bias's I have no need of it. Give me what the the original author intended not what some special interest group desires.
0 -
Where has the forum gone?!? I thought it was about Logos 4 Mac and it's performance issues.
Maybe I am misreading here, but is there a such thing as a Bible translation that doesn't have cultural influence or bias? That's what a translation is, otherwise wouldn't we all be reading a Greek/Hebrew(Arabic) Bible? Then which original language text do we read?
0 -
David Buckham said:
Where has the forum gone?!? I thought it was about Logos 4 Mac and it's performance issues.
Topic change reminds me of an old thread => http://community.logos.com/forums/p/6836/56564.aspx#56564
Looking forward to Logos 4.2a stable release - current Beta 6 release notes not have any known Mac issues - from Mac Beta forum discussions, know some buggy items need attention before release candidate. Scrolling a resource using a 2007 model iMac (2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo) with visual filter highlighting (8 greek grammatical usages) plus couple linked resources feels responsive to mouse wheel movement and arrow keys (both up and down) - Thankful for Logos optimization efforts. Also Thankful for 4.2a features on Mac and PC - notably lacking handouts.
David Buckham said:Maybe I am misreading here, but is there a such thing as a Bible translation that doesn't have cultural influence or bias? That's what a translation is, otherwise wouldn't we all be reading a Greek/Hebrew(Arabic) Bible?
No, according to summary in "How to Choose a Bible Version: An Introductory Guide to English Translations" Chapter 4: Theological Bias in Bible Translations => logosres:htchsbibvrs;ref=Page.p_120;off=777
By the way, Semitic languages include Aramaic and Arabic with notable differences => http://www.ehow.com/about_6643576_aramaic-vs_-arabic.html
David Buckham said:Then which original language text do we read?
Textual criticism offers helpful insights. Likewise learning Greek Septuagint of Old Testament is a translation with a fascinating history (and some simplifications).
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
By the way, Semitic languages include Aramaic and Arabic with notable differences => http://www.ehow.com/about_6643576_aramaic-vs_-arabic.html
You got me on that one, I wasn't paying attention when I typed! Thanks [:D]
David Buckham said:Then which original language text do we read?
Textual criticism offers helpful insights. Likewise learning Greek Septuagint of Old Testament is a translation with a fascinating history (and some simplifications).
And that was my sarcasm.
BTW, LOVED the How to Hijack a thread link.
So Back On Track!
I am running the Mac Beta and have always been on Beta Channel. Logos 4 Mac is getting better and better. Even my old XP machine is running Logos 4 better recently. I too am eagerly awaiting Handouts and for what it's worth, the Android App. I'm actually expecting March to be a big month for Logos announcements and features.
0 -
Looking forward to Logos 4.2a stable release - current Beta 6 release notes not have any known Mac issues - from Mac Beta forum discussions, know some buggy items need attention before release candidate. Scrolling a resource using a 2007 model iMac (2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo) with visual filter highlighting (8 greek grammatical usages) plus couple linked resources feels responsive to mouse wheel movement and arrow keys (both up and down) - Thankful for Logos optimization efforts. Also Thankful for 4.2a features on Mac and PC - notably lacking handouts.
Textual criticism offers helpful insights. Likewise learning Greek Septuagint of Old Testament is a translation with a fascinating history (and some simplifications).
Keep Smiling
Generally I have had no issue other than random unexpected quits when it;s sitting in the background. It's happened to me 4 times. I know I am bad I should have reported it [:$]
-Dan
0 -
David, what I am referring to by cultural bias is the gender neutrality and feminism that is being pushed into modern translations, not the theological bias that directs a translation based upon the background of the translators, conservative, liberal, rational, etc.
0 -
-
There is a lot to be concerned with gender neutral Bibles but we also need to realize there are gender neutral/gender plural words that are still defined by a singular gender. I learned a long time ago, and you've probably heard this principle too, that gender does not equal the definition.
Take the letter to the Philippians, for instance. Is it only written for men? Repeatedly Paul says "brothers/brethren" in some translations while other translations says "brothers and sisters". Based on the context of the text and what we learn about the church at Philippi in Acts, I believe Paul wrote that letter to all the believers at Philippi (remember that Lydia was instrumental in formation and organization of that church).
0 -
Yes, I agree but his letter though for the church as a whole was probably addressed to the elders (men) who would then relay it to the brethren (men and women). I'm glad they weren't worried about being PC back then they were more concerned about being like JC.
0 -
This is my last post on this topic. You can have the final word if you must but I completely disagree with you on this instance in Philippians. The letter is specifically addressed "to all the saints in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons" (NASBu and NASB are the same here). "All" is everyone. "Including" is in addition to overseers and deacons...for what it's worth other translations (KJV, NRSV and NET) use "with" instead of "including" which also indicates the addition of.
It was not a letter written or addressed to only to the leaders but to the church as a whole and that is how we should treat it and how translations should treat it. It's definitely not a PC issue. PC will just get you in trouble. I believe in being faithful to the text, and I believe that in certain places (not all) gender plurality is appropriate and even necessary...as is the case with Philippians for example.
0
