Logos 4 running slow on mac...
My macbook has never run logos 4 smoothly. Scrolling is brutal. Takes long time to load. Haven't begun using because it takes so long. Other than buying another macbook, any help would be greatly appreciated.
Comments
-
Mine does the same thing ... I assumed it was because the program is more powerful than my macbook. I have a late 2009 13" MBP model. I just ordered some more ram for it today, so we'll see whether that makes a difference. (I paid $63 for 8gb of ram, which I figured was a pretty cheap option if it works).
Pastor, seminary trustee, and app developer. Check out my latest app for churches: The Church App
0 -
you might want to check out this link too...
Pastor, seminary trustee, and app developer. Check out my latest app for churches: The Church App
0 -
Welcome [:D]
Indexer.log shows version 4.21.5.0585 (current stable release is 4.21.5.0906 includes several crash fixes and a performance improvement for prayer lists); noticed indexing completed; later noticed update channel set to Beta. This post could have been opened in Mac Beta forum => http://community.logos.com/forums/90.aspx
If want to switch to Stable channel, can use command set update channel to stable (should download and install 4.21.5.0906 - fairly quick since 4.2a indexing already done). After installation, if want future Beta releases, can use command set update channel to beta.
From process #, know Mac has not been restarted for a long time. Wonder about restarting Mac (after installing 4.21.5.0906) - watch for Blue Icon to appear then disappear in menu bar (can open Indexer.log file to see Indexing complete) - then launch Logos 4 Mac.Looking at logs, noticed passage entered for Judges 14 on home page while indexing in progress. Thanks - provided incentive to up date Wiki.
Observation: during Logos 4 Mac alpha pre-release versions, learned trying to use Logos 4 Mac while indexing in progress is quite slow (even on a 2.8 GHz Quad Core i7 iMac). Added "Logos 4 Indexing is resource intensive – good idea to connect power adapter and laptop cooler – let indexing complete before using Logos 4 (wait for blue Logos icon to disappear from menu bar)" to Mac Troubleshooting page has Slow Performance section.
Logos Running Slowly wiki page has: * Forum PAINFUL SCROLLING ... has an Exegetical Guide tweak – remove Word by Word section for faster scrolling. Workaround option: in New Testament, displaying Louw-Nida numbers scrolls faster along with English gloss pop-up containing semantic domain information. Visual filters can highlight greek morphology in interlinear Bibles.
From a blog learned about collapsing Guide sections => http://blog.logos.com/archives/2010/02/logos_4_collapse_sections_in_guides.html
[I] Passage Guide and Exegetical Guide can be customized - click upper left of panel - click edit this guide template. Personally clicked pencil to rename "Copy of ...." to "My ..."; for My Passage Guide, removed 4 sections at bottom ending with ".com" - sections use internet to look for passage information on 4 web sites - also added couple collections to Passage Guide. Likewise created a custom Exegetical Guide "Word by Word - All" that only has Word by Word section so have option to run detailed report for a verse or two (when willing to wait for section to populate).
Looking in Logos4.log file noticed many RichTextReference ERROR's after navigating - suspect impacted scrolling speed (possibly Word by Word section population in Exegetical Guide).
Likewise noticed some Logos Bible Software 4 system errors:
ERROR: value [NSCFNumber] is not a kind of IEnumerableOfRichTextElement
ERROR: value=[0]
Appears several times (including thrice) before Opening Up Judges.
Near bottom of Logos4.log file are many Error's:
kCGErrorIllegalArgument: CGSGetDisplayBounds (display 1c807a21)
followed by synchronization download error, crash, and more Error's:
kCGErrorIllegalArgument: CGSGetDisplayBounds (display 42716c0)
If crash repeats, please describe steps leading to crash along with posting new set of logs.
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Rev Chris said:
Mine does the same thing ... I assumed it was because the program is more powerful than my macbook. I have a late 2009 13" MBP model. I just ordered some more ram for it today, so we'll see whether that makes a difference. (I paid $63 for 8gb of ram, which I figured was a pretty cheap option if it works).
Not sure if this will make you feel better or worse. I have a present generation MacBook Pro with Intel core i7 quad core processor AMD Radeon 6490 graphics.
I just did two upgrades that should have really helped Logos. Went form 4-8GB of ram. I installed a 500GB Momentus XT hard drive. This is the hybrid drive with 4GB of flash memory in addition to the7200 rpm optical hard drive. Made the whole system really sing. It is now cooking!! Great upgrades.
One noticeable benefit was running another bible software program in Parallels. You know that Bible program that works now for 8 different versions? It starts up, including the starting of Parallels booting Windows 7 in ... 12 seconds. Previously it loaded Windows and then the software in about 30 seconds.
Logos takes nearly a minute to load. That's right a full minute!! That tells you that something just ain't right!
Love what Logos can do and all the great resources. Love the iPad/iPhone app. Just hate how incredibly slow the mac version is. Seriously considering installing the Windows version in Parallels. At this point I wouldn't be surprised it it runs faster.
Now before I get a lot of people trying to analyze what's wrong with my system understand this. EVERYTHING else I run is super fast. I have one slow program on this computer.
I say this not to dissuade people from using Logos. I offer it hoping the devs will see this and get on that optimization we heard so much about.
Dr. Kevin Purcell, Director of Missions
Brushy Mountain Baptist Association0 -
Kevin, something is very wrong with something on your machine. I don't know what it is, but I too have a brand new MBP, quad core i7, with only 4 GB of RAM, and Logos opens in 15-25 seconds. I don't know the specs of your HDD, but it has to be faster than my stock 5400 RPM, 750 GB HDD. Logos SCREAMS on my machine. I wait for nothing. Even exegetical guides happen within a matter of seconds, instead of minutes as it once did.
0 -
Kevin A. Purcell said:
Seriously considering installing the Windows version in Parallels. At this point I wouldn't be surprised it it runs faster.
Are you running L4 Mac and Parallels at the same time? There was some discussion in another thread that this configuration would slow things down. I could not duplicate that on my Mac Pro, but I have 11GB RAM. Since you have 8GB, you also might not notice a difference.
0 -
I have found that Accordance loads in a matter of seconds no matter what Mac I run it on. That's what you get with a true Mac application.
0 -
Yes, Accordance runs quicker - but that's also what you get when you run a program that's much more limited than Logos. After using some of the tips from the wiki link I posted above, my Logos is running quite smooth now - and I haven't even gotten my ram upgrade in the mail yet. As for Bibleworks 8 - I'm sure its great if you want to run a program through parallels ... but I personally don't like parallels and refuse to install Windows on my MBP just to run a Bible study program - especially when I've invested so much into Logos already.
Pastor, seminary trustee, and app developer. Check out my latest app for churches: The Church App
0 -
Dennis Miller said:
I have found that Accordance loads in a matter of seconds no matter what Mac I run it on. That's what you get with a true Mac application.
I have used Accordance since before it was Accordance, so I can state from experience that Accordance is much quicker that Logos, not because if is a "true Mac application" but because it has far less capability than L4.
0 -
Startup time has lots of factors. It's the time it takes to do things that matter most. Once Logos is up on my little 2GB system, things are fairly fast. Logos is faster in Windows, but I am not sure it's by a giant leap anymore.
I would be curious to know how big Kevin's library is--a large library might take longer to load. Anyone familiar with the inner workings of Logos' design able to comment on this?
The mind of man is the mill of God, not to grind chaff, but wheat. Thomas Manton | Study hard, for the well is deep, and our brains are shallow. Richard Baxter
0 -
I can say for sure that Logos 4 could use some significant re architecting in terms of UI response performance.
I have a brand new Mac Pro Server with 4 cores and 8 Threads , 16 gig of RAM, 1 Gig Video Card, 4 high speed disk drives to spread the I/O out across applications and operating system. I also have a 100 megabit uplink to the internet.
Top of the line and Logos 4 is still slow when it comes to UI response on a search, resizing windows etc.
I am only running Logos 4 on the machine, nothing else. I have the Leader Bundle as my resource library
Perhaps Logos could contract a performance tuning expert for a special project to benchmark, identify bottlenecks and restructure code would be in order.
0 -
Larry Good said:
Top of the line and Logos 4 is still slow when it comes to UI response on a search, resizing windows etc.
Please elaborate
Mac Troubleshooting page Slow Performance section includes "To help Logos development know what needs speed improvement, please post repeatable steps on Logos 4 Mac forum including timing, logs (see How to Report Bugs in Logos 4 Mac), and screen shot(s)."
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
I can do that as time allows.
My general observation looking at all the posts across a variety of platforms, situations etc is that there are over arching issues. I've never used a program where the user forums are so full of these types of problems. There are benchmarking and scripting tools which allow developers to run through a whole suite of repeatable steps that can be used to baseline and then improve performance.
Many users I imagine simply do not have the time/expertise to deliever details logs etc.
It's kind of like taking you car to a shop and they ask you to provide the oscilloscope readings and other diagnostics.
There has to be a more comprehensive approach to this given the substantial feedback users are providing you.
Perhaps you can develpe a "debug" mode that can capture logs, performance logs that the user can turn on, run and then email you the output for a close analysis. It should be as simple as possible for end users to "run debug mode" and send it off. Another alternative is to allow your support staff a tool where they can log into the users desktop with their permission and see what the user sees in real time.
I've done that with Apple support and it saves misunderstanding,time and the unknowns of the running environment.
0 -
I have to agree. I have been a PC user all my life, but have been planning to upgrade to a Mac. I have been following the forums and Mac progress/performance for about two years (I think)... I was very enthused at first, but the more I have seen, I have to say that this just isn't normal. I can't imagine any other software program having so many struggles/problems for so long. It truly is a testimony to the loyalty of Logos' customer base.I count myself as one of those loyal customers, having been with Logos since almost the beginning.
While it may be true that many folks experience no difficulties, the (seemingly very) large numbers who are would indicate that something is seriously flawed in the Mac software. We all want this program to work so badly... we love Logos and what it provides... but it is seeming self-defeating to me. Most users aren't tech gurus. It seems, from what I'm reading at least, that the program is so complex and flawed that a person must spend way too much time not only learning the software (a daunting task in itself), but in tweaking it, trying this or that, reporting problems to tech at Logos (in very technical terms, as Larry writes).... that it's no longer a practical use of time. Would anyone on this forum put up with that with any other piece of software? I really question that. I'm not a techie. I'm a missionary. I have a good deal of experience as a computer operator, but is it really right to expect the customer to have to make so many adjustments to get this program to perform acceptably, or to be so involved in helping the developer fix what ails it?
This isn't a beta release anymore. The whole purpose of Logos (at least from what was marketed) was that the program put a wealth of resources at your fingertips, and saved a person significant time in Bible study. I'm frankly not seeing that. It's not simply a question of "six seconds to search your whole library" (which doesn't account for the vast amount of time necessary to sort through the hundreds or even thousands of meaningless "hits" to find what is useful... something I'd never have to do working with a physical library )... but what about accounting for all of the time and effort just to try to figure out how to make it work? I could far more easily and quickly just go to my book shelf and find what I need... and then get on with the task for which I was studying in the first place... ministering to people.
And the amount of power that it seems you need to run this program sure seems unreasonable. I'll be leaving in 7 weeks to return to the mission field... and it would appear that I'm going to have to bring a machine that will be the most powerful supercomputer (literally) in at least a 50-mile radius of my location. And then what? What if its more frustration than its worth? What if I can't get this thing working properly? I'm not heading overseas (and making sacrifices and seeking support from others) to spend my day working on / tweaking Logos. I'm not a Logos staff member. I'm a missionary who works with kids. But it seems more and more that Logos is not only insatiably consuming more and more computer resources... but operator resources as well. I can't afford that much time to get a tool to work right. In any other field, if a tool doesn't perform the needed task efficiently, you get another tool.
I'm becoming more and more boggled by Logos in general. New websites and services seem to come and go... none of which seem fully functioning as of yet. Another learning curve to overcome. Am I the only one who doesn't have the time for all of that? What ever happened to the value of having something working properly before its introduced? I would never THINK of establishing a website for my ministry that wasn't fully or properly operational before introducing it to the public. That only serves to frustrate and confuse people and cause them to loose interest in my work. It FEELS/LOOKS like (I don't think it IS) that Logos has lost its direction/identity trying to do too much or be too much to too many. It just seems it would be better to focus on one thing and get it right before moving on to introducing something else. Logos 4Mac seems one of those things that needs the company's full attention before it introduces all of the other projects. The iPad app seems to have suffered from similar issues, but at least it seems that the kinks (including the introduction of all of the intended features) are slowly being worked out in that department.
SO... since I've already invested thousands of dollars in Logos over the years, what do I do? I'm really left with little choice, it seems, than to abandon any plans to purchase a Mac (which is a shame, because I could really use a Mac for other things...) But I can't afford to buy two computers... a PC to run my heavy investment in Logos efficiently and well, and a Mac to run Mac programs I need or would like in order to simplify my life. I feel trapped, and I almost have started regretting my investment through the years in Logos.
I can't BELIEVE I've just said that. [:(]
I've been told that Mac is the way to go, because things just WORK. Well, it doesn't seem like that's the case with Logos. I feel bad saying that, and I know you guys at Logos are doing your best... I do commend you sincerely... but things ought to be working smoothly by this point... after so long in developing this version of the program. I still believe that Logos is the best company ever, with the best customer service this side of heaven... but I'm starting to lose faith in the product. It's just gotten to the point (in more ways than this issue) that its become too complex and cumbersome to be useful... at least in terms of its original purpose of making ministry easier. At least for this user.
I welcome any helpful perspectives/suggestions, and hope I've not offended anyone here by sharing my sincere sadness and despair over this. Please don't flame me... I feel badly enough.
0 -
QUOTE:Yes, Accordance runs quicker - but that's also what you get when you run a program that's much more limited than Logos. END QUOTE
I find that statement has no basis in fact or function.
Just another way to minimize the people who report errors in Logos.
Logos for Mac is having issues, it is not the fault of the people who buy it, it is not the fault of their machines that run everything else just fine.
It is a problem/s in coding the softeware.
Granted it is being worked on, has come a long way so far, but it is not the problem of the buyers or the Macs.
Nor , when compared to Accordance, is it a problem with Accordance, Accordance is not less powerful than Logos, not at all, not in any way.
Accordance has been a native Mac software for a lot longer than Logos, thats the difference in operational consistency/speed, not that Accordance has limited ability.
You can search every resource you have in Accordance faster than you can move a mouse, Logos cannot do the same with the exact same resource library.
The Statement of limited ability concerning Accordance has no basis in fact.
Feature sets are presented differently, the philosophy of usage is different, but Accordance is not more limited than Logos.
An automatic transmission may be easier for some drivers, but that does not make a standard more limited, actually the opposite is true.
The standard will actually be able to do more "types" of work, especially in precision situations, than the automatic can do, and, is more efficient and thus economical in doing so.
I understand we like to "root for our team" , and that is fine ( I root for Apple all the time-smile) , yet, don't think it is good to make statements of fact when they should be of preference.
Blessings all,
Rusty+
0 -
I agree EmileB, well said.
With any software concerning Bible-study, or any tool for anything as far as that goes, one expects some type of learning curve, then, expects the tool to work, and as one get proficient in it's usage, the tool disappears and one can concentrate on their work.
This software, at this point, is akin to driving while texting, while talking on another phone , while watching a movie.
So distracted by the tools, one cannot work efficiently.
0 -
While I do not have a mac, I can say that L4 runs painfully slow on my pc and my laptop. While both of them are not top of the line, both of them easily (double as a matter of fact) the min. requirements stated by Logos to run L4.
0 -
I'm still somewhat puzzled that people with really good hardware seem to complain about Logos. I'm running a 1.83G Core 2 MacMini with 2GB of RAM and use Logos 4 Mac everyday. Yes the first bootup is slow. After that it's fine. If you want to open dozens of windows, 2GB isn't enough. I try to keep other apps closed when running Logos, but I do not have to baby it.
Sure I want a faster machine for Logos, but if I had to go to the Apple Store tomorrow and just get a newer MacMini (with more RAM this time), I would be more than content. Any current well-maintained Mac can run L4M.
Most people can stand in front of a microwave and wait for their tea to heat up for a minute. In front of a computer, only their impatience seems to get warm. Love is patient.
The mind of man is the mill of God, not to grind chaff, but wheat. Thomas Manton | Study hard, for the well is deep, and our brains are shallow. Richard Baxter
0 -
Michael -
Love is patient is not the proper application for the issues raised in this context. I find this forum to be very polite, helpful, understanding and supportive. The software is very helpful, otherwise I would not have made the investment.
The fact that you can run your system adequately is a good thing and I am glad for you.
However, I run many professional tools/applications for a variety of tasks out of the scope of this forum and audience. I am very confident there are some things that can be addressed that can raise the quality/performance for those who spend serious dollars with the expectation of a good return on investment. Personally I am running a system that has more memory than the entire resource library that I have purchased/licensed, therefore the responsiveness of the application should be almost instant in an ideal world. My system supports more than one user and application environment (Hence the high end hardware) so these issues come to the forefront .
The discussion I believe is to raise the bar so that everyone can benefit (Logos, the Customer and therefore the people that are touched by the efforts put forth by the end user)
0 -
Dear Michael: I think your point, is the point.
The software works well on "one mac" , but not on another.
The macs are not the issues, something is "inconsistent" in the software code, or indexing, somewhere.
I know several people who are having these issues, for some it actually runs better on their Macbook core 2 duo, than it does on their Imac with faster processor, more ram, faster hard-drive.
Not so with "any other program".
So it's not people bashing Logos, or being silly speed hounds, it is about something being consistently, inconsistent, across installs.
This is something very uncommon for Apple owners.
Blessings
0 -
I'm running L4M on my iMac, a 2 ghz 2 core duo processor with 3 gb ddr2 sdram, with a cable internet connection. The reality is that a majority of the resources are hosted on Logos' server. Whatever the case, I have not been impressed with the speed of searching or loading. It takes quite awhile to load, and while the search through "the entire library" may be "6 seconds" on their server...from the time I press enter until the search is complete is much much longer than that! It's not my internet connection, and I have no problem running multiple graphic programs, so I can only assume it's somewhere in the coding of L4M.
Wish they would have had this ironed out before now, because I'm considering getting my refund in the next few days before 30 days is over and waiting until the release a quality mac product.
I've had fewer issues searching through my phone.
0 -
Jason said:
The reality is that a majority of the resources are hosted on Logos' server
The resources that your computer uses are stored locally. The resources on the Logos servers are only downloaded not processed.
All of the books you own are stored on your machine and that is the copy that is searched.
The speed of your internet connection is only important if ...
1. You are downloading resources or updates.
2. You are syncing stuff between two computers.
3. You are using an iphone or ipad.
tootle pip
Mike
Now tagging post-apocalyptic fiction as current affairs. Latest Logos, MacOS, iOS and iPadOS
0 -
Jason said:
I'm running L4M on my iMac, a 2 ghz 2 core duo processor with 3 gb ddr2 sdram, with a cable internet connection. The reality is that a majority of the resources are hosted on Logos' server. Whatever the case, I have not been impressed with the speed of searching or loading. It takes quite awhile to load, and while the search through "the entire library" may be "6 seconds" on their server...from the time I press enter until the search is complete is much much longer than that! It's not my internet connection, and I have no problem running multiple graphic programs, so I can only assume it's somewhere in the coding of L4M.
Wish they would have had this ironed out before now, because I'm considering getting my refund in the next few days before 30 days is over and waiting until the release a quality mac product.
I've had fewer issues searching through my phone.
Welcome [:D]
Logos 4 on Mac downloads all licensed resources from Logos servers to Mac computer, followed by local indexing (that can take several hours). For many searches, speed is impressive, but time to display search results is not. Currently know wildcard searching ('*') is sluggish in Logos 4.2a on Mac & PC along with developers being aware of issue and planning to fix in upcoming beta cycle.
Option: can verify that Logos resources are local on Mac by disconnecting internet connection, then open Logos and perform searches. Forum notes search speed display improvement between 4.0b and 4.2a Beta => http://community.logos.com/forums/p/27972/207478.aspx#207478 - searched for 'David' in Old Testament.
Wiki Getting Started with Logos page includes Exegetical Guide customization tip since Word by Word section can be slow to populate and scroll.
On a 2007 model iMac with 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, launching Logos 4.2a to last used layout with half dozen linked bibles and three floating windows takes a minute or two. Opening a layout with fewer resources responds quicker.
The Logos iOS application defaults to using resources on Logos servers along with searches being done on Logos servers. With Logos 4 base package purchase, do have option to download Logos resources for offline use.
If desire refund, suggest contacting Logos => http://www.logos.com/about/contact
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Mike Binks said:Jason said:
The reality is that a majority of the resources are hosted on Logos' server
The resources that your computer uses are stored locally. The resources on the Logos servers are only downloaded not processed.
All of the books you own are stored on your machine and that is the copy that is searched.
The speed of your internet connection is only important if ...
1. You are downloading resources or updates.
2. You are syncing stuff between two computers.
3. You are using an iphone or ipad.
4. Using Passage Guide .com sections on Logos 4 Mac to retrieve information from internet (by default 4 sections are enabled)
5. Refreshing Logos 4 Mac Home Page (default customization reads several items from Logos servers)
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Thanks KS4J ever comprehensive and accurate.
What is more - both good points.
tootle pip
Mike
Now tagging post-apocalyptic fiction as current affairs. Latest Logos, MacOS, iOS and iPadOS
0 -
Fr. Charles R. Matheny said:
QUOTE:Yes, Accordance runs quicker - but that's also what you get when you run a program that's much more limited than Logos. END QUOTE
I find that statement has no basis in fact or function.
Accordance is not less powerful than Logos, not at all, not in any way.
Accordance has been a native Mac software for a lot longer than Logos, thats the difference in operational consistency/speed, not that Accordance has limited ability.
You can search every resource you have in Accordance faster than you can move a mouse, Logos cannot do the same with the exact same resource library.
The Statement of limited ability concerning Accordance has no basis in fact.
Feature sets are presented differently, the philosophy of usage is different, but Accordance is not more limited than Logos.
I have to agree. People keep saying Logos is so much more powerful than Accordance but since switching and getting used to the functionality differences I find Accordance a pleasure to use and very fast. If I had stayed in the PC Windows world and not upgraded to L4 I would probably still prefer logos 3 for the power and resources I had available to me. But, I'm sorry this new direction they have decided to take with L4 is a step in the wrong direction in my opinion and the decisions made when deciding to code for the Mac platform were poorly thought out, again in my opinion. I still have L4 and continue to purchase some of their community pricing offerings but most of my investment is now going toward my Accordance library.
0 -
To those that say Accordance is just as powerful as Logos: What Logos package are you running? I've used Accordance before on a computer that had an extensive Accordance library. But, the word-study tools that come with the Scholar's edition of Logos beat anything I've seen with Accordance. Also, there simply are better library selections available with Logos. I agree that Accordance searches faster and runs smoother - but I don't think it's entirely fair to compare the two programs as apples to apples. Not being a computer programmer myself, I can't comment on whether Logos has some easily-fixable flaw in it that is causing it to be slow. If it does as some of you say, hopefully the Logos techs have seen this forum and are already working on a solution. But in the mean time, I'm happy with my investment. As I said above, making a few tweaks from the wiki helps out a ton. Basically the only tweaks I made was to remove some of the resources available on the Passage Guide and Exegetical Guide, and to force my macbook to run in 64-bit mode (a problem with Apple, not with Logos). I didn't bother with any of the other tweaks because those two were enough to make it run quite nicely on my mid-range macbook.
Pastor, seminary trustee, and app developer. Check out my latest app for churches: The Church App
0 -
The big speed increase with the last update comes only a couple months after L4M launched. I consider that ample proof that Logos is committed to improving their product.
The mind of man is the mill of God, not to grind chaff, but wheat. Thomas Manton | Study hard, for the well is deep, and our brains are shallow. Richard Baxter
0 -
Dear Rec. Chris : The difference is subjective in most cases.
If you or anyone else, is happier working with Logos than Accordance , then that is certainly fine.
However, you will find a lot of people who are more familiar with Accordance tell you that it, will do more than Logos, that it's functions are much wider and deeper, especially in original Languages, in fact, in that area, most reviewers agree, and most own both.
For the average user, what we are actually taking about is just preference, it's purely subjective, it's about what one wants to do, the way they do it, they way "they" study.
It's a tool, and that's all, at the end of the day.
Logos is the "Library software" , Accordance is more concerned with searching and original language work, both are valid and commendable approaches.
Accordance is not "limited in what it can do or perform", not at all, it's the fasted software out there, of any, on any platform.
Logos is intensive in pulling results from huge libraries, detailed information, it is indeed a powerful platform, currently limited by some coding issues I grant you, some consistency issues, but no one can say it's not powerful.
I have both, one gets more attention than the other, but both have their place.
You are correct that Logos has the larger library, this is both good and , for some, like myself, a real hindrance for upgrades.
I realized with my previous software library that I had many, many books that had no value to me at all, were seldom if ever used, some that had never been used, would never be used, yet, no way to purchase what I did need instead of having an index full of things I did not.
For some, this Library picked by others is fine, for others, this is not so good.
Again, it's subjective, personal.
Both Accordance and Logos have strong points and weak points.
My only point was there is a difference between the subjective and the factual accounting of the programs "capabilities".
Ones preference for a Ford, does not mean a Chevy is not a capable car.
0 -
Fr. Charles R. Matheny said:
My only point was there is a difference between the subjective and the factual accounting of the programs "capabilities".
Ones preference for a Ford, does not mean a Chevy is not a capable car.
Agreed ... this would seem to support my point that the two are not truly comparable.
I do agree that Logos has many, many books that I find no use for and I'm sure this hinders the searching speed. It would be nice if we could take some resources off of our local machines, but also do a 'server search' for all books we have in our purchased library for those books that are occasionally helpful but do not warrant staying on the local machine and taking up resources.
Pastor, seminary trustee, and app developer. Check out my latest app for churches: The Church App
0 -
Yes, it would be nice to set up certain "sets" of resources and limit Logos to those, say for certain functions.
One would certainly think speed would increase dramatically if Logos was not searching the whole index.
This is a feature in Accordance btw, and has proven very fast, very useful, a real "workflow" tool that saves a great deal of time.
One of the time savers is you are not sorting through a lot of results which have no real bearing on the study being done.
0 -
Have you tried setting up a collection and adding it to My Passage Guide instead of "entire library"? That seemed to help for me, although as I posted in another area there seems to be a bug with that feature when trying to search materials using publication date as a criteria.
Pastor, seminary trustee, and app developer. Check out my latest app for churches: The Church App
0 -
Fr. Charles R. Matheny said:
Yes, it would be nice to set up certain "sets" of resources and limit Logos to those, say for certain functions.
That is the very purpose for which collections are designed. I suspect that you are far more familiar with Accordance than you are with Logos. As I said in an earlier post, I have used Accordance since before it was Accordance, so I am familiar with both, and I disagree with your assessment. However, I am unwilling to engage in a debate on the issue.
0 -
yea, there are "just issues" still being worked on.
It will be interesting to see what Logos comes up with on down the road as they become better at dealing with the Mac/Apple/Unix Platform.
It is easy to forget this is just infancy in this area for Logos.
I would agree with those who say it is expensive and frustrating for many, to work with, while Logos learns, but hey, they have to start somewhere I suppose.
It is frustrating for those who do not have installs working well, and, more so when those persons are made to feel there is something wrong with them, or their computer/set-up.
The reason most people come to a Mac is to get away from those "type of frustrations" and to a platform that generally, no matter what software you use: "Just Works".
So, given time, I think Logos will get some things worked out be a good Mac program, different than Accordance in philosophy, but good for it is designed to do.
I love my truck, and my car, both are vehicles for transportation, both have value to me, yet are purchased (and often used ) for different purposes.
0 -
Dear Jack: Agreed on debate, again, It is just preference, it's subjective.
Both programs were loaded on my computers at about the same time, within a day of so of each other.
There are some things Logos does that Accordance does not, there are some things Accordance does that Logos does not, some that both do, but in different ways, with differing levels of results.
Again, some of it depends on what work one is doing, some of it is simply preference, some of it is which UI fits our personality better.
It's just software.
0 -
But yes, you are correct, ( full disclosure ) I do use Accordance a great deal more.
I love the UI concepts in Logos, and many of it's features- ( I do think some of them are really nice ), but I need the functionality and stability Logos cannot give at this time.
0 -
Fr. Charles R. Matheny said:
But yes, you are correct, ( full disclosure ) I do use Accordance a great deal more.
And I use Logos more. I have all of Dr J's podcasts, but have not taken the time to really learn Accordance 9.2.
Like you say, they are tools. No need to become fanatical about either one.
0 -
Agreed, and I would bet "a dollar against a donut hole" if I needed help using the tools you know so well, you would be gracious and give me said help.
Same true in reverse.
We do seem to "personalize" these things don't we, get offended if others say anything negative.
Oh that I would be so willing to protect my fellow man, and keep all things in the right perspectives- then, I would of a certain, be a better man myself.
Blessings Jack and all .
0 -
I've come from Logos 4 on PC to Mac and while it wasn't particularly snappy on the PC, it isn't much worse on my Mac Mini (4Gb RAM). It is a serious memory hog though and after a while this becomes a problem. Yesterday for instance I found that Logos was using 1.2Gb of Virtual Memory and 600Mb RAM - which is significantly more than any other app - including hogs like iTunes. Whats more is that there doesn't seem to be a good reason for Logos to use this RAM, and in spite of using more RAM the application ran slower and slower - as did my machine - until I closed Logos and everything returned to normal.
Having said that, I believe the issue is to do with the base architecture and technology. From what I understand Logos 4 on PC is based on Microsoft's .Net technology, which is a great development experience. As a former Microsoft employee, I can say that it certainly allows for rapid and flexible development, however, in my experience it requires great care when developing multi-tier applications and/or applications where you have a large call stack - which I believe (I haven't seen the code) Logos does.
When it came to the Mac, I understand that Logos took the Open Source .Net platform (Mono) and ported the PC code to the Mac. This allowed them to essentially bug fix and tweak the Windows app to run natively on the Mac quickly. However, this introduces several layers into the application stack that wouldn't normally be there. Normally the Operating System (OSX) would run the executables that the program uses which might then call libraries, etc to do the work they do. In this case, you have OSX with one or maybe more runtime layers within which the executables run and call libraries to do their work. Each of these intermediate runtime layers has to make calls back to the operating system and pass information between the application and the operating system. This makes development quick, at the expense of execution time.
Apologies if it is too technical, but I believe that this is why both the PC and Mac versions are slow and why the Mac version is slower.
I agree with someone earlier on who said that it would be good to do an architecture review. It might be possible to take some of the components written in .Net and rewrite just those bits on the Mac and call them from the existing code. Small things like this might not mean a full rewrite, but might allow significant incremental improvements if the bottlenecks could be identified.
But with all the Logs that Logos receive (which should all have component timings in them), they should already know where the bottlenecks are - in which case there is something else holding up performance improvements.
0 -
Darryl,
That was me commenting on the architectural review. I read through you comments. I wonder what you think about the possibility of memory leaks with these libraries. Not sure what the memory managment routines are like to release unused memory.
I've experienced several cases where my memory footprint just grew and grew to at one point 1.2 gig real memory accoridng to the Mac Activity monitor. It seemed the only sure way to claim back memory was to stop and restart Logos, at which point several issues seemed to go away. Basically the exact scenario you described down to the amount memory
I know this is not a precise statement of what occurred, it just makes me wonder how memory is managed with Logos. OS/X is pretty smart in the virtual memory management area.
0 -
Darryl,
I am a systems programmer who has coded cross-assmblers, operating system level exits, and worked extensivly with advanced file system architectures.
My hardware is Mac Pro Server with 4 Cores, 16 Gig RAM and fast I/O.
When I get around to it, I want to set up an Raid 0 SSD stripe with a bandwith of 560 megabytes a second.
That will eliminate any possible question of practical Hardware bottlenecks for this application.
If I still see slowdowns etc. I will be categorically convinced there are software issues that occur that cannot be worked around with hardware at this time.
0 -
Larry,
As you'll know there will be risks of memory leaks in any library. The issue I see with using something like Mono is that it isn't developed by a commercial organization. Now, many open source people will say that this means it is going to be better code, and while in some cases this will be true, it won't be true in all cases. Groups of coders working together can establish code checks and reviews as they build software, and these help reduce the bugs and leaks.
The problem comes when you get outside the core group of coders and contributions are made to the code base that doesn't go through the same checks and balances. At this stage you end up with varying quality coders contributing to a single source base. While it is plausible to keep the quality up, many of these coders are more interested in adding features and functionality and moving the project forward or even putting their name into the contributors box than they are about "owning" that piece of functionality or that part of the product. So once they write the code, they move on - and in many cases the code isn't rechecked.
When it comes to using a framework, and you have libraries in the framework from a variety of sources of varying quality, the problem can be exacerbated.
I wouldn't say that this is categorically the problem in this case, but certainly it could be part of the problem. I'm sure the Logos coders have been through the third party source code where it has come from an open source project and that the commercial code they are using is of a standard that they can at least query ad ask questions about.
Will be keen to hear how your test goes.
0 -
Darryl,
Again thanks for the detailed response. I will let you know if I add the SSD test and get back to this thread.
Logos integrates a hugh amount of software, so it is a big task to get some arms around all the pieces.
On net - I love the power of the tool. I know from experience that features have a higher priority than performance until a certain pain threshold is reached. Especially when the software is evolving so quickly. It's really a tough sell to "freeze" feature sets and then focus on this. Market pressure makes it tough. I've architected applications that involved many tiers. Mainframe OLTP transactional backend, Unix (File Servers, Database servers, Application Servers), end devices (PC's, Unix Workstations and X-Terminals). I had developed a complete lab with proper instrumentation at each point and at all the network connections. Then an overall performance scripting regime. It payed off when we had to scale it worldwide and everyone praised the effort . That was all after the fact, when it was first deployed it was almost unusable. When I got done everything was sub second on all the critical transactions, but it was a political wilderness for a while.
0 -
The problem with Logos Company and what makes me frustrated with how they sell their product is:
Logos 4 PC = Over 14 month after L4 was released and they don't have all the features from the previous version done yet (I know things changed, but there are missing features that they have promised to implement and they did not yet). I have never seen a company selling a Beta program to its consumers claiming that it is a full version!
Logos 4 App for IPhone: Does not work properly. For instance, the Hebrew Text on the BHS is aligned from left to right and the Masoretic points and accents are messed up. Other resources have the same problem.
Logos 4 Mac = Quite slow, still missing features from the PC version that is also missing features (above). I have experienced several crashes. Now I am reading through many reports to figure out what I can do.
Additionally, the program does not have a Help that helps. It never had, Libronix 3 did not have a decent help as well. Would be better if the program would direct the users to the Logos Wiki site instead of using the pseudo "Help" on the program. However, the Wiki page is not a response from a software company, this should be an additional feature and not the only feature to really get help on understanding some features on the program.
If Logos could, as a serious software company, deliver at least one software completely done, ready to be used, and then start venturing in other platforms, I believe it would be quite better. It is good to see that Logos wants to have their software in all platforms (Mac, Smartphones, PC, etc...), that is really good to see their willingness, however, first they should have the software done.
It is sad that maybe the best Bible Software today is way behind any standards of any serious software. Releasing a software as if it was done (as they did with the PC and later with the Mac) when it was not, is not part of a professional company.
Just for the record: I like Logos 4, although I am still using Libronix 3 for some works I believe that Logos 4 is a very good program, but only for PC at this point, not for Mac.
My hope is that when Logos 5 come out, it will be a full version program like a professional company does.
www.aprendalogos.com
Youtube: AprendaLogos0 -
I am beginning to see a pattern regarding L4 that I believe has less to do with the state of the current release than it does the hardware. If you walk into the Apple Store or most stores selling computers, you do not find the majority of them have sufficient RAM. More than that, machines under about $1200 mostly do not have good discrete graphics cards. The RAM gets siphoned from the main memory. Quite typical is the MacMini and many laptops as well as baseline desktop models. Add to that Windows 7 and Vista need at least twice as much memory as XP.
The latest and greatest 13" Macbook is a case in point. No discrete graphics. On a $1200 machine. I suspect the integrated graphics are good, but that's an issue for L4M. The problem of slow scrolling cited originally is normally not a problem for someone with sufficient RAM and a good graphics card.
The mind of man is the mill of God, not to grind chaff, but wheat. Thomas Manton | Study hard, for the well is deep, and our brains are shallow. Richard Baxter
0 -
Darryl Burling said:
Larry,...Will be keen to hear how your test goes.
ditto [Y]
here's hoping its a case of SSD to the rescue [:D]
MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2015), 2.5 GHz Intel Core i7
16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3, AMD Radeon R9 M370X 2048 MB
0 -
It is not a hardware problem, it's a software problem, It's a coding issue.
If Logos can only be used properly with ssd's, 8 to 18 gigs of ram, 1 gig video cards, then you have moved completely away for a consumer product, and, far removed it from what it is advertised as.
In my life, I have never seen a forum, concerning a particular software, with as many threads about having to modify brand new computers.
The result of all these modifications is "not" a better software product, it is just a really fast computer that has one software product on it that runs dog slow compared to every other program on said computer.
As far as built in graphics are concerned.
Todays "system on a chip" w/graphics is now faster than the "super computers" for consumers of just 4 or 5 years ago.
Again, if Logos can only be run properly with separate graphics, huge amounts of ram, ssd drives, then Logos need to change the advertising. If Apple had a program running like this, they would get sued to kingdom come!
The point is simply this: You can modify the hardware all you want to, customize the computer "just to run Logos", and it will get a bit faster, but this is not fixing what is wrong.
The software has problems, it is not a hardware issue.
To say one has to have ssd, discreet graphics, 8 gigs of ram, means the cost of ownership for Logos is completely out of reach for anyone but the wealthy and the techy.
Most people who use this "type" of software, just want to study the Bible, prepare lessons and do their part in expanding the Kingdom of God.
It's hard to justify continually spending money to modify computers just to run one software, while asking people for money to feed the poor and hungry, treat the addict, find homes for the homeless, clothing and school supplies for needy children.
I buy Macs because they make financial sense, they last longer, do more, work more efficiently and have a lower cost of total ownership over time
I won't be forced into modifications (which are very expensive) just to run one program.
That would make no ministerial sense to me, at all.
0 -
@Fr. Charles R. Matheny:
I prefer L4 over Accordance when it comes to functionality, but I agree with you on every single word of your previous entry.
Logos 4 Mac has been nothing but a disaster from the very beginning. Not that it hasn't a lot to offer as a Bible program (it definitely has!), but when it comes to performance, bugs and so on, it is simply a slap in the face for every average user when comparing it to other programs for Mac. There have been times when I was thinking Logos should pay L4Mac users money for using their software instead of charging them. Even as L4 (PC) user I sometimes feel as if I were a beta tester, which I'm not.
In my opinion, Logos really needs to rethink their development strategy - it's too late now when it comes to L4, but I guess no one wants to experience this with L5 all over again. Users may tolerate this once, but the second time they will look for an alternative - and Accordance will be right there then.
"Mach's wie Gott - werde Mensch!" | theolobias.de
0 -
Dear Charles,
I agree with every single word you wrote. Thanks for the clear and profound post.
Blessings!
www.aprendalogos.com
Youtube: AprendaLogos0 -
When L4 first came out, It was compared to Window's Vista.
Here is its thread: V4 is to Logos what Vista is to Windows
In this thread, you will read a lot of the same things that has been written here in the Mac threads (both pro and con).
0
