Why does Logos 4 have extreme computer requirements?
Comments
-
MikeM said:Mike Aubrey said:RobertGMettler said:
And you might add more talent. So some of the criticism about Logos 4 is very well founded.
Cheap shot.
Do you program software Mike? I do and have since the days of DOS. In fact, before DOS. It takes talent to make good software that utilizes the hardware. Logos 4 should not require bleeding edge hardware to run. I see that you have it running on a 7 year old piece of hardware, which means that you're likely running about a 1.8-2.0 Ghz P4 with a couple of gigs of ram with XP SP3, since a machine that old might run Vista, but it would do so rather slowly.
What Robert was correctly getting at is that it takes talent to tweak subroutines that the software often uses in assembly code so that the software not only runs faster, but is also less bloated. The programming situation at Logos is one wherein they have chosen to go slow and bloated, using JIT compiled code that runs like Java code. The code is compiled and run each time the application runs. This slows down the entire process and makes for bloated code. Logos is not programming for bleeding edge hardware because they want to target that - they code for bleeding edge hardware because the programming REQUIRES it. If they went old school on the code and used C and assembler then it would be a lot smaller and absolutely scream. But C and assembler take talent in C and assembler. The new Microsoft .Net programming environment doesn't get you close to the hardware like real programming tools do. And real programming tools require talented programmers to use them.
I'm sure that the coders at Logos have talent. I'm also sure that they are not using real programming tools - I mean low level programming. Lower level programming takes time and talent.
So your "cheap shot" comment may be your opinion, but it's not founded in reality. If you could code then you'd have not said a word. Robert is spot on in his take on this.
There, fixed that for you.
I have done a ton of programming in .NET and Java, managed code like what Logos4 uses. Just in Time, or more properly called "managed code", is not "slow and bloated", it is state of the art in current software engineering circles and has been for some time. Yes it requires memory, but 8GB of memory, for example, is no more than a couple of hundred dollars, well less than what some people spend on one resource. Logos4 does a lot more than Logos3, over 100 new features at last count on their web site.
Managed code is faster today because they can optimize for the computer they are running on, on the fly. If you google and look around, there are quite a few benchmarks showing Java and .NET faster than C++ for example, with today's advanced systems (not true 5 years ago). In many cases managed code is very close to, if not exceeding the performance of C++ or C. In addition however, software engineering tools are better in managed code systems, reducing the time to develop code. They also can take advantage of new capabilities like multi core processing. Another thing, the multi-core utilization of .NET would be near impossible to scale using C++ or C. Also, you could never do an interface like Logos4 in C++ or C, no one has from an eye candy and user interface perspective (Windows Presentation Foundation, used by Logos for the UI, could not be written in C++ or C).
Another advantage, managed code has "garbage collection" - the managed code system collects, frees, and manages memory for you. Anyone who has written code knows that memory leaks, buffer overruns, and crashes from invalid memory pointers are prevalent. These largely go away in managed code because they can be detected at COMPILE TIME when the developer builds the module, not at run time when a user performs a particular action. C and C++ code suffers from type checking bugs, where for example a routine expects an integer and someone passes in a strong. Managed code catches these problems at compile time.
Many other advantages in managed code - deployment tools, security features, and the ability to easily move 32 bit code to 64 bit systems natively. As a DOS programmer I am sure you know how difficult it was to move C applications from 8 bit to 16 bit. It took many years for the industry to do that. Applications moved from 32 bit to 64 bit systems rather seamlessly (the big problems have been device drivers), because managed code handles it for you.
I know many people disagree with this, but in all due respect they are behind the times or just uninformed about the architecture of managed code systems. If you don't think so, go to ACM.org, the prominent software engineering research organization in the world, and try to find one article saying C++ or C or any statically-compiled system is state of the art or the foundation to base your software product on moving forward - you won't find a single one. Software engineering is based on managed code with many advantages that are easy to find in an hour of research on google, if you look around. Also, not one major software vendor - IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, or Sun, supports unmanaged code over managed code. There are just too many disadvantages in today's world with unmanaged code. It only exists at all today to support legacy applications that have not been rewritten.
If you still don't believe, just google "advantages of managed code over unmanaged". You will find a ton. You won't find much on unmanaged code over managed." [;)]
But don't listen to me - Association for Computing Machinery - ACM.org. find anything supporting unmanaged code. It doesn't exist. Bob said they wanted to develop a next generation platform, and they did exactly that. And every major software vendor agrees with his choice.
0 -
Dominick Sela said:
it takes talent to tweak subroutines that the software often uses in assembly
Give me machine language on CDC for complete control. HAL (of the movie 2001) was played by a CDC machine - for those of you who aren't hardware trivia buffs.
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 -
Ward Walker said:Bill Stonebraker said:
...L4 will use all the power you give it... and they've had a great time spec'ing out wonderful components for a dream system.
I am thrilled that Logos4 runs well on a 64-bit OS, and even more thrilled that it is highly multi-threaded...I run it on an i7 processor with many windows/tabs open on two monitors (soon to increase to four)--shortly after invoking a passage guide, I normally see all 8 cores throttle up to 75% or better for a few seconds. I've never seen anything else use the computing power this well before...I can burn a DVD Movie, a BlueRay Data Disk, and render video all at the same time and still not tap the i7 processors as fully (see in-line screenshot). I'm also surprised it doesn't eat much RAM in the process (about 362K).
That said, if I was running this on a dual-core machine (or older), I'd just compensate by not linking all my windows/tabs and I'd probably not have all those open at the same time...that would dramatically reduce the CPU load. Logos, thank you for taking the risk to leap beyond the coding constraints of V3!
I doubt that Logos wants to be known as the Bible software that requires a “dream system” to run to the fullness of its potential. I built a core i7 860 overclocked @ 3.4 GHZ with 4 GB of ram @ 1600 mhz and fast caviar black 640 GB hard drives. I did not put the system together for the upgrade to version 4 and I would have not done it just to run Logos. I am glad that Logos 4 was not able to bring it to its knees (just ask my core 2 duo laptop or my poor netbook) but I am not happy about the way it taxes the resources.
Bible software is not supposed to tap the full power of a powerful processor like the core i7 series. Customers should not have to upgrade (or to think about upgrading) their machines just to meet the hardware requirements of the new version. It did not work well for Vista, it will not work with Logos 4.
Logos would gain nothing by adding entry barriers (hardware upgrade) to the adoption of its new version and I am sure they are well aware of that fact.
As others have pointed, it is not by design that Logos 4 requires powerful hardware to run smoothly (indexing my 11.3 GB of resources took me a little more than a hour on my core i7 system versus a day on my laptop and much more on my notebook). The high hardware requirements betray at the very least a lack of optimization of the code (as in “the product was released too soon” probably for short term business reasons (i.e. the deadlines of ETS and SBL) that might end up hurting the long term if the situation is not kept under control).
Do not get me wrong, I like the concept behind version 4, I am just underwhelmed by some aspects of its execution. Ironically, the fact that I am using Bibleworks to search the biblical text lessens my frustration since I do not have to rely of Logos 4 to perform the same operations. I think that I will keep using both pieces of software for the foreseeable future
I remain hopeful that the Logos 4 will be optimized and show itself to be scalable so as to run smoothly on moderate specs and seamlessly harness the resources of more powerful systems for the extras (multitasking, myriad of windows opened, and so on).
I also hope that Logos will introduce various levels of customization (in an intuitive way). It is fine to have fewer options for novices that might be intimidated by complex choices, but power users should also be able to customize the program to suit their needs.
Despite what I consider to be a few “faux pas”, I still believe that Logos is the best solution overall for someone like me who is abandoning print resources for a searchable and customizable digital library (things like prepub, the academic program, a great customer service, the greatest number of resources available, and so on). I have not lost faith in the ability of the company to listen to the customers, correct what is wrong and improve the product.
Alain
0 -
Dominick Sela said:
I have done a ton of programming in .NET and Java, managed code like what Logos4 uses. Just in Time, or more properly called "managed code", is not "slow and bloated", it is state of the art in current software engineering circles and has been for some time. Yes it requires memory, but 8GB of memory, for example, is no more than a couple of hundred dollars, well less than what some people spend on one resource. Logos4 does a lot more than Logos3, over 100 new features at last count on their web site.
Managed code is faster today because they can optimize for the computer they are running on, on the fly. If you google and look around, there are quite a few benchmarks showing Java and .NET faster than C++ for example, with today's advanced systems (not true 5 years ago). In many cases managed code is very close to, if not exceeding the performance of C++ or C. In addition however, software engineering tools are better in managed code systems, reducing the time to develop code. They also can take advantage of new capabilities like multi core processing. Another thing, the multi-core utilization of .NET would be near impossible to scale using C++ or C. Also, you could never do an interface like Logos4 in C++ or C, no one has from an eye candy and user interface perspective (Windows Presentation Foundation, used by Logos for the UI, could not be written in C++ or C).
Another advantage, managed code has "garbage collection" - the managed code system collects, frees, and manages memory for you. Anyone who has written code knows that memory leaks, buffer overruns, and crashes from invalid memory pointers are prevalent. These largely go away in managed code because they can be detected at COMPILE TIME when the developer builds the module, not at run time when a user performs a particular action. C and C++ code suffers from type checking bugs, where for example a routine expects an integer and someone passes in a strong. Managed code catches these problems at compile time.
Many other advantages in managed code - deployment tools, security features, and the ability to easily move 32 bit code to 64 bit systems natively. As a DOS programmer I am sure you know how difficult it was to move C applications from 8 bit to 16 bit. It took many years for the industry to do that. Applications moved from 32 bit to 64 bit systems rather seamlessly (the big problems have been device drivers), because managed code handles it for you.
I know many people disagree with this, but in all due respect they are behind the times or just uninformed about the architecture of managed code systems. If you don't think so, go to ACM.org, the prominent software engineering research organization in the world, and try to find one article saying C++ or C or any statically-compiled system is state of the art or the foundation to base your software product on moving forward - you won't find a single one. Software engineering is based on managed code with many advantages that are easy to find in an hour of research on google, if you look around. Also, not one major software vendor - IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, or Sun, supports unmanaged code over managed code. There are just too many disadvantages in today's world with unmanaged code. It only exists at all today to support legacy applications that have not been rewritten.
If you still don't believe, just google "advantages of managed code over unmanaged". You will find a ton. You won't find much on unmanaged code over managed."
But don't listen to me - Association for Computing Machinery - ACM.org. find anything supporting unmanaged code. It doesn't exist. Bob said they wanted to develop a next generation platform, and they did exactly that. And every major software vendor agrees with his choice.
Sorry - C and assembler can tear Java and .Net up. But it requires talent to do - talent that has largely been lost on the current generation of programmers. .Net was only introduced because Microsoft wanted their own in-house version of Java and Microsoft wanted to add a managed layer between the hardware and the coder so the coding would require less talent (training wheels and padded walls) and would therefore result in less chances for the coder to hit the wall. JIT technology is just the modern version of interpreted BASIC code, except you can write it in several dialects which all result in the same underlying code that the JIT compiler uses. .Net speeds up code production at the cost of speed and code size. So does Java. Logos uses this technology.
If you had any background in C and assembler you'd know what I was talking about. .Net just lowered the bar for programmers.
0 -
ThinkPad Z60m-1.7GHZ-2GB-XP Pro SP3
L4 startup is incredibly slow. Opening up tabs is also slow, but tolerable. Scrolling through books gives some lag. The debate about managed vs. unmanaged code is interesting, but the question remains - where exactly is the bottleneck? Performance tests will need to be run on a variety of platforms using an analysis tool in order to identify the issues.
My guess is the slow startup is due to the .NET Framework initialization. As for general slowness, there's no way they would invest the hours to redesign a faster GUI app in C++, but perhaps a few of the calls could be optimized by shifting to unmanaged dlls. At this point, all I can do is speculate about what the problem is. I'm trusting Logos to perform benchmark and performance tests, and identifying and fixing any code issues.
I admit my hardware is a bit dated, but I am not planning on playing the latest video games. I am not even using the advanced search features in L4. All I want to do is open L4 and read a book or 2 while scrolling without experiencing lag. L3 worked wonderfully. At this point, I don't think the extra features in L4 are worth the performance hit. (I also tried the performance setting suggestions given in another thread).
0 -
Dominick Sela said:
Windows Presentation Foundation...could not be written in C++ or C.
Begging your pardon, sir, but I do beg to differ. Anything could be written in C++ or C, or Assembler for that matter, given enough code-monkeys and enough time. Programmers used to know how to clean up memory usage after themselves, and do white-box texting to prevent buffer over-runs and invalid pointer references, and use a profiler to find performance snags in their algorithms. They don't know how anymore because they write on top of huge systems that do all that stuff for them. But that doesn't mean that something equivalent to WPF couldn't be written in a lower-level language by a team of people who knew what they were doing. As Bill Gates used to apocryphally threaten us when we were taking too long with some application written in C that was getting all bloated, "Hey, what's the matter? I could write that in wrote a Basic interpreter in 4K in a weekend!" (He didn't actually say that to us, but we used to quote that to each other. The reference was to MITS Altair 4K BASIC, which Gates wrote in a hotel room one sleepless weekend, in Intel 8080 Assembly language -- the Altair wasn't completed yet, so he wrote it on legal pads. That story was deeply embedded in Microsoft programmer lore and made us all shiver our timbers.) So there. [:P]
Why make a meal from scratch at home anymore when you can buy delicious one at a restaurant and not have to worry about all that messy cleaning up after yourself, or get one even more quickly from a package that you stick in the microwave? Because there is something beautiful and enjoyable about the craft of cooking well from basic ingredients. It's healthier and better for the environment, and it's purely delightful to participate in doing it well, and to taste the fruits of another's labors. The same is true with the craft of programming. It's sad that it is virtually a dead art now. Anyone born after about 1975 is probably thinking I'm some old granny that should just sit in my rocker and stop complaining about what this world is coming to. I don't program much anymore but when I do, it's in a real programming language.
0 -
Rosie Perera said:Dominick Sela said:
Windows Presentation Foundation...could not be written in C++ or C.
Begging your pardon, sir, but I do beg to differ. Anything could be written in C++ or C, or Assembler for that matter, given enough code-monkeys and enough time. Programmers used to know how to clean up memory usage after themselves, and do white-box texting to prevent buffer over-runs and invalid pointer references, and use a profiler to find performance snags in their algorithms. They don't know how anymore because they write on top of huge systems that do all that stuff for them. But that doesn't mean that something equivalent to WPF couldn't be written in a lower-level language by a team of people who knew what they were doing. As Bill Gates used to apocryphally threaten us when we were taking too long with some application written in C that was getting all bloated, "Hey, what's the matter? I could write that in wrote a Basic interpreter in 4K in a weekend!" (He didn't actually say that to us, but we used to quote that to each other. The reference was to MITS Altair 4K BASIC, which Gates wrote in a hotel room one sleepless weekend, in Intel 8080 Assembly language -- the Altair wasn't completed yet, so he wrote it on legal pads. That story was deeply embedded in Microsoft programmer lore and made us all shiver our timbers.) So there.
Why make a meal from scratch at home anymore when you can buy delicious one at a restaurant and not have to worry about all that messy cleaning up after yourself, or get one even more quickly from a package that you stick in the microwave? Because there is something beautiful and enjoyable about the craft of cooking well from basic ingredients. It's healthier and better for the environment, and it's purely delightful to participate in doing it well, and to taste the fruits of another's labors. The same is true with the craft of programming. It's sad that it is virtually a dead art now. Anyone born after about 1975 is probably thinking I'm some old granny that should just sit in my rocker and stop complaining about what this world is coming to. I don't program much anymore but when I do, it's in a real programming language.
I programmed in Assembler in college and hated it. But you're right that you don't get any more efficient than that when its done well. And it's possible to do anything given the time and skill. The move toward managed code happened for scalability and portability reasons. In addition it brings down costs for development. I have to agree though with it being a lost craft. In fact it is no longer a craft, but an assembly line of each dev making his contribution (at least for enterprise apps). That's why I left development and stayed an SA. The apps I write may not be as scalable, but it's amazing what you can do in a day with PERL :-)
0 -
MattWhite said:
I programmed in Assembler in college and hated it. But you're right that you don't get any more efficient than that when its done well. And it's possible to do anything given the time and skill. The move toward managed code happened for scalability and portability reasons. In addition it brings down costs for development. I have to agree though with it being a lost craft. In fact it is no longer a craft, but an assembly line of each dev making his contribution (at least for enterprise apps). That's why I left development and stayed an SA. The apps I write may not be as scalable, but it's amazing what you can do in a day with PERL :-)
I still code in assembler under Windows and Linux and I do it as a hobby. I find it interesting and somewhat relaxing since I just fitz around with the Win32 API and make little utilities for myself. It's not quick to do, but the results are very small and very fast. I can see how some people would not see assembler as their cup of tea, but I always found it interesting to be able to make those chips do what I wanted them to do. This is probably also why I like opensource products and use them quite extensively. If there is something that I want to change, I can change it. I don't need to get frustrated and wait for The Man to get around to fixing my beef.
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
I think it's probably a case of you having a backstory about this particular issue, and my comments -- which were in no way intended to imply that laypeople can't be trusted with a high level of biblical learning -- pushed some button in you.
Maybe it would help you to know that:
(a) I consider myself a layperson; I have no MDiv and am not an ordained pastor and don't feel called to become one -- I preach once in a while at a lay-run congregation, but that's the only "pastoral" identity I have. Most of what I do in my life is not with a pastor's hat on at all.
Rosie, this conversation has gotten way too serious, but thank you for your explanation. The button that was probably pushed for me revolves around the whole concept of laity/clergy which is a concept that I believe is contrary to the teachings of the New Testament and has caused great harm to the Body of Christ. When I saw the phrase "Not for the masses," it brought to mind the common modifier that is used with it "unwashed"
- (idiomatic) The collective group ("mass")
of people who are considered by someone to be somehow uneducated,
uninformed, godless, or in some other way unqualified for inclusion in
the speaker's elite circles.
Unfortunately I have been acquainted with clergy who viewed the laity in this manner. At no time, did I believe this is what you meant, but as I said earlier, it evoked a visceral response in me.
But please, let's leave this subject behind, since it wasn't what you meant, and I have had a chance to throw in my two cents.
As for moving to your denomination? I am afraid that the my God given assignment of keeping the the So. B. (Southern Baptist) humble hasn't been accomplished yet. [:O]
0 - (idiomatic) The collective group ("mass")
-
Just a thought. Could it be internet connection that is causing the assumption of poor performance. I have a great computer and great internet connectivity and no issues 5 computers with different OSs and specs. I haven't tried the netbook yet.
0 -
Rosie Perera said:
Begging your pardon, sir, but I do beg to differ. Anything could be written in C++ or C, or Assembler for that matter, given enough code-monkeys and enough time. Programmers used to know how to clean up memory usage after themselves, and do white-box texting to prevent buffer over-runs and invalid pointer references, and use a profiler to find performance snags in their algorithms. They don't know how anymore because they write on top of huge systems that do all that stuff for them. But that doesn't mean that something equivalent to WPF couldn't be written in a lower-level language by a team of people who knew what they were doing. As Bill Gates used to apocryphally threaten us when we were taking too long with some application written in C that was getting all bloated, "Hey, what's the matter? I could write that in wrote a Basic interpreter in 4K in a weekend!" (He didn't actually say that to us, but we used to quote that to each other. The reference was to MITS Altair 4K BASIC, which Gates wrote in a hotel room one sleepless weekend, in Intel 8080 Assembly language -- the Altair wasn't completed yet, so he wrote it on legal pads. That story was deeply embedded in Microsoft programmer lore and made us all shiver our timbers.) So there.
Wow! I'm impressed. Actually, this thread has a lot of impressive conversation and it seems that several of you know quite a bit about programming. That's good. BTW, Rosie, I'm not offended in the slightest. As I said in my earlier post, you have been most helpful to me and to others using this forum and I am very appreciative of those like you who take the time to be helpful. I want to do the same.
This thread has convinced me to spring for an extra 4 gigs of RAM of the system I am building this week. Let's see now. That's an i7 with 8 gigs on an Intel P55WB motherboard with nvidia's 9800 series graphics card with 1 gig of ddr3. 860 gigs of Sata drives, 2 sata optical drives. Does this sound sufficient to anyone?
0 -
For the comments posted questioning my background, actually I programmed assembler, wrote compilers and assemblers, and programmed in C since the early 70s.
And to other comments, yes you CANNOT program WPF in C or assembler, because NOBODY has. It is entirely too inefficient to do so. However many lines of code it is in managed code to do so, multiply it by about 20 or 30 to get the lines of code to support it. People think because you could write a user interface layer in C that it's better than WPF, but things like managing memory and security were done very poorly by most C programmers, if at all. Also, a hobbyist who writes C or assembler in Windows because they can is a far cry from a professional software architecture that does what WPF does.
You can reply back with the disparaging remarks about mine or anyone else's experiences, attack Microsoft, claim that good programmers could do better, whatever - the fact remains no one has, academics and major software companies disagree with you. Unmanaged code can't write the systems we enjoy today, it's that simple, and it's not opinion. If you feel strongly quit the unfounded opinions and give us some proof from a reputable industry institution or corporation that agrees with you, otherwise it's just an uninformed opinion.
0 -
DouglasEStephens said:
Wow! I'm impressed. Actually, this thread has a lot of impressive conversation and it seems that several of you know quite a bit about programming. That's good. BTW, Rosie, I'm not offended in the slightest. As I said in my earlier post, you have been most helpful to me and to others using this forum and I am very appreciative of those like you who take the time to be helpful. I want to do the same.
This thread has convinced me to spring for an extra 4 gigs of RAM of the system I am building this week. Let's see now. That's an i7 with 8 gigs on an Intel P55WB motherboard with nvidia's 9800 series graphics card with 1 gig of ddr3. 860 gigs of Sata drives, 2 sata optical drives. Does this sound sufficient to anyone?
Buy these hard drives: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136322
You'll be REAL glad you did.
0 -
Dominick Sela said:
For the comments posted questioning my background, actually I programmed assembler, wrote compilers and assemblers, and programmed in C since the early 70s.
And to other comments, yes you CANNOT program WPF in C or assembler, because NOBODY has. It is entirely too inefficient to do so. However many lines of code it is in managed code to do so, multiply it by about 20 or 30 to get the lines of code to support it. People think because you could write a user interface layer in C that it's better than WPF, but things like managing memory and security were done very poorly by most C programmers, if at all. Also, a hobbyist who writes C or assembler in Windows because they can is a far cry from a professional software architecture that does what WPF does.
You can reply back with the disparaging remarks about mine or anyone else's experiences, attack Microsoft, claim that good programmers could do better, whatever - the fact remains no one has, academics and major software companies disagree with you. Unmanaged code can't write the systems we enjoy today, it's that simple, and it's not opinion. If you feel strongly quit the unfounded opinions and give us some proof from a reputable industry institution or corporation that agrees with you, otherwise it's just an uninformed opinion.
Lol. Ok. Have you ever used Unix or Linux? How much code is managed there, champ?
0 -
Dominick Sela said:
For the comments posted questioning my background, actually I programmed assembler, wrote compilers and assemblers, and programmed in C since the early 70s.
And to other comments, yes you CANNOT program WPF in C or assembler, because NOBODY has. It is entirely too inefficient to do so. However many lines of code it is in managed code to do so, multiply it by about 20 or 30 to get the lines of code to support it. People think because you could write a user interface layer in C that it's better than WPF, but things like managing memory and security were done very poorly by most C programmers, if at all. Also, a hobbyist who writes C or assembler in Windows because they can is a far cry from a professional software architecture that does what WPF does.
You can reply back with the disparaging remarks about mine or anyone else's experiences, attack Microsoft, claim that good programmers could do better, whatever - the fact remains no one has, academics and major software companies disagree with you. Unmanaged code can't write the systems we enjoy today, it's that simple, and it's not opinion. If you feel strongly quit the unfounded opinions and give us some proof from a reputable industry institution or corporation that agrees with you, otherwise it's just an uninformed opinion.
Hey Old timer,
I am also an old timer. Just because I code NOW as a hobby in assembler doesn't mean I have always done programming as a hobby. I've been in this computer game for about 30 years and you've just been drinking the wrong Kool-Aid and fell for the hype. For someone to claim that they programmed in assembler and then laud managed code doesn't ring true. ANY assembler jockey would know that managed code is bloatware. And you WROTE compilers and assemblers too? Which ones? I have pretty much seen them all, so which ones were yours? I know - you probably wrote them for the proprietary chips that you invented in the lab in your basement and never released the compiler or assembler.
Blah-blah-blah-blah-blah.
0 -
Ladies and gentlemen,
since there is obviously a TON of talent among Logos users, let's put the following question to rest: which computer subsystem is the bottleneck for Logos4 in an older machine (mine is a 3.5 year old Dell laptop, Intel T5500 1.66GHz 2GB RAM 200GB 7200RPM HD integrated videocard)
- is it the processor(number of cores/ on-chip memory)
- is it the RAM (which in turn may require OS upgrade 32/64 bit)
- is it the video subsystem (speed/memory; integrated/dedicated)
- or is it the hard drive (quite possibly spending $300 on a great SSD drive might make all the other slowness pale in comparison)
is there a way to develop a custom Logos 4 benchmark that will "stress" each individual subsystem separately and create a score that could be compared and analyzed. Or to put it another way - can this benchmark clarify what specific
SINGLE upgrade would be the most beneficial for a specific user?I would love it in either C or "managed code"
Vladimir
0 -
VladimirLukyanov said:
Ladies and gentlemen,
since there is obviously a TON of talent among Logos users, let's put the following question to rest: which computer subsystem is the bottleneck for Logos4 in an older machine (mine is a 3.5 year old Dell laptop, Intel T5500 1.66GHz 2GB RAM 200GB 7200RPM HD integrated videocard)
- is it the processor(number of cores/ on-chip memory)
- is it the RAM (which in turn may require OS upgrade 32/64 bit)
- is it the video subsystem (speed/memory; integrated/dedicated)
- or is it the hard drive (quite possibly spending $300 on a great SSD drive might make all the other slowness pale in comparison)
I would wonder if the hard drive is and IDE or a SATA drive. If it's an IDE, it'll slow you down some. But I'd say the real problem is the integrated graphics card. BTW, which OS are you using? Win XP should function pretty fair on that system. Vista will struggle a little more. Win 7 would do okay.
0 -
VladimirLukyanov said:
is there a way to develop a custom Logos 4 benchmark that will "stress" each individual subsystem separately and create a score that could be compared and analyzed. Or to put it another way - can this benchmark clarify what specific SINGLE upgrade would be the most beneficial for a specific user?
If you're using Vista or Win 7, the "Windows Experience Rating" should give you a pretty fair indicator of the weak and strong points of the system overall. However, that doesn't exactly tell how L4 is using those subsytems.
0 -
This is the rating for my laptop. As you can see, even with 384 MB of dedicated graphics memory, this is the weakest link. This makes the whole system suffer because no matter how I speed other subsystems, the graphics card is still going to bottleneck the performance of the machine.
0 -
Francis Jeffries said:
Just a thought. Could it be internet connection that is causing the assumption of poor performance. I have a great computer and great internet connectivity and no issues 5 computers with different OSs and specs. I haven't tried the netbook yet.
At least during the initial start-up, I think you are on to something; In Vista64 I do see a black window ("not responding") while the program does something/assembles the home page. I can't really tell by analyzing the NIC usage (I'm not using anything more sophisticated than Desktop Gadgets).
I've also decided to not use Logos4 during those periods where it is re-crunching the databases--I don't want to tempt the system to corrupt like I've heard others dealing with. One of the problems with having lots of resources is that it increases the risk of often receiving updates that then drive database re-builds. Perhaps someday Logos will have to adopt MS-like monthly/weekly "patch" days for releasing any resource updates so folks can plan around the secondary issues they can cause (knowing also we can turn off the auto updates, but that leads to other risks).
0 -
Francis Jeffries said:
Just a thought. Could it be internet connection that is causing the assumption of poor performance
I agree. Back in November I only had 1.5Mbps and had very bad slowdowns with L4 was syncing, now I have 3Mbps and syncing does not seem to effect performance. However, it might also have something to do with improvements to L4 itself.
0 -
I am using XP Pro SP3 and a SATA HD. Wish I had a "windows experience index" like in Vista.
0 -
MikeM said:
Do you program software Mike? I do and have since the days of DOS. In fact, before DOS. It takes talent to make good software that utilizes the hardware. Logos 4 should not require bleeding edge hardware to run. I see that you have it running on a 7 year old piece of hardware, which means that you're likely running about a 1.8-2.0 Ghz P4 with a couple of gigs of ram with XP SP3, since a machine that old might run Vista, but it would do so rather slowly.
No, I'm running it on:
1) 2.0 Ghz Celery with 1GB of RAM with W7 RC.
2) 2.0 Ghz AMD Turion X2 with 4GB of RAM
That first machine didn't run Vista. But it does run W7 at the same speed it ran XP -- albeit without eye candy.
Both machines run L4. The old celery processor runs it just as fast as it did L3 -- which for the three years I used that computer with L3 was good enough. And neither L4 or L3 are the slowest program I've run on the machine.
As for the rest of the it.
Even with lots of words, you're wrong. It was a cheap shot.
Whether or not it was a true and accurate cheap shot is a completely different matter. And its really one that I don't really care about.
Had Robert provided the length explanation that you just provided, it wouldn't have been. Random criticisms out of the blue without argumentation are always cheap. Your criticism was not. You paid for it with time and typing. Robert didn't.
0 -
Mike Aubrey said:
No, I'm running it on:
1) 2.0 Ghz Celery with 1GB of RAM with W7 RC.
2) 2.0 Ghz AMD Turion X2 with 4GB of RAM
That first machine didn't run Vista. But it does run W7 at the same speed it ran XP -- albeit without eye candy.
Both machines run L4. The old celery processor runs it just as fast as it did L3 -- which for the three years I used that computer with L3 was good enough. And neither L4 or L3 are the slowest program I've run on the machine.
As for the rest of the it.
Even with lots of words, you're wrong. It was a cheap shot.
Whether or not it was a true and accurate cheap shot is a completely different matter. And its really one that I don't really care about.
Had Robert provided the length explanation that you just provided, it wouldn't have been. Random criticisms out of the blue without argumentation are always cheap. Your criticism was not. You paid for it with time and typing. Robert didn't.
When you say a 2.0 Ghz celery, are you referring to this?
0 -
-
Mike Aubrey said:
Well that's roughly the computing power of the celeron....
But it appears to be water cooled. [:D]
0 -
I am running Logos4 on my Samsung NC10 netbook (with 2GB RAM) and it is acceptable, but sluggish.
On my high end dual processor desktop it runs OK but not blazingly so.
As a systems programmer with 17+ years experience in all sorts of languages (assembler,C, C++, Delphi, .Net, Java etc) I do question the choice of programming tool for Logos4 - considering that the .NET implementaion used requires that Direct3D is used for the video output seems strange to me - aside from the 2D graphics and 2D graphs, Logos4 is mainly text based and it seems overkill to use such a heavyweight graphics protocol. Certainly I have seen nothing in Logos4 that requires the use of this tech.
The ironic thing is that the database chosen for the indexing etc (SQLite) is as cheap as chips (free) and is blazingly fast because it written in highly optimized C code.
So, on the one hand we have a tool that feels like a sledgehammer to crack a nut yet one of its primary components is just what some of the discussion in the thread has been extolling - lean and mean C code.
The only thing I prefer in Logos4 is the screen utilisation, especially its ability to use dual monitors but that could have been done in many non .NET languages - Delphi would, I think, have been an excellent choice for this sort of system. And it would have been faster by miles...
0 -
Hi, This is Herb. While holding church services, quite a lot of "discussion" seems to have been generated, some on the topic. I find it interesting that some people had the expectation that I should be waiting at the computer to respond to their posts.
I think the problem on the particular computer I had mentioned could be with the graphics requirements of L4. Sometimes it starts up, but then crashes the whole computer after a few actions. Sometimes it crashes the computer while starting up. I have a fairly bleeding edge computer (quad core, 8GB RAM ...) and it runs on that one acceptably. On the other one, my upgraded graphics card died and I went back to the onboard graphics. However, Avid Liquid still runs on it.
I never thought that computer specs would be an issue in upgrading, so I never read them until I ran into a problem. Logos really needs to include that information along with all the ads to upgrade.
While not a programmer, I have been installing, using, and troubleshooting a wide range of computer programs since the '80's, and in over 20 years, for the type of program it is, the requirements of L4 surprise me the most.
I am a big fan of Logos, but would consider this release to have been pushed on the consumer without adequate explanation or warning.
This is just a topic for discussion, so please don't ask me any questions or respond to me as a person. I don't know you, don't consider computer forums to be human interaction, and may or may not get a chance in the next few days to check back. (Let's see if that generates any feedback.)
Have a great New Year!
0 -
So in the end it turns out you don't have a graphics card that works and all that is needed is to put one on your computer. It looks like after 20 years, you learned something new [;)]HerbertJRader said:I have a fairly bleeding edge computer (quad core, 8GB RAM ...) and it runs on that one acceptably. On the other one, my upgraded graphics card died and I went back to the onboard graphics. However, Avid Liquid still runs on it.
God bless
0 -
DouglasEStephens said:
Wow, I hadn't discovered that tool in my Control Panel yet. Thanks! I learn something new every day. I've got a Windows Experience Index of 5.6 (at first it showed up at 1.0 which worried me, but it said there had been some new hardware installed and that I should run an update to compute the new number). My subscores are all 5.9 except my weakest link which is RAM speed -- 5.6. I wonder what the highest possible score is? Even with my fast system I experience slowness in some operations that Logos does -- particularly when I have a passage guide or other computing-intensive window open.
MikeM said:Mike Aubrey said:Well that's roughly the computing power of the celeron....
But it appears to be water cooled.
And it's very crunchy, so it must be good for number-crunching.
HerbertJRader said:This is just a topic for discussion, so please don't ask me any questions or respond to me as a person. I don't know you, don't consider computer forums to be human interaction, and may or may not get a chance in the next few days to check back.
Words of wisdom. We do all expect too much of online forums. And yet there's kind of an irony in what he said (I'm speaking of him in the third person, fully expecting he won't be back necessarily to participate in the discussion). He said: "This is just a topic for discussion....I...don't consider computer forums to be human interaction..." So discussion isn't human interaction? :-) Still, I get what he means. I disappear from here for days at a time. I took off the whole week of Christmas, and my intent is to be absent from the forum every Sunday to give myself a rest. And when I come back I don't necessarily spend the time to catch up on all the threads that were generated while I was gone. I do think computer forums can contain real human interaction though, but we must hold that kind much more lightly than we do face-to-face communication, and not expect much from it. And not let it usurp our time for real life relationships. (Speaking to myself, here, more than anything!)
0
