Quality control in Logos 6 - a new perspective
Comments
-
Super, you're sounding like Kanbe (that's a complement). It's the NHK weekly drama that just finished up. Kanbe was the strategist that essentially put Hideyoshi in power. So, you have a 'Kanbe question'. The query-ee bows deeply and answers 'absolutely', with Kanbe quietly smiling. They both know the real truth.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Francis obviously likes it well enough to care about its weaknesses. I don't think he wants any of the weak point to eventual break.
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 -
He sure seems unhappy....Kinda like a bad marriage.Francis obviously likes it well enough to care about its weaknesses. I don't think he wants any of the weak point to eventual break.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Super, you're sounding like Kanbe (that's a complement).
Thanks.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Francis, Do you like Logos (the software program?)
I am hoping that Francis will answer you, soon.However, I believe the answer is yes he has liked Logos(and still does), but since he started working on a Phd he has begun to see Logos in a different light. Not, only have his scholarly needs grown and changed, but those in his field apparently aren't using Logos. And, I think Francis would like Logos to be taken more seriously in the academic world he now lives in. For me his post look a lot more like tough love than hate.
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
For me his post look a lot more like tough love than hate.
What BKMitchell said - and of course what Denise, MJ, and Dave have said.
"The Christian mind is the prerequisite of Christian thinking. And Christian thinking is the prerequisite of Christian action." - Harry Blamires, 1963
0 -
SuperTramp, I don't know why you persist in trying to question individuals at the personal level. This happened already among several users earlier in this thread and it should be clear by now that it is not constructive.
What I am interested in is seeing progress in the discussion but even progress there will be useless, unless it translates in tangible progress with regard to the issues.
I appreciate whatever I read of Sean Boisen's responses, the fact that he responds, the tone of his responses and the information he provides. Thank you, Sean. Overall though, I have yet to see a response from Logos that is commensurate to the issues this thread raises. "Good discussion. We appreciate the input. We will be working on some stuff" is not sufficient to communicate that the message has really gone through and reassure that there will be change. I reiterate what I said before, my concern is not with "lo, here is bug A" response: "thanks, we'll fix bug A in RC 5". My concern is with systemic issues and the overall situation. Personally, I would like to hear indications of change. Sean made an allusion to business decision earlier, this may actually be more the heart of the matter...
Finally, I am not sure that all users realize that Bible Software has become a professional tool now (not only Logos). It's not just for personal enjoyment, Bible study and preparing Sunday school classes (to charicature a bit). When you use something for work, you need it not to waste your time going round in circles. You need to do what it claims reliably and to have documentation that matches its claims. It's not a want, it's a must. Some issues sometimes is normal; many issues all the time is not.
0 -
Finally, I am not sure that all users realize that Bible Software has become a professional tool now (not only Logos). It's not just for personal enjoyment, Bible study and preparing Sunday school classes (to charicature a bit). When you use something for work, you need it not to waste your time going round in circles. You need to do what it claims reliably and to have documentation that matches its claims. It's not a want, it's a must. Some issues sometimes is normal; many issues all the time is not.
Excuse me. "Sunday school" aka Faith formation/Catechesis/RCIA deserves as much respect for the tools they need as the average sermon. If that is not true in your tradition you have my sympathy. To be prepared for the give and take of questions requires that you take preparation seriously.
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 -
When reading the forums I begin to feel we are like kids writing to Father Christmas (who lives in the northern Finland, and nowhere else) [G]
Recalling my days in the telecom software development, I received many wishes, suggestions and demands from the customers. We listed them, prioritized them, and implemented best of them (sometimes in a modified/improved manner). Just takes time. Slow coffee is better than instant coffee, if quality matters. [ip]
Gold package, and original language material and ancient text material, SIL and UBS books, discourse Hebrew OT and Greek NT. PC with Windows 11
0 -
I am not sure that all users realize that Bible Software has become a professional tool now
Francis, in the 70's someone said "let there be Gramcord" and "there was and it was good". In the beginning Bible software was created by professionals for professionals; not only did one need to know to Greek (Grammcord only had the GNT in the 70's) they need to know how to operate a mainframe.
חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי
0 -
in the 70's someone said "let there be Gramcord" and "there was and it was good". In the beginning Bible software was created by professionals for professionals; not only did one need to know to Greek (Gramcord only had the GNT in the 70's) they need to know how to operate a mainframe.
Well, this also reminds me for the good old days (1984) running Ethiopic script with the DEC machine in Africa for SIL. The worst thing was that the dictionary program was designed for a 128 kB memory and the computer in my use had only 64 kB. When printing the dictionary it stopped after a couple of hours, but I was able to start it again at the point it had stopped. One dictionary had to be ready for the linguist's conference next day. So I took my sleeping bag to the office and slept well when the dot matrix printer was printing, and I woke up when it stopped. Then I restarted the dictionary printing, and fell asleep again in the office, with the dot matrix printer humdrum in the background. [:)] The dictionary was ready by the morning, but the question is do the computers make our life easier?
Gold package, and original language material and ancient text material, SIL and UBS books, discourse Hebrew OT and Greek NT. PC with Windows 11
0 -
It's not just for personal enjoyment, Bible study and preparing Sunday school classes (to charicature a bit).
Francis, I understand that you are not meaning to devalue these pursuits. I believe your concerns merit attention. Thank you for continuing to share in this thread.
"The Christian mind is the prerequisite of Christian thinking. And Christian thinking is the prerequisite of Christian action." - Harry Blamires, 1963
0 -
When reading the forums I begin to feel we are like kids writing to Father Christmas (who lives in the northern Finland, and nowhere else)
Everyone knows he summers somewhere between Kemi and Trevola [;)]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
I can't imagine why anyone would defend Logos 6. I got it for free and I would most definitely have requested a refund had I paid for it. It has been a train wreck from the beginning. It seems that every update decreases performance.
Logos 4 was slow and buggy (Mac). Logos 5 came out and we received more features, greater stability, and an increase in performance. That is very difficult to do but Logos did it. Here is my question to Bob and Faithlife. What strategy, mindset, philosophy, prioritization changed that resulted in Logos 6. It seems like Logos sacrificed performance and stability on the altar of increased features and error prone datasets. If this is the new philosophy and future direction for Faithlife I would like to know it.
By the way, here is an example of incorrect data/tagging. Bug:אֱלוֹהַּ and Morphology chart.
0 -
By the way, here is an example of incorrect data that Logos has never responded to or fixed - Bug:אֱלוֹהַּ and Morphology chart.
Vincent is Logos responding even when he is logged in under an account that doesn't show the Logos icon.
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 -
Thanks MJ. I'll update my post.
0 -
Le chien aboie, la caravane passe? [^o)]
0 -
Take heart Francis.
"The Christian mind is the prerequisite of Christian thinking. And Christian thinking is the prerequisite of Christian action." - Harry Blamires, 1963
0 -
子犬を抱きしめ [&]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
...
Here is my question to Bob and Faithlife. What strategy, mindset, philosophy, prioritization changed that resulted in Logos 6. It seems like Logos sacrificed performance and stability on the altar of increased features and error prone datasets. If this is the new philosophy and future direction for Faithlife I would like to know it.
...
The presumption behind this comment seems to be that something systematic has changed: I don't think that's the case. In the 8 years I've been with Faithlife, we have always focused on creating new features for our users. We've always had more ideas that we've had resources to implement, so we've had to make hard decisions about how to prioritize them. New resources, features and datasets are how we keep our business going and continue to serve those who have invested in our product.
We've held up projects in the past because we felt they weren't ready. In other cases, we've shipped partial data as long as what's done is useful and we feel the feature works as advertised. We take on big challenges, and sometimes that means we have to re-adjust. For example, we planned to incorporate the entire Septuagint into Clause Search for Logos 6. That involved detailed manual corrections to syntax trees for thousands of clauses, as well as other work, and after we were several months into the project, it became clear we didn't have close to enough staff and calendar days left to accomplish it. So we decided to ship only the deuterocanonical portion, since that added new capabilities: the Hebrew Bible portion is now on hold until we determine whether it's feasible (both in terms of finances and staff). What we shipped was as correct as we knew how to make it, and I'm convinced it's useful even without the Hebrew Bible portion. I'd rather users have that capability now, rather than hold that up for some future date when we might have the entire LXX done.
Our mindset is this: we want to provide more useful data for our users. 5 years ago, we couldn't have imagined the Clause Search feature, much less providing syntax for the deuterocanonical portions of the LXX: we weren't ready, and it simply would have been too expensive a project, given our customer base. Now we've grown to a size where we can tackle such projects, and I believe they've offered important new capabilities to thousands of our users. But it's not a new direction.
That mindset presumes the data we've already shipped is useful. If you feel that our datasets are "bug-ridden", "error-prone", or "not usable", I'd honestly like to know which ones and why, so we can investigate. I ask for examples because that helps us know what to investigate: generalities aren't actionable. If we can find straightforward errors of analysis, I'm committed to doing our best to correct them. If you simply find our data isn't helpful, I'd still like to know: maybe we can find a way to make it more useful for you (or maybe we'll have to acknowledge that it's just designed for a different segment of our user base).
I think of it much more like purchasing a resource e.g. Jurgens or Andersen-Forbes or Strong's or Louw-Nida. I expect such resources to be very clear as to precisely what their coding means, what aspects of language/Bible they code, and the various indices within the resource interact. I expect a professor, hermeneutics book, linguistics book or friendly pastor to show me how to interpret and use that information. Because much of the implied hermeneutics of Logos reflect a hermeneutics that I cannot subscribe to, I do not want Logos/Verbum to tell me how to interpret and use the data they provide for me. However, I do respect the scholarship of the teams building the datasets, trust them as legitimate sources and want them to tell me exactly what their tags mean and don't mean.
These are reasonable expectations, and we will work to provide documentation that addresses them.
And yes, my understanding of case frames owes much more to Martha Palmer and Charles Fillmore than Logos resources.
The same is true for us: neither we nor Danove invented the kind of analysis our case frames reflect (I know MJ is already aware of this, but others may not be). These are significant and challenging linguistic issues, and our task is generally finding the right practical application of theoretical frameworks to Biblical data. We don't often undertake innovation in the academic or theoretical realm itself (the Greek and Hebrew products from our Discourse Team are a valuable exception). But we will work to include links to appropriate reference material in our documentation, so users will know which other sources provide important theoretical background.
0 -
Thanks Sean for stopping the caravan and not being indifferent toward our barking.[&]
"The Christian mind is the prerequisite of Christian thinking. And Christian thinking is the prerequisite of Christian action." - Harry Blamires, 1963
0 -
It seems like Logos sacrificed performance and stability
When it comes to performance and stability problems, I'd echo Sean's comment:
I ask for examples because that helps us know what to investigate: generalities aren't actionable.
I see that you've posted (at least) one specific bug report: https://community.logos.com/forums/t/96496.aspx. I believe this is the same as https://community.logos.com/forums/t/97189.aspx, which has already been fixed internally; it doesn't look like the fix is in 6.0b but I've just submitted a request to ensure we deliver the fix ASAP.
When it comes to performance problems, it's sometimes a general problem in the program itself, and sometimes a problem with your specific resources or documents. Unfortunately, it's very hard to diagnose performance issues from a forum post. Fortunately, the Mac logging utility has a feature to collect a "sample"; this lets the developers know exactly what is slowing down the application and create a targeted bug fix.
I'd recommend that you first update to 6.0b RC 2, or wait for it to ship as the stable release to all users (which should be soon), so you're running the latest code. Then reproduce a performance problem, collect a sample, and post the log files in a new thread with a clear subject line. That will give us the best chance to analyse that specific problem and see if we can reproduce and fix it.
0 -
Ok, Bradley. To avoid another thread titled 'Logos6 is so [fill in the blank]', here's a specific example (Sean can take a break; this is L6 performance).
wivucgraphs
2009-03-24T22:03:00Z
wivucgraphs.lbxclvThis resource has been a great bell-weather of Logos performance every since L4 was released. I just tried it over on Libronix, it pages quickly, redraws quickly, opens quickly, and also stands on its head when requested. On Logos4, it could barely move. This went on thru the various L4 updates. Then L5 came along, and it seemed to have woken up. I even linked to my other OT resources, on my OT window. It didn't slow anybody down. Now L6 comes along, and the situation is very similar to L4 ... very slow to open, doesn't respond to pageups/downs, and so forth. I had to de-link it, since OT Bible study had really pretty much stopped.
You've already noted in your mind that it's an oldie. I know you. That's not the point. The point is the L5 knew what to do; L6 doesn't. What did L6 unlearn?
Now, even after de-linking L6 is still slow, though admittedly a hair faster the L4. But I pretty much avoid using it, since Bible study isn't meant to be software study.
But I AM looking forward (somewhat supiciously) to Sean's commitment to documentation.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
wivucgraphs
2009-03-24T22:03:00Z
wivucgraphs.lbxclvCan you email this file to logosbugs@logos.com?
0 -
Done; I checked to compare the files on my Libronix (XP) to Logos6 (W7); they match exactly.
EDIT: I'll take that back; Google says too big. But it's the same file from your server.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
I have cut and pasted selections from the thread to show a certain pattern. Of course, this is selective, otherwise it would just reproduce the whole deal. Statements of satisfaction are not included -- not to deny them -- but because this is not the point I am trying to make. The point I am trying to make is simply this: look at the many users here (incl. a good number of long-time, high-proficiency users) who are saying 1) we noticed a sustained downward trend as far as quality (not innovation!) is concerned 2) that is a real cause of concern and 3) this is systemic. Many more concerns of this kind are found in many threads and have been for quite a while.
Is Logos so broke it must release stuff asap or die and thus considers it better overall to release incomplete or error-filled, bug-ridden products?
Luke 14:28-30 also comes to mind.
I also wish Logos would make quality control a higher priority.
I would find it difficult to rely on results from Faithlife-created datasets and tagging for the same reason. With much of Faithlife's future developmental effort going into creating theses new datasets, I hope they aren't shooting themselves in the foot by creating a reputation of delivering unreliable and missing data.
The sad part is the misplaced dreams. I was really hoping the Logos databases, the Proclaim platform, the Faithlife community product, the mobiles, and oh yes, the dating game ... the ecosystem (as Logos calls it) ... had great promise. But each piece is not well designed and always incomplete.
That has been a concern of mine for some years and particularly with software for Logos 5.1+, Logos 6.0 Beta and 6.0a, 6.0b betas. Complex datasets have always been a concern starting (for me) with OpenText on Logos 3, then Clause Search, BSL, People/Place/Thing tagging, and Referent tagging in Logos 5 followed by the new datasets in Logos 6. OpenText was so buggy it probably drove Logos down the path of doing its own datasets and being able to manage both development and maintenance (parallel to managing their own bibles). LCV (topics) in Logos 4 was the signal for Faithlife wanting to manage data for a better experience in searching. Now we see LCO (Cultural Concepts), Literary Typing, Semantic Roles and Case Frames which are quite complex in the way they are applied to resource text.
The question of trust arises in the design and intended application of datasets. Whilst quality control (QC) is important in their management, most errors are due to human error/interpretation in applying the (bible-based) data. Do I trust Clause Search -- No! Do I use it - Yes. Would I recommend it - No.
The QC of the software and the direction of development showed a marked down turn in latter part of Logos 5. The Logos 6.0 beta showed that Faithlife could not keep up with the bug reports, or wanted developers to interpret what was important to them. The lack of response in the forums and the silly errors in the 6.0a/6.0b betas is indicative.
Some users will keep quiet after a while; some users will make a personal spending decision. Expecting regular users to take up the slack is just too much.
Francis, I agree that the QA is inadequate. The number of resources that have been released then sent back for basic coding is not acceptable. Examples" the BCP without the Psalm links (Latin names rather than Psalm number), Faith of the Fathers without the link to the index that provides the primary value, the number of liturgy books not tagged to appear in the liturgy section ... those are just ones I complained about. I also agree that the Faithlife fall back on an overall error rate and their lack of time to manually check each resource is a poor excuse. At the start of each resource's development a check list of required flags for processing, indexing noting special features etc. etc. ought to be made and ought to follow the resource and manage the workflow. But I do think we have to have realistic expectations and recognize our own position in the process.
The ultimate frustration is that Faithlife have been doing resource metadata for over a decade and it still isn't consistent and right! I don't look forward to this as an example for correcting the newer datasets!
Also there are two levels at which these issue can be addressed. On a case by case bases - and yes logging errors is a good approach to this. But it takes effort away from what we as customers should really be doing - using and enjoying the product - and being empowered better to be about service.
The other level is drawing attention to a "general" need for Faithlife to sharpen and refocus their activities if they wish the retain and promote an enthusiastic user base.
What's "funny" in a VERY sad way is: The folks who are not complaining. When L6 was intro'd I upgraded to a very large package. I test drove it for a month and could not justify keeping it. Simply too buggy. I knew if I complained , I would just be chastised by the fanboys. So I quietly returned it. I suspect there are many others who did the same. Faithlife will see the trend in their sales/return numbers. I just hope it's not too late.
I just want Logos 6 to do what it says on the tin. I just want my Logos program to work as it says it will. that's not seeking perfection – just adequate functionality.
I think it would be in everyone's interests to have a stable, reliable engine that just works. Then all those existing resources, datasets and functions would work without falling over, freezing, etc.
I need Logos to work every time. As it is I spend a considerable amount of time every week when I should be working on the Bible text for Bible Study and Sermon Preparation, just trying to get things to work!
Critical bugs are easy because anybody can detect them and the 'crash' has to be fixed. But QA has to ensure there is a program to detect less severe bugs and have them fixed before the software is released. This is usually called the Alpha process, but the 'Beta' process is commonly used in its place these days and I don't think it is acceptable for users to pick up silly errors or find that features are unusable when they are not mentioned in the Release Notes i.e. when they are unrelated (as far as the user knows) to the bugs being fixed or features being implemented.
Testing is the art of finding the bugs that are inherent in software and it is accepted that there will be latent/hidden bugs even after the most rigorous of testing programs. But I find it unacceptable that known bugs are ignored, new bugs are not acknowledged and that developer preferences override user/customer requests!
So you can bag Windows for its 'security' issues but MS doesn't compromise essential usability to the extent that I (and others) perceive in Logos, and I won't mention what Apple does to its customers... (also remember that I'm not talking about platform preferences).
I could say that Faithlife have lost the perspective of their customers' needs since Logos 5 and you only have to read the forums on indexing issues to get some insight on that matter.
Is all this being critical or negative? That can be the perception, but if it is based on facts then it should be regarded more objectively. At least that has been my aim and that of the OP. I trust Faithlife to listen and I trust Faithlife to be using their product, but I can overcome most of the technical issues (crashes!) that come my way whilst others simply cannot.
And usability also comes down to documentation; particularly for the new Logos 6 tagging and search features.
they are willing to deliver incomplete and unreliable product
That said people who buy 6 should not be used virtually as beta testers. To want to jump into a new feature like the atlas and find that is not complete feels amateurish (LOGOS/VERBUM 6 were/are in ways incomplete, it was made known that this was the case, but I ask WHY release it before being done, you must know there will be complaints). A springtime launch would not have been the end of the earth. I do feel the "Quality Control" was less than stellar for 6.... I would hope in the future Faithlife would wait till the product is more stable and datasets/features more complete.
Then when Bob asked right after the release of Logos 6 what we wanted in Logos 7, he said: "Wait -- I already know the answer! "Fix annoying-thing in Logos 6 first!" :-)"And I know that he thought that that was funny, but I didn't. And don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong with "blue skying" and planning for the future; in fact it is needed. BUT there is a time and place for that. And what is needed first is to get the quality of the Logos software back where it used to be. You can still be innovative, but at a high standard of quality.
I am heavily invested in Logos and so there is basically "no turning back" for me and I realize this. But I don't recommend Logos to others now. It is too complicated for the new person and there is not good documentation for the average user. Yes, I know that there are plenty of places to track down the information to learn about the software, such as the forum, but the average or new user will not do that.
I AM concerned with what has been happening the last few years.
gradually through the years I have seen the quality of what was being released become less of what it used to be. It is not that they were being "less innovative." It is just that the quality was not up to the same standard.
Strongly agree with Charlene. Very buggy.
Please don't release new software every 2 years!
Please!
Motto: "Perform as advertised."
I can't imagine why anyone would defend Logos 6. I got it for free and I would most definitely have requested a refund had I paid for it. It has been a train wreck from the beginning. It seems that every update decreases performance.
Logos 4 was slow and buggy (Mac). Logos 5 came out and we received more features, greater stability, and an increase in performance. That is very difficult to do but Logos did it. Here is my question to Bob and Faithlife. What strategy, mindset, philosophy, prioritization changed that resulted in Logos 6. It seems like Logos sacrificed performance and stability on the altar of increased features and error prone datasets. If this is the new philosophy and future direction for Faithlife I would like to know it.
The presumption behind this comment seems to be that something systematic has changed: I don't think that's the case. In the 8 years I've been with Faithlife, we have always focused on creating new features for our users. We've always had more ideas that we've had resources to implement, so we've had to make hard decisions about how to prioritize them. New resources, features and datasets are how we keep our business going and continue to serve those who have invested in our product.
That mindset presumes the data we've already shipped is useful. If you feel that our datasets are "bug-ridden", "error-prone", or "not usable", I'd honestly like to know which ones and why, so we can investigate. I ask for examples because that helps us know what to investigate: generalities aren't actionable. If we can find straightforward errors of analysis,
When it comes to performance and stability problems, I'd echo Sean's comment:
I ask for examples because that helps us know what to investigate: generalities aren't actionable.
I think that what many users would like to hear (and actually see) is something like this: "Yes, we acknowledge that unfortunately many users have had a frustrating experience. We are starting a process to get to the bottom of how we have gotten there and what we need to do differently so that this cycle does not continue".
Not: "if you want to have a better experience, the onus is on you to do the required quality control work in our place, being guinea pigs and spending your time reporting bugs, sending logs, contacting tech support, and figuring things out on the forum, wiki or on your own. We think that it is perfectly normal that so many of our users spend hours doing this week in and week out in order to be able to have normal use of our software".
In other words, Faithlife, you need to acknowledge what has been happening, do your own homework and stop turning tables on us.
0 -
Ryan
You have totally missed the point. My main problem is not resources; it's the Logos 6 engine/datasets that misfire constantly. I just want Logos to work. I really need it to work. I am a working minister. I have weekly deadlines to meet. I spend too much time just trying to get Logos to do simple stuff – no fancy searches or esoteric functions.
I haven't done any academic work with Logos for months now, because its search results just aren't reliable for academic writing, and it is taking so long just to produce the bread-and-butter of sermon and bible study preparation that I can't find the time. I look forward to Logos just working! Then I'll be back to full blast.
Every blessing
Alan
PS I'm on record as saying that I could not have completed my PhD as a part-time postgrad who was a full-time minister without the power and time-saving abilities of Logos. Of course, I was talking about Libronix, which in my experience – just worked.
iMac Retina 5K, 27": 3.6GHz 8-Core Intel Core i9; 16GB RAM;MacOS 10.15.5; 1TB SSD; Logos 8
MacBook Air 13.3": 1.8GHz; 4GB RAM; MacOS 10.13.6; 256GB SSD; Logos 8
iPad Pro 32GB WiFi iOS 13.5.1
iPhone 8+ 64GB iOS 13.5.1
0 -
Seal my lips! Libby just works! I was over there just minutes ago checking out Reuben's family tree (which Libby reports 6 sons; not 4 or 5 ... I think Eliab's hebrew might be confusing).
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
Ok, Bradley. To avoid another thread titled 'Logos6 is so [fill in the blank]', here's a specific example (Sean can take a break; this is L6 performance).
wivucgraphs
2009-03-24T22:03:00Z
wivucgraphs.lbxclvThis resource has been a great bell-weather of Logos performance every since L4 was released. I just tried it over on Libronix, it pages quickly, redraws quickly, opens quickly, and also stands on its head when requested. On Logos4, it could barely move. This went on thru the various L4 updates. Then L5 came along, and it seemed to have woken up. I even linked to my other OT resources, on my OT window. It didn't slow anybody down. Now L6 comes along, and the situation is very similar to L4 ... very slow to open, doesn't respond to pageups/downs, and so forth. I had to de-link it, since OT Bible study had really pretty much stopped.
Thanks for the specific problem report. Performance improvements for this resource will be included in the next beta.
(FWIW, the code for displaying this resource hasn't changed since Logos 4. I can only hypothesise that you saw a speed-up in Logos 5 due to the move to .NET 4.5, and saw a slowdown in Logos 6 due to the switch to 64-bit. We've identified a performance bottleneck in the .NET Framework that's causing this to be slow and have developed a workaround in the next beta.)
0
