Like clicking in slow motion
I have the beta installed on my 4 1/2 year old Thinkpad T42p. I don't really have issues with search speeds or indexing speeds. But I'm really having trouble with the interface's responsiveness.
It takes more than a second for a window to close after clicking the X. When I grab the scrollbar in a resource and pull it down, it takes upward of 2 seconds for the window to catch up with my mouse. Just about anything that uses a window control takes around a second to respond to the mouse.
Other things seem fine: Typing in fields is not a problem. The resource menu (clicking on the book cover) is pretty responsive. Navigating a book with the TOC is also decent.
My Thinkpad is a Pentium M 2.0 GHz with 2GB RAM. I have not experienced this trouble running other apps, including LDLS3. Am I outside of the performance envelope?
MacBook Pro (2019), ThinkPad E540
Comments
-
Hi Todd,
We have noted these performance issues, and do plan to do some optimization in the future. As new updates come out, please let us know if you see improvements (or deterioration) in performance.
Thanks, Melissa
0 -
Todd,
Just about everything in 4.0 is slow. Right now it could be called Four Point Slow instead of 4.0. Major, repeat, major improvements must be made in this area.
Pastor, North Park Baptist Church
Bridgeport, CT USA
0 -
Mark A. Smith said:
Todd,
Just about everything in 4.0 is slow. Right now it could be called Four Point Slow instead of 4.0. Major, repeat, major improvements must be made in this area.
Hi Mark,
Slow performance in 4.0 isn't standard behavior. What are your system specs? Are you running it on a Mac in a virtual Windows machine? Is Indexing still running?
Melissa
0 -
Mark A. Smith said:
Right now it could be called Four Point Slow
Mark, how old is your system? XP or Vista?
Our target for great performance is 2 years old or newer. (Though laptop/desktop/memory, etc. do make a difference, too.)
0 -
I have a machine purchased in September 2007. It is a Dell Inspiron laptop with a 2.0 GHz Core Duo processor and 2GB of RAM running Vista Business Edition with all the upgrades.
The trouble is that while I understood 4.0 to be faster it is actually slower than 3.0 in most ways. Right clicking takes a long time to bring up a menu, panes often take a long time to close (see my recent crash reports, as now they don't seem to want to close well at all), the time to generate a search report makes the whole search process slower than 3.0 (even if the search itself might be faster). Opening the Library takes a little more time in 4.0. Opening a resource from the library takes considerably longer. For example: MacArthur's commentary on Galatians takes less than a second to open in 3.0 and takes 7 seconds in 4.0 (as do most resources). The time to generate a somewhat comparable passage guide report to 3.0 is no faster, perhaps a bit slower.
I will acknowledge that I am running a seven pane layout with about 36 resources and tools open in 4.0. However I regularly use a setup in 3.0 with six pane layout and 29 resources and tools open and that setup is not as sluggish as the 4.0 setup. It is the one I am using to time against 4.0.
I am about within your target group for great performance. My opinion is that I am getting poor performance: too slow to use regularly.
Pastor, North Park Baptist Church
Bridgeport, CT USA
0 -
Bob, Melissa, and Team,
I am having similar issues, and mine have gotten worse since Beta 2. In fact, when the program is open it seems to slow my entire system down. I need to test some more and will be able to do that tomorrow.
I will include the specs too - I need to just add that to my sig. My "real" test machine is at the church. FWIW, it is a fairly new computer with good specs. I did just order more memory. I have 1gb now. I will see if that helps next week.
But as a general statement, Beta 2 is slower than Beta 1 on all 3 machines that I have it installed. Very similar to Todd's description above.
Jerry
iMac (2019 model), 3Ghz 6 Core Intel i5, 16gb Ram, Radeon Pro Graphics. 500GB SSD.
0 -
What sort of a performance difference will extra memory make to the running of 4.0
I know that improvements in speed are still being worked on, but I would definitely describe my experience as less than "average". And I know that Bob is well aware that while many Netbooks meet the criterion "less than 2 years old" most are insufficient to the task of running 4.0 well (at the moment).
0 -
As a follow-up to above, I have included my specs below on the machine that I agreed to test on.
Just as a quick test, I clicked on the search icon; it took 10+ seconds to open. Then I searched for a term, and it took and reported 12 seconds to do a one-word search.
That's pretty slow.
JerryiMac (2019 model), 3Ghz 6 Core Intel i5, 16gb Ram, Radeon Pro Graphics. 500GB SSD.
0 -
I have also experienced the slow reaction. Scrolling is very slow. Opening Logos 4 is slow but better with beta 2. Searching has been very fast. My system is a one year old Lenovo notebook:
windows vista, intel coe 2 duo, 3 GB ram, 1.80 GHZ, 32 bit
0 -
Damian McGrath said:
What sort of a performance difference will extra memory make to the running of 4.0
I don't really know the answer to this so I should just shut up, but I won't [;)] It has long been my habit to max out memory on a machine at upgrade time because RAM is the one component that has the greatest influence on overall system performance. If you can increase RAM, go ahead and do it.
Sarcasm is my love language. Obviously I love you. 0 -
Thanks Thomas,
I'm pretty sure it will make a difference and I know that I can add 1GB to both machines. Next month I'll be in the city again and it will be easy (and cheaper) to organise such an upgrade.
I have noticed a big performance difference in the indexing between my two computers based on the fact (I think) that the notebook has a faster Hard Drive than the netbook. Sadly, I don't think I can change the Hard Drive on the netbook - easily anyway.
0 -
I just changed layouts and it took just a little over 10 seconds.
JerryiMac (2019 model), 3Ghz 6 Core Intel i5, 16gb Ram, Radeon Pro Graphics. 500GB SSD.
0 -
Pastor Jerry Bush said:
I just changed layouts and it took just a little over 10 seconds.
JerryYes I'm finding that as my usage gets more complex and I have more windows open, I find myself waiting more and more for simple things like opening a new resource.
MacBook Pro (2019), ThinkPad E540
0 -
Pastor Jerry Bush said:
As a follow-up to above, I have included my specs below on the machine that I agreed to test on.
Just as a quick test, I clicked on the search icon; it took 10+ seconds to open. Then I searched for a term, and it took and reported 12 seconds to do a one-word search.
That's pretty slow.
JerryInteresting I'm running Beta1 from the DVD on my Acer laptop, 2.0GHz Core 2 Duo, 2 GB RAM, Win XP. The Resources and Search I opened and closed took about 3 secs. But it all means nothing unless Logos can come up with a standard test that we all perform on the same logos4 configuration (e.g. Beta 2), with known foreground tasks also running, etc, and they may have to make allowance for the no. of resources we have or other differences (tagging, rating) that cannot be controlled but are known to have an impact. Then again, it may be sufficient to know it is faster/slower than v3 (where already installed) in some metrics!
Dave
===Windows 11 & Android 13
0 -
Yesterday on my Quad Core with 8 GB of Ram and 7200 rpm 1 GB WD hard drive and nvidia geforce 8500 system, it was adequate in speed on startup but after use for about an hour it began to crawl. Is there a memory leak causing it to slow down with usage. I also noted that the overall system performance degraded till I rebooted. I have never experienced this with this system and the only new software installed in the last week is Logos v. 4.slow (sorry couldn't resist). Strangely, on my laptop, right now with it indexing, it is running about the same speed as it was on my desktop w/o indexing. I have a core 2 duo with 4 GB of ram on the laptop and only a 5400 rpm drive and Intel integrated graphics.
Dr. Kevin Purcell, Director of Missions
Brushy Mountain Baptist Association0 -
Ver 4 does seem to respond very slowly. It often gives the (not responding) warning and then in a minute or so it gets to where it was supposed to go. Will the program become become a little more responsive as the build process continues?
0 -
Kevin, I noticed something like that last night. At one point I had the right click menus coming up in about a second. Later they were back to the 6-8 second range I am used to. I really didn't do a lot in-between. Strange behavior to me.
Pastor, North Park Baptist Church
Bridgeport, CT USA
0 -
My experience over the last couple of days has been like Kevin's. The longer the program is open, the slower it gets. The longer the program is open, the slower my system is to respond. I had the program open for about an hour, when I ran a search for the word "money" in all Bibles.
As you can see in the attached screen shot, it took over 2 minutes. That's pretty slow.
Nothing else was running, no downloads, no indexing, nothing.
Jerry
iMac (2019 model), 3Ghz 6 Core Intel i5, 16gb Ram, Radeon Pro Graphics. 500GB SSD.
0 -
BTW, V3 is running very quickly and happy on this machine, unless v4 is open.
Jerry
iMac (2019 model), 3Ghz 6 Core Intel i5, 16gb Ram, Radeon Pro Graphics. 500GB SSD.
0 -
Pastor Jerry Bush said:
My experience over the last couple of days has been like Kevin's. The longer the program is open, the slower it gets. The longer the program is open, the slower my system is to respond.
Jerry,
I was getting really frustrated over the slowness factor here after running L4 for about 20 hours. I just closed, waited and reopened and then reloaded my layout. its moving much better now.
There is definitely a memory leak. Before shutting down Task manager showed Logo4.exe using over 364,000K of ram, now it's uisng 130,424 of ram. Big difference.
Sarcasm is my love language. Obviously I love you. 0 -
Pastor Black,
Yes, I agree there must be a memory leak of some kind. After I sent my last post, I shut v4 down, and then did a few things. My system increased in speed quite a lot, but not totally.
Then I rebooted Windows. When it was up and running again, my system is zipping along happily. I have not re-opened v4 yet, and everything is going along nicely. After I get some real work done, I will do some more testing.
Jerry
p.s. to Pastor Black - are you coming down to the thing in Olney? I know about it, and one of my good friends is helping with the organization of it. I don't know any of the speakers though. I may fill in on that Sunday morning for my friend, as he may need to be at the conference. Our church schedules are such that I can preach at my church and then be over there if needed. We trade like that sometimes. In any event, if you are coming to Olney, let me know and we can go out for an ice cream or something.
iMac (2019 model), 3Ghz 6 Core Intel i5, 16gb Ram, Radeon Pro Graphics. 500GB SSD.
0 -
Jerry It's not looking like I'll Make the Olney trip this time. But we might have to do something about it later.
Sarcasm is my love language. Obviously I love you. 0 -
I've done a little more timing and investigation.
After a reboot with no other programs open and my normal suspects running in the background, it took 88 seconds from the time I double clicked the 4.0 icon until the program was opened and synchronization was completed. That is much longer than when I timed it after having opened and closed it a couple of times. The time for a second opening was about 40 seconds. (I open to a blank set-up, no home page.)
On right clicking in an English Bible the time to open the right click menu is about 1 second and it is 3 seconds until I see the full and final display. If I turn sympathetic highlighting off the time drops to about 2 seconds for a full display. Note that in doing this test I did not select text and then right click. I simply place the pointer over the word I want and right click.
Right clicking on a Greek NT (NA27 w/Gramcord morph) takes 6 seconds to a full display with sympathetic highlighting turned on and 3 seconds without.
So if I turn off sympathetic highlighting, my right click times are pretty acceptable. This takes into account the fact the the 4.0 right click menus while coming up slower, are much easier to navigate, so overall time of use is much better. I am not getting the 6-8 second right click times I did just yesterday (and previously). It would be nice if something could be done to mitigate the extra load sympathetic highlighting seems to be creating.
Cycling through parallel resources is also functioning more quickly. There is a lag on the first click to the first resource on the list but after that it goes quickly.
I have loaded other programs (including 3.0) and so far notice no degradation in speed.
Pastor, North Park Baptist Church
Bridgeport, CT USA
0 -
Well it is now a few hours later and I haven't changed my set-up but right click menus are again taking about 8 seconds to bring up.
Pastor, North Park Baptist Church
Bridgeport, CT USA
0 -
I really like the new changes in v4 - a huge supporter of the direction you guys are taking us.
But I also have to do work. [;)]
I am finding myself going back to v3 to do actual work and then opening v4 when I have time to mess around. I know you need me to be doing actual work for good testing, but I can't do that until the slowness is addressed.
Not complaining really, just saying that this is a real issue for me on all 3 computers I am trying this on.
Beta 3 anytime soon?
Jerry
iMac (2019 model), 3Ghz 6 Core Intel i5, 16gb Ram, Radeon Pro Graphics. 500GB SSD.
0 -
Pastor Jerry Bush said:
I am finding myself going back to v3 to do actual work and then opening v4 when I have time to mess around. I know you need me to be doing actual work for good testing, but I can't do that until the slowness is addressed.
Me, too. I wish I could have 4.0 set-up and running more like 3.0 then I could use it more. Will still keep working with 4.0, though, when I have more time. It's a beta. No unexpected.
Pastor, North Park Baptist Church
Bridgeport, CT USA
0
