Logos 64 bit

This may have been covered in another post, but I was unable to find it.

Does Logos plan on going to 64 bit on Mac? I do not know the nuances of 32 vs 64 bit and how it handles memory, but was under the impression that 32 bit apps can only utilize a certain portion of memory (say 4GB?).

If Logos were a 64 bit, would that allow for greater utilization of memory and this improve the speed a bit? Just curious.

Also, are there any plans to allow Logos to become full screen in Lion?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Patrick S.

Unfortunately any discussion on possible performance enhancements for Logos 4 going 64 bit are a bit moot as it appears that it is not likely to happen for quite some time (years?) because there are — particularly for Logos 4 Mac — a number of roadblocks stopping it happening.

The .NET Framework used in building Logos 4 is stuck on an old version, and Logos 4 Mac uses the Mono cross-platform compatibility layer to run Windows (.NET) software on the Mac.

Basically... don't hold your breath.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

Also, are there any plans to allow Logos to become full screen in Lion?

Option: can vote for Logos User Voice suggestion => Logos 4 Mac Enhancements that is now ranked # 28 with 119 votes: needs 32 more votes to move to first page => http://logos.uservoice.com/pages/42823-logos-bible-software-4

Does Logos plan on going to 64 bit on Mac? I do not know the nuances of 32 vs 64 bit and how it handles memory, but was under the impression that 32 bit apps can only utilize a certain portion of memory (say 4GB?).

On 31 Aug 2010, a Logos developer elaborated about 64 bit => http://community.logos.com/forums/p/22045/167346.aspx#167346

A 64-bit build of Logos 4 would probably eliminate Out of Memory Exceptions because it would increase the available address space from 2GB to 16TB. (Even if you have 32GB of RAM, Logos 4 is limited to 2GB due to the limitations of 32-bit processes, and the actual limit is closer to 1GB due to the overhead of .NET and other DLLs that are loaded.) However, allowing the application to use an (effectively) unlimited amount of memory isn't necessarily a good idea; on most systems it could cause a huge amount of paging, which would drastically slow down the application. Additionally, slowly leaking memory would slow down each .NET garbage collection, causing the application to run slower and slower over time. Sticking with a 32-bit process is probably better because it requires us to keep our long-term memory usage low, leading to an overall better application.

Furthermore, in a 64-bit process, each pointer (or reference, in .NET) is 64 bits, rather than 32, which (simplistically) doubles the memory usage of the application. The 32-bit process might run just fine on a computer with 2GB of RAM, but the 64-bit process could require 3-4GB just to achieve the same performance. This may not be a big concern once all new desktop computers are shipping with 8GB+ of RAM, but it's still an issue right now.

It's not clear that running a 64-bit process delivers obvious immediate performance gains. In some cases, loading and processing 32-bit data incurs a performance penalty.

Finally, it complicates the installer (and doubles the download size!) to deliver both 32-bit and 64-bit builds of the application. We may consider it again in future, but right now, delivering a single 32-bit build of the application seems like the optimal approach.

Logos 4 Mac discussion => 32 bit application included Logos developer response on 22 May 2011 referring back to Bradley's reasoning for 32 bit application. Not know if Logos plans to reconsider 64 bit. Looking at many Logos4.log files on Mac and PC, have seen Logos 4 application doing its own "paging" for search hits by writing to temporary file(s); wondering about Logos 4 performance with a RAM disk for temporary files.

Observation: for Mac OS X, Logos could migrate to 64 bit application since Leopard (10.5), Snow Leopard (10.6), and Lion (10.7) can run 64 bit applications. Windows is technically challenging for Logos applications because a 64 bit application cannot run on 32 bit Windows; hence need 32 bit and 64 bit application configurations (until Logos user community migrates to 64 bit Windows or Mac OS X).

Keep Smiling [:)]

Ben

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/294189#Comment_294189

"Logos 4 is limited to 2GB"

Does that apply to Macs as well?

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/294198#Comment_294198

"Logos 4 is limited to 2GB"

Does that apply to Macs as well?

Yes, Logos 4 Mac is a 32 bit application.

Wondering about Logos 4 performance with a RAM disk for temporary files.

For technically inclined, found a blog => http://blog.philippklaus.de/2011/04/ssd-optimizations-on-mac-os-x/ with links in Resources section that has potential for copy and modification to create a RAM disk for Logos 4 temporary files (plus RAM disks for other uses, help avoid unneeded SSD usage).

Keep Smiling [:)]

Fr. Charles R. Matheny

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/294208#Comment_294208

Wow! Lets see here, and reason a bit: If Bradley is correct then we have all had the wool pulled over our yes and are thus blind. 64 bit is bad, all systems should go back to 32 bit, or 16, or 8, because having the higher numbers means bad things, uncontrollable writing to Ram and such.

At this point, the majority of Operating Systems and Software Companies have made huge mistakes, wasted billions in software development and continued to lead their customer base down this road of 64bit mistakes.

Other software companies ( some in the same field as logos ) certainly need to read his letter so they can return from the hard and stance land of 64bit back to the safety and stability of 32, 16, 8, 4 Bit architecture. Doing so will fix everything, we should stay away from that horrible Ram Eating 64 bit stuff.

Now does that actually make sense to anyone?

No, it's not a technical piece, it's an excuse.

The majority of the software world is already 64 bit "because" it gives better control and use of everything, including ram. You have more address room, thus you have room to write more precise code. The developer has "more" control over what goes to ram, how it goes, how its held, how long, what triggers what-so forth and so on.

Good Grief Charlie Brown.

Rusty+

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/294461#Comment_294461

Rusty -

This entire conversation is over my head, so I can't add much to the conversation. I am curious, however, about one comment you made. You wrote:

The majority of the software world is already 64 bit

Is this true? I don't think most software is 64 bit yet, but again, most of this conversation is above my head. [:)]

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/294461#Comment_294461

No, it's not a technical piece, it's an excuse.

It's not an excuse, and it does make sense. It seems you haven't fully understood what Bradley is saying. The only value in increasing the number of bits is that it allows you to address more memory. There's almost no other benefit. An OS needs to be able to address all the memory in a system, so obviously OSs are all moving to 64-bits. But at the moment, applications generally don't need to address more memory than 32-bit operations give them (2Gb), and therefore are better off staying at 32-bit which is more efficient for lower RAM use.

Once it's normal for systems for have (say) 8-16Gb RAM, then programmers will start adding more memory hungry features that will require a 64-bit space. But programmers won't do that until they're confident a majority of the systems can cope. So for a few more years yet, most applications will be 32-bit. I have almost no 64-bit applications on my computer, and the ones I do have are only 64-bit because they need to interact with the system at a deep level (e.g. my virus checker). Microsoft still recommend 32-bit Office on 64-bit systems (unless you want to work with files that are more than 2Gb): http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee681792.aspx

Bob Pritchett

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/294461#Comment_294461

The other issue is that some code needs to be re-written for 64-bit compatibility, and we use quite a few bits of code written and maintained by others. Some of this code isn't yet ported to 64-bit, and it's a better use of our resources to wait for that to happen -- which it will -- than to do the port for every module ourselves. (And it'll be easier for the company/person who wrote it, than for people who don't know it.)

Patrick S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/294471#Comment_294471

Sigh...

Sorry but I disagree with some of the comments being said about 64 bit processing — operating system and applications.

64 bit is, and will be, better than 32 bit. For CPU's, OS + Applications. Always, full stop.
I have lots of 64 bit applications running on my Mac machine (see screenshot below). From big 'memory eaters' like Photoshop through to simple utilities like SpamSieve.
Don't believe what Microsoft tells you. Why do they say use 32 bit apps? Because their OS can't 'mix and match' — you can't have a 32 bit version of Windows OS running 64 bit applications. Windows (which still has lots of old legacy code in it) isn't smart enough to be able to do it, OS X is.
Apple, starting with Leopard (which has a 32 bit kernel) allowed running of 64 bit apps on 64 bit processors. Snow Leopard has a 64 bit kernel on capable 64 bit processors. It supported running 32 bit or 64 bit applications. Lion is 64 bit kernel only and will only run on capable 64 bit processors.
The discussion on address space and memory and 'dire warnings' about 64 bit is a smoke screen. 64 bit processors have built in 64 bit addressing. 64 bit addressing is their standard & optimum way of working.
Intel (and AMD) have been shipping as standard 64 bit processors for a number of years. I don't personally know if Intel still makes 32 bit processors but for desktops and notebooks it's definitely 64 bit. The hardware has been ahead of the software for a.... long time. Some computer companies have had a good migration plan one OS company — because they rely on hardware companies who all hate it — have had some problems (cough, no names mentioned but we know who they both are).
I'm sorry but statements like "slowly leaking memory would slow down each .NET garbage collection, causing the application to run slower and slower over time" as basis for saying not to go to 64 bit are just wrong. Memory leaks are a result of badly written software. "Memory leaks are a common error in programming" (my emphasis) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_leak.
There are other benefits besides speed to moving to a complete 64 bit platform http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#Pros_and_cons
Logos 4 (Windows and especially Mac) is stuck in 32 bit land because of limitations of different software platforms used, .NET and Mono. That's it.

Finally... if 64 bit is so bad... then why are all major software vendors — OS and applications — moving towards it. Answer — because it is better.

Patrick S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/294208#Comment_294208

For technically inclined, found a blog => http://blog.philippklaus.de/2011/04/ssd-optimizations-on-mac-os-x/ with links in Resources section that has potential for copy and modification to create a RAM disk for Logos 4 temporary files (plus RAM disks for other uses, help avoid unneeded SSD usage).

Well that's good, but for best (only really) use this should be properly built into the Logos 4 application as a properly explained and presented option to the user.

Something like "Hey, I see you have a honking big processor with more RAM than you can poke a stick at. Want Logos 4 to run faster? Allow the application to take 1 GB of RAM (you've got heaps free) for a special virtual hard disk when you run Logos 4 and you will see a 30-40% speed increase. Click here to setup the option."

Done.

p.s. well maybe the option could be more formally worded in the application [:P]

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/294517#Comment_294517

64 bit is, and will be, better than 32 bit. For CPU's, OS + Applications. Always, full stop.

Patrick, I don't see that you've refuted the arguments against 64-bit. I don't think anyone is saying that 64-bit is bad. But the main advantage is the capability to use more memory. There are some specialized advantages to 64 bit as described in the wikipedia link, but they aren't necessarily applicable to Logos.

But the same code in 64-bit will require always larger memory footprint than 32-bit will. This issue will go away over time as the older computers get replaced/upgraded. Also, as Bob mentioned, all the code libraries used must be available in 64 bit versions. If Logos has dependencies on 32-bit compiled libraries, then they can't move to 64-bit until those code libraries become available in 64-bit.

We use 64-bit AIX (UNIX variant) where I work. We run 32-bit Java on it for our applications. There is no advantage to using 64-bit Java for us. Our apps don't need it. It would just cause more memory usage, and would cause problems with the legacy APIs we have to compile with.

64 bit is not always better. It will always be a business decision to decide if it is. Perhaps 64-bit will soon be the wise business decision for Logos. (I too wish it could use more RAM).

David Mitchell

Many of the comments on this thread have gone rather off-topic. Let me address the original questions

Does Logos plan on going to 64 bit on Mac? I do not know the nuances of 32 vs 64 bit and how it handles memory, but was under the impression that 32 bit apps can only utilize a certain portion of memory (say 4GB?).

Eventually. I can't really be any more specific than that (as Bob said, we'd rather spend the bulk of our time working on features with more tangible, immediate benefits). There are memory limitations that come along with being a 32-bit app, but typically, if Logos 4 is consuming that much memory, something has gone very wrong.

If Logos were a 64 bit, would that allow for greater utilization of memory and this improve the speed a bit?

It would allow us to use more memory (though, as I stated above, this isn't always a good thing, especially with computers that have less RAM). It's difficult to say what effect, if any, this would have on speed, as there are a lot of things that change in such a move.

Also, are there any plans to allow Logos to become full screen in Lion?

We do already support "Reading Mode", which allows you to expand a single panel to fill the screen. I know that there is a desire for a full-screen experience that more tightly integrates with the new features in Lion, and I'd like to do this. However, it is not yet a top priority. Voting for the feature on our UserVoice site will help us understand how important it is to our user community as a whole.

Patrick S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/294538#Comment_294538

There is no advantage to using 64-bit Java for us. Our apps don't need it. It would just cause more memory usage, and would cause problems with the legacy APIs we have to compile with.

I believe most people would agree that generally, as a rule etc. that 64 bit is better than 32 bit.

Also I believe the example you are referring to to not use 64 bit is very specific, and tellingly, as you yourself say " [it] would cause problems with the legacy APIs we have to compile with" you are stuck with legacy issues.

Logos 4 is also stuck with legacy issues — it would be good it wasn't. Because, unlike your company's (small? audience - sorry don't have details on it) legacy application Logos 4 is a broad use application which can, and should, be taking advantage of the benefits of 64 bit.

In summary — again in principle, and outworking, 64 bit is better, I don't believe I need to list hundreds of supporting documents or links.

We have a situation, yes understandable at present given past history, where a program we spend a lot of money on (it is by far the highest cost software on my computer) is not optimum. I'm not blaming Logos for past history, I'm not saying that Bob Pritchett is trying to rip us off, not at all. What I am saying is that personally I would like to see Logos making a commitment (before even perhaps releasing new features) to performance enhancement as a priority — and performance can, and could, be enhanced by going 64 bit (along with some other things).

Fr. Charles R. Matheny

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/294549#Comment_294549

But David and Bob: It is a ram hog, it writes much to disc it should not ( ram limitation ), it crashes constantly, it eats my processors alive.

Let me be short: It is slow, it crashes, it eats up ram and processors.

Tech Support can't fix it (I showed them things wrong they had never seen before!).

My Logos install is only usable at best, 50 % 0f the time open and, of that 50% it is low, uses too much ram and overtaxes the processors.

Perhaps re-looking at 64 bit might be something you want to do.

Macs are not Windows machines, we can do things differently, they are much more capable than Windows boxes in this area, but you have to use them as Osx Machines instead of Windows.

Patrick S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/294549#Comment_294549

Many of the comments on this thread have gone rather off-topic. Let me address the original questions

Sorry... couldn't resist — I'm sure this is how David M. sees me. I have to go and repent now [:$]

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/294570#Comment_294570

Patrick -

Did you make that using your 64 bit Photoshop? [:)]

David Mitchell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/294569#Comment_294569

But David and Bob: It is a ram hog, it writes much to disc it should not ( ram limitation ), it crashes constantly, it eats my processors alive.

Let me be short: It is slow, it crashes, it eats up ram and processors.

Tech Support can't fix it (I showed them things wrong they had never seen before!).

My Logos install is only usable at best, 50 % 0f the time open and, of that 50% it is low, uses too much ram and overtaxes the processors.

Perhaps re-looking at 64 bit might be something you want to do.

Macs are not Windows machines, we can do things differently, they are much more capable than Windows boxes in this area, but you have to use them as Osx Machines instead of Windows.

Those issues have little to do with Logos being a 64-bit app (in fact, as a 64-bit app, it would use more RAM). While I'd love to work on migrating to 64-bit code because it's new and shiny, it's a higher priority to fix the issues you speak of.

Patrick S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/294577#Comment_294577

Patrick -

Did you make that using your 64 bit Photoshop?

Nah - I'm nowhere that good in Photoshop, I use mine mostly for photography processing. I downloaded it with my 64 bit web browser Safari [;)]

Fr. Charles R. Matheny

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/294588#Comment_294588

Thanks David. Yet, all my 64Bit apps run extremely small memory loads and, more importantly, they all release ram no longer in use, very quickly.

Was just trying to be helpful, not a hindrance.

Thanks again.

mab

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/294711#Comment_294711

I think the real issue isn't the value of 64 bit, it's that the computers most folks have are between 2-4 years old and since they still work fine, the software must stand in the gap of the average user. Most people aren't going to drop $1000 every two years as much as the industry would like them to do. If I'm not mistaken the average computer user isn't upgrading their PC this year. Instead they bought an iPad. A new Mac will follow, but it's more like next year unless they are high budget. I think that's precisely what Apple had in mind with Lion--the iPad style system update cuts both ways.

My Mac Mini is still just fine with 2GB and Logos 4 Mac if I don't run anything else or open too much in Logos. And Logos 4 runs fine on my XP box with the same memory. I think it's far better if they concentrate on making the most of what they've started. I'm delighted with their progress so far.

Fr. Charles R. Matheny

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/294921#Comment_294921

I would agree except: It does not run well on the newest and best hardware either.

Perhaps they will get it fixed soon.

If not, at least I can return it, glad for that option.

Patrick S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/294921#Comment_294921

My Mac Mini is still just fine with 2GB and Logos 4 Mac if I don't run anything else or open too much in Logos. And Logos 4 runs fine on my XP box with the same memory.

Yikes. Have you seen Logos 4 running on a machine with more horsepower? I think if you did you would be quickly dissatisfied with an (old?) Mac Mini with 2 GB of RAM. You must have more patience than me [:)]

[Start soapbox]

Here's the thing — I am not necessarily saying that Logos 4 has to rush to 64 bit like, right now. The general question being put in this thread was (if I can paraphrase) "would Logos 4 benefit from being 64 bit?". My answer was/is a definite "yes". However... if I had to allocate priorities I would say get the 32 bit version of Logos working effectively, then look at general performance enhancements in the 32 bit version, then look at 32 bit / 64 bit versions, then look at more whizz bang goodies.

When there is a situation where I can, at will, bring Logos 4 to it's knees — and that on the fastest iMac that can be purchased today — then I would say that clearly there are some things to be fixed. if you tried what I documented (in the link I put in line above) on your Mac Mini you wouldn't just need to go and get a coffee, but cook a whole meal.

The issue — from the other end of the hardware spectrum — is that Logos 4 doesn't take full/proper advantage of the computer it's running on (and as I have a nice shiny new one that is a bit of a pain). And you don't have to be running on 64 bit to achieve that — not at all, it can/should be done on 32 bit, the existing product.

Again here's the thing for me — some people might think I am rubbishing the product, My answer is "no". Actually if I didn't give a damn about it and/or was so fed up that I started demanding a full refund (which I haven't.... yet) why would I be bothered continuing to purchase books, why would I be bothered finding out and clearly documenting issues in the product (by the way Dave, some acknowledgement by Logos might be nice) in the forum so Logos can fix them.

It's because I can clearly see the benefit in the design of Logos 4 (and yes, I have looked at the major competitor), and I appreciate the breath of book titles that I continue with it. And I trust that things will improve. Hope springs eternal.

[End soapbox]

Tommi Karjalainen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/295193#Comment_295193

So would the answer to go back to PC world or change to a different Bible program? I'm getting bored with the speed of this combination...

Logos 4.5b + MBP 2.26 Core 2 Duo + 8 Gt DDR3

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/368097#Comment_368097

So would the answer to go back to PC world or change to a different Bible program? I'm getting bored with the speed of this combination...

Logos 4.5b + MBP 2.26 Core 2 Duo + 8 Gt DDR3

Observation: Logos 4 on Windows is also a 32 bit application.

Wiki Logos 4 Mac has => Need Logos 4 PC feature? that has options for running Windows on Mac models; Boot Camp is faster (since Mac OS X is not running).

Wiki Mac and PC User Interface Differences has => Feature Parity list that includes many Logos 4.5b regressions on Mac; adding social networking and community notes broke a lot of Logos 4 Mac features.

Keep Smiling [:)]

Fr. Charles R. Matheny

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/368201#Comment_368201

I was just checking and- I have very, very few "non-64bit" software/processes om my Mac.

I guess Apple and others have not figured out 64bit software is bad ( sigh ).

I just want the stupid software to work correctly.