Slow Logos 4
Comments
-
John Duffy said:
I'm using a less than two year old Dell Vostro 1710 laptop with Intel dual core T5870 @ 2.00 GHz, with 3Gb RAM, integrated Intel 965 graphics,
Just making an observation: as I have been reading various posts about Logos4 being slow, it's either because they are running Logos for windows on a Mac, or because the user has a system with integrated video. While some systems with integrated video seem to work well, it seems like the ones having problems with speed in L4 have integrated video.
Is anyone having problems with Logos speed who is not running L4 on a Mac, nor with integrated video?
Integrated video puts video chips on the motherboard and lets the CPU and onboard RAM process video calls. Video cards (AKA 'dedicated video') with their own video processors and their own RAM seem to do much better with Logos4.
Anyway, I'm just testing a theory here.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Hey I'm one of the Sloooowww ones too.
I'd like to mention that what I'm seeing is not related to virtual memory thrashing (not enough memory).
It is not related to video display and drivers (that shows up as painful scrolling).
My system is nice and crisp with L3 and MS Office and everything else. However, running only L4 my CPU goes to >50% just typing 4 letters in the Notes box. There is something else going on, besides the amount of hardware I have. This kind of problem is not the sort of thing you get with a slow video card, unless the software is re-painting the entire screen with every keystroke!
This thread is presenting a common theme: Some people are having a serious performance problem and some aren't.
0 -
Richard, I certainly understand that integrated video is not ideal for graphics-intensive operations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't almost all laptops (outside of something like an Alienware) using integrated video? If your theory is correct, then it still seems strange to me that Logos would design their software so that it would not run properly on the vast majority of laptops.
For the record, my understanding is that the integrated card in my computer (a Radeon HD3200) actually does have some dedicated memory (256 MB). Again, if that isn't correct, please let me know--I am not 100% sure that I understand that correctly. Anyway, if we can find some trends among people whose systems bring Logos 4 to a crawl, I'd love to see them (and I imagine the developers would too!) Thanks for your input.
0 -
I would agree, that sounds like there's a bug in there somewhere, or just really bad coding. I hope that's not inherent to the way they designed Logos 4. I have a laptop with decent speed, but I am not interested in running my battery down and causing the CPU to heat up because of some cutting edge bells and whistle features. Perhaps there ways to shut off features that are eating up CPU cycles?
0 -
Rick Goettsche said:
Richard, I certainly understand that integrated video is not ideal for graphics-intensive operations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't almost all laptops (outside of something like an Alienware) using integrated video? If your theory is correct, then it still seems strange to me that Logos would design their software so that it would not run properly on the vast majority of laptops.
Not exactly. I already said that not everyone with integrated video has the slow down problem with L4. In fact my laptop is a pretty cheap Dell with integrated video and it works just fine.
But those who are having slowdown problems seem to have that in common. Maybe there is a certain type of integrated video, that is having an issue. Maybe it's a certain chip set, or CPU, or kind of RAM (DDR, DDR2, etc) that makes the problem worse for some than others. Maybe I'm just way off.
It seems a bit odd to me that integrated video would be the problem, but it does seem to be one thing that keeps coming up. On the other hand, since most lower to mid-level laptops have integrated, rather than dedicated video, there could be another common laptop issue that causes the problem. If so, it could be helpful to rule out the integrated video theory and look for a different common variable.
I do think it would be helpful to try to find the common variable for those who are having the slow down issue, since most aren't, but many are.
EDIT: BTW, I don't believe for a minute that Logos designed this to fail, or be unusable on any computer. I'm quite certain that this is an inadvertent 'side-effect' of some aspect of the program architecture. It's possible that knowing what slows it down for some computers could help rewrite the part of the program causing the issue.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Rich,
I have integrated video also and my performance is acceptable....
But then again...NOTHING is ever fast enough... [:D]
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
Ok, so I had another thought about a possible commonality, though it
still seems unlikely to me. Could there be some sort of issue with AMD
processors? I noticed that the technical requirements state that a Core2Duo is the recommended processor. It could mean that the developers have Intel processors at the office. Could there be some sort of issue related to AMD processors/chipsets? Are those of you using Intel processors experiencing the same kind of sluggishness? Like I said, it doesn't seem to me like the brand of processors should make a difference, but I figured it couldn't hurt to ask.0 -
-
Steve,
Just wanted to let you know that I have a laptop that is less than a year old and I'm experiencing the same problems that all you guys are having. I think the L4 release was premature. Sounds like Logos has been taking lessons from Microsoft - letting the user find all the bugs.n Unless I see an effort from Logos to cleanup some of this mess L4 is my last upgrade.
dr dave
0 -
Ok, well that means that the AMD theory is probably incorrect. It seemed unlikely to me to begin with, but I thought I'd ask. I'm still hopeful that maybe there's something in the code that can be optimized.
0 -
No, I'm running AMD X2 64 without any problems.Rick Goettsche said:Ok, so I had another thought about a possible commonality, though it
still seems unlikely to me. Could there be some sort of issue with AMD
processors?
Sarcasm is my love language. Obviously I love you. 0 -
Rick Goettsche said:
Ok, well that means that the AMD theory is probably incorrect. It seemed unlikely to me to begin with, but I thought I'd ask. I'm still hopeful that maybe there's something in the code that can be optimized.
Heh, Guess I should have read all the posts before responding. Now that you know it's not AMD....
Sarcasm is my love language. Obviously I love you. 0 -
Guys, do any of you have Spybot Search and Destroy running?
I've been fighting with this slow Logos4 thing for days. I just disabled SD and... Logos is smooth and fast. ??????
Don't know if it will last, but for now things are great. Could it be that simple?
I stopped the SD and the teatimer processes in Task manager.
0 -
-
Bruce, I have Spybot installed, but I only use it to apply immunizations--I don't have SD or tea-timer running. I checked the processes running on my computer, and it doesn't appear that anything related to Spybot is running. Mine's still slow.
0 -
steveclark said:
i'm running Vista. What is the exact name of the process that you stopped?
Steve,
For one "teatimer" (this is a process used by search and destroy.)
The other I think is just "spybotSD.exe" I'm not certain... In Task manager -> processes, order by "Description" and stop anything that is associated with Spybot
0 -
Rick Goettsche said:
Bruce, I have Spybot installed, but I only use it to apply immunizations--I don't have SD or tea-timer running. I checked the processes running on my computer, and it doesn't appear that anything related to Spybot is running. Mine's still slow.
Rick, Ok. For me L4 is still humming along. You might look in your processes for something similar???
0 -
-
We are trying to read all the forum posts -- there's just so many it's hard to keep up while also trying to do the things we're inspired to do after reading the earlier forum posts. :-)
I'm sorry Logos 4 is slow for many of you.
There's some small hope in optimization, which we continue to work on. Sometimes we find a big win. (Merging indexes will take almost half the time in an upcoming release!)
We've also gotten some reports of interference from third-party applications, which we'll continue to observe and hopefully identify.
We made a conscious choice to design for the future, not the past. We know that not everyone is computing in the future yet, :-), but we expect you all will eventually. My 1986 Bible search software, written for MS-DOS, still runs. And it's blazing fast. But it doesn't generate a Passage Guide, or do other cool things.
Everyone has a different opinion about where to make the trade-off; if it runs slow for you, we jumped ahead too soon. If it runs fast for you, then what were we waiting for?
The big decision we made that's hard to undo is choosing .NET with WPF. This is Microsoft's brand new platform for the future, and it basically involves loading a system within a system on your computer. The program is compiled to a special assembly language that's then re-compiled to your chip at runtime, there is a whole set of system-level libraries running on top of Windows, and there's a whole display system running on top of the Win32 framework on your system. It's all a bit bulky, but it's the future. And it has lots of side benefits, ranging from easier porting of code to Mac, the web, etc. to easier coding of complicated features. The big negative is memory use -- you're essentially loading a second operating system/platform into memory.
We chose this four years ago, and it's a decision we can't go back on. The good news is, Microsoft's not going back on it either: they're using it in more and more of their own core systems. And the core platform even has buy-in from the open source community, with things like the Mono Project.
I know that not everyone can afford to stay on the latest-and-greatest hardware. That's why we made a conscious choice to keep Logos 3.0 running side-by-side. But we decided long ago that there are plenty of Bible software applications that stick with old code and run great on old machines; we're going to keep blazing the trail to the future.
In 1995 we had a lot of complaints about our decision to release on CD-ROM's, when many people still had only floppy drives. We took a lot of complaints about Libroinx DLS performance in 2001 when it first shipped. (It was worse, for more people, than Logos 4.) But those complaints went away as people upgraded, and then they seemed pretty happy about the functionality we were able to deliver.
Computers are cheaper than ever, and even at $400 you can find more than enough power for Logos 4. (More memory can be a huge help, too, and it costs even less.) I know everyone can't afford to upgrade now, and I'm sensitive to that. But our holding Logos 4 another six months wouldn't make it any faster. If you continue to use Logos 3, and then switch to Logos 4 when you next upgrade your system, you won't have any worse an experience. And I think you'll appreciate then all the cool functionality in Logos 4 -- most of which can only be delivered because we made the choices we did.
-- Bob
0 -
Bob Pritchett said:
most of which can only be delivered because we made the choices we did.
And I sincerely thank you for making those decisions.
Bob Pritchett said:We are trying to read all the forum posts -- there's just so many it's hard to keep up while also trying to do the things we're inspired to do after reading the earlier forum posts. :-)
Speaking seriously, are our off topic, joking posts slowing down or hampering your ability to get to genuine posts? I do not want to hamper your ability to read/address the genuine concerns of your customers.
0 -
Bob,
There is no doubt that Logos 4 is running much faster on my computer than it did in even the middle stages of the Beta. You and the software team have done a good job trying to address the concerns. I can use Logos 4 right now without feeling like I've turned a Ferrari in for a VW Beetle. I'm sure greater optimization will occur. I do have 3.0 to fall back on when I feel I am going to need it.
I have more interest in features being added than speed at this point.
Thank you for the very complete explanation.
Pastor, North Park Baptist Church
Bridgeport, CT USA
0 -
Bob, thanks for taking the time to respond. I'll admit that I don't fully understand the intricacies of the architecture you described, but I understood was that it is complex, power intensive, but very powerful and flexible. I understand your desire to plan for the future--it makes good business sense (particularly if you hope to have long product cycles as you have in the past). My concern is in the fact that several of us have computers that, on paper, seem to meet the specs, yet we have found the performance of Logos 4 to be sluggish. Maybe our expectations are set too high (e.g. expecting a modern program to run as fast as a decade-old program). It doesn't sound like we'll see great gains in optimization, but maybe there is a conflict with other programs running on our computers which will unlock some speed. Either way, I'll give it a couple more weeks.
Related to this, will we continue to be able to get new resources for Logos 3 for a while? Since the church replaced my computer last year, I would expect that it will be another 3+ years before I get another one. If my computer is never able to run v4 at a decent speed, I just wondered if v3 will still actually be usable for me. If not, I suppose I'll have money to put towards other things.
0 -
Okay, I've been one of the person who has been complaining about how slow logos4 is, but thanks for your explanation Bob. But since we are looking into the future, let me offer some encouragement about the web based solution that you are trying to do. It seems like the future is moving toward a more mobile platform faster than a faster computer. With the popularity of netbooks and smartphones, not only is it moving toward a more mobile platform, but also a more connected platform. So I think the web based solution that you mentioned in the other post is a step in the right direction. I do not currently have a always connected device, but that is something that I can see myself getting in the future. I hope that even though the core engine of logos is slow, the development effort can be made toward the direction such that this computational power can be sitting at some desk, but at the same time, this application can be made accessible on a mobile device through the internet connection (which does not have the computational power to handle logos 4 natively). Not just a subset of plug-in here or there, but the full power suite provided by Logos 4. Also along this line is the fact that there is a whole suite of mobile platforms out there, so I hope the development effort can be made in a more device-agnostic manner. There are more than just iPhone out there.
Of course, going down this path probably cuts off the customers who are not in a country with good connectivity, but I guess that's a business decision that was made.0 -
Bob Pritchett said:
The program is compiled to a special assembly language that's then re-compiled to your chip at runtime, there is a whole set of system-level libraries running on top of Windows, and there's a whole display system running on top of the Win32 framework on your system.
I think I almost understood that. Hmm...almost scary. Could it be that certain chip sets, or chip set combinations don't handle this way of doing things as well as others? I'd be surprised if most users knew what chip sets were on their motherboards, but some computer companies mix and match chip sets in a less than optimal way. Anyway, just thinking out loud--uh, on keyboard--here. Makes me wonder though. What if you got a couple of dozen reports from some program that would run system wide hardware scans (SIW.exe comes to mind), half on systems on which L4 runs fast, and half on systems where it lagged. Might that be enough to get to the bottom of this, or would that be overkill?
No need to respond. If it's a good idea run with it, if not, well, I know enough to know I'd never be able to run a software company.
Thanks for this post, though. I found it both interesting and helpful. And I'm glad you're programming for future hardware, and not the past. Here's hoping L4 will live longer than L3. And as a pastor, I know that leading change always invites complaints.
I trust you're not surprised. In fact, your responses show the patience
of someone who isn't.Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Bob, thanks for replying - it helps us understand that there is a performance issue, and what it is.
I'm sure that as people upgrade their systems over time, this issue will diminish rapidly.
In the meantime, I think that there's not a lot that I can do to speed things up, as I'm using 32bit XP Pro so I'm using the max 3GB RAM that this allows (even though I upgraded to more than that before finding out that there was an operating system limitation). I'm reluctant to spend more and move to Windows 7 at the minute to allow me to use more memory, and upgrading my laptop is not scheduled for a few years. And laptops cost much more than $400 to upgrade. Like a lot of users who prefer laptops to be mobile, I'm not keen on switching everything over to a desktop just to run Logos 4 better. Although i've found a slight improvement by going to System Properties > Advanced > Performance 'Settings' > Visual effects, and deselecting most of the visual display options that hog resources or cause delays.
But, knowing what the issue is certainly puts the question to rest for a lot of people, even if there's not a lot that can be done about it short of upgrading hardware.
0 -
John Duffy said:
System Properties > Advanced > Performance 'Settings' > Visual effects, and deselecting most of the visual display options that hog resources or cause delays.
Another good tip...that's a must on any Win machine
Robert Pavich
For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__
0 -
I personally think there is more going on here than Logos4 being more resource hungry. I believe this for three reasons:
1. I use other .net apps that do not act the way V4 does.
2. There are parts of the program that display information quickly, and other parts that don't. For example if I do a basic search for "God" limited to the New testament the display of verses is very slow. If I get the same information from a "bible word study" it displays very nicely (almost instant). That tells me V4 is capable but there are some issues to be worked out.
3. There are many times on my system that there is no hd activity and no cpu spikes and V4 just takes a 10 -15 second breather and if I click anywhere on the program I get the not responding message - then it suddenly wakes up and all is well.
I started a thread here as a way to gauge some of the problems we are facing:
http://community.logos.com/forums/t/4562.aspx
I would love to see some responses from people having problems and also those that are not having slow down issues. Currently all we have is subjective talk, but no real numbers - some say its working great some say slow, but without some objective tests we are all in the dark.
0 -
Bob,
Thanks for your responses. I am encouraged to find that Logos is working so hard to resolve the problems a lot of L4 users are having. I am a pastor and the Dean of a Bible College and seem to always be pressed for time, therefore, when the program doesn't work properly it is a bit frustrating.
I have been a Logos Bible Software user for a long time. I started back when I had a box full of floppies (what's that?) to install the program. Each upgrade has presented it's challenges. Even with all the challenges of V3, I was completely overwhelmed with all that it could do. Likewise, with L4, I'm am totally amazed at it's ability to enhance my research and study. I am using L4 for Mac and also running L4 for Windows in a virtual environment with VM Fusion 3. I must admit that I was a bit aggravated with the install process and initial performance but I have notice some improvement from a week ago. Looks like you guys are working hard to resolve the issues. While L4 for Mac is a little unstable, the big issues I'm having are with L4 for Windows. I have had several students have ask about upgrading their current program or switching to Logos. Although, I am confident that the current issues with L4 will be worked out, for the immediate, however, I'm suggesting that they hold off on upgrading or switching. Since we are nearing the completion of the semester they wouldn't need any added pressures. By the new semester the smoke will have cleared and then we can recommend they upgrade. I am excited about L4 and am sure that in time these problems will be ironed out.
Thanks again,
Dave
0 -
Bob Pritchett said:
The big decision we made that's hard to undo is choosing .NET with WPF. This is Microsoft's brand new platform for the future, and it basically involves loading a system within a system on your computer. The program is compiled to a special assembly language that's then re-compiled to your chip at runtime, there is a whole set of system-level libraries running on top of Windows, and there's a whole display system running on top of the Win32 framework on your system. It's all a bit bulky, but it's the future. And it has lots of side benefits, ranging from easier porting of code to Mac, the web, etc. to easier coding of complicated features. The big negative is memory use -- you're essentially loading a second operating system/platform into memory.
My BIOS has something called "Virtualization" in it. The defalut setting is "disabled." Should I turn it on?
0 -
Ordinarily you'd only turn this on if you were planning to run virtual machines in eg VMWare/VirtualPC; but I see your point - it would be interesting to see if it made a difference to performance in Logos 4, and I can't see why there'd be any detriment to doing it...
Turn it on and see what happens? [:)]
0
