OS X Lion, Open CL and Logos 4

Hi all - have been a bit quiet of late due to being tied up with number of things but noticed this old chestnut came up again. I know it is a bit of a hot topic (well I've certainly been flamed about it) and my purist side still doesn't like having Windows DLLs scattered around my Mac, but really for me in one sense I wouldn't care if Logos 4 Mac was being secretly powered by hamsters running in wheels - as long as they were super strength hamsters.

Obviously the honest and valid concern people have is will this non-standard, but however key, component (Mono) hold back a good product (Logos) on a superior OS platform (Mac OS X). Especially as it now no longer maintained by a major software house/company.

" rel="nofollow">Keep Smiling 4 Jesus said:

MonoMac update posted on 6 Mar 2012 => http://tirania.org/monomac/

From the website link above "We have been hard at work at improving the MonoMac API to allow .NET developers to create native Mac applications using C#, F#, IronPython or their favorite .NET language.". That obviously is not of any use or interest to us as the Logos 4 Mac application user interface (and hopefully much more) is written in 'native' OS X Objective C.

" rel="nofollow">Keep Smiling 4 Jesus said:

Mono 2.11.0 (Beta) was released on 28 Mar 2012 => http://tirania.org/blog/

"After more than a year of development, we are happy to announce Mono 2.11, the first in a series of beta releases that will lead to the next 2.12 stable release."

" rel="nofollow">Keep Smiling 4 Jesus said:

Xamarin is providing Mono support => http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/SUSE-and-Xamarin-announce-broad-Mono-partnership/

Xamarin is only for mobile platform - no help to us as OS X users.

Larry Good said:

This thread was opened to ask the question about OS/X API support such as Grand Central Dispatch( Big bang for the buck) and Open/CL (which appears to be of limited value in an application such as Logos) , not about the MONO API which is not an OS/X component.

I simple want to know when Logos is going to support an obvious feature imbedded in the vast majority of the OS/X install base so that we can get better multi-core support. That's all.

I would be interested to hear current Logos official reply, hopefully Mono would not hold Logos 4 Mac back from using various Mac OS X performance technologies. As someone has pointed out the majority of worldwide Mac users, ~78%, are on versions of OS X that support the new technologies. 

David Mitchell said:

Patrick S. said:

" rel="nofollow">Keep Smiling 4 Jesus said:

Xamarin is providing Mono support => http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/SUSE-and-Xamarin-announce-broad-Mono-partnership/

Xamarin is only for mobile platform - no help to us as OS X users.

Mono's performance on OS X has been the focus of a lot of work in the 2.11 release cycle. Mono 2.11 is not yet mature enough for inclusion in Logos 4, but internal testing has shown dramatic improvement with some aspects of our code.

That's encouraging news and something to look forward to, thanks for sharing Dave. Can you advise is Mono (current Beta or planned direction) getting closer to supporting latest versions of .NET, and, more importantly, do later versions of .NET bring a performance boost benefit for Logos4?

David Mitchell said:

Patrick S. said:

I would be interested to hear current Logos official reply, hopefully Mono would not hold Logos 4 Mac back from using various Mac OS X performance technologies. As someone has pointed out the majority of worldwide Mac users, ~78%, are on versions of OS X that support the new technologies. 

The answer isn't much different from the last time I commented on the topic. To effectively use any of these features, we'd have to either drop support for 10.5—which would make a lot of users angry—or double our testing burden. Neither of these options make much sense right now.

I would second this comment...

alabama24 said:

Is it above 10 percent? 5 percent? My vote is to give them a six month warning. 

I think people get more upset if a software house just drops legacy support out of the blue, however if people are properly informed up front and in advance it's a very different situation. Also if there was a cut-off point, say OS X 10.5 was supported in Logos 4 up to (for example) version 4.5 and it was shared with the user community that, say, version 4.6 and above would only support Snow Leopard and above (the con) but the new version would take advantage of Apple technology to make Logos 4 faster (the pro) then I believe it would be favourably received. Given also that Logos 4 is an app that needs reasonably significant resources it is less likely that users are going to (continue to) run it on older hardware. The 'carrot' of announced new performance available on (say) Logos 4.6 (using OS X 10.6) and upwards might well spur them into (finally!) upgrading their version of OS X and/or upgrading their Mac.

Mike Binks said:

The problem for Logos, as I see it, is that while it is entirely reasonable to stop development on a mature program for those running 10.5 (or 10.6) neither of these platforms has a mature program to stop development on.

Hmmm - I see your point and would agree that Logos 4 is not, so to speak, where we would like it yet. However I would come back to the point that the large majority of Mac users who have moved to the new OS X versions (10.6 and upwards which is why I crossed out 10.6 in your quote) that support the new technologies (78% global, the percentage for Logos 4 users' machines may be different) are being held back by a rapidly reducing minority (10.5) for which any work done will eventually be lost. I don't say that in a nasty or arrogant way but just pointing out the numbers.

If we look at it from the other direction, it could be said that a large degree of effort is being invested in an area of diminishing returns (OS X 10.5 Leopard) and perhaps it's time to apply some triage.

This may not seem relevant to the thread, but perhaps it can be.

I am not sure what difference any of it makes because:

1. Logos is not going to dump everything and start over with something truly coded for Mac.

2. If they could make everything work correctly ( like something coded for osx ) they would have already done so, they cannot, it is quite impossible, so they won't.

3. Because you cannot make non-osx coding work like real Osx coding, no matter what you do, the whole conversation seems to be an effort in futility. They do not care what you think, I think or, anyone thinks. They bought cup the licensing rights to most titles, so, you either use this horrible software or, do without the resources and go back to hardcopies.

This ( in my opinion) should be the hard conversation being had by all of us and especially you folks with the better minds than my own. Logos ( from a business perspective) has been brilliant . They are now like a country with all the oil, they can do whatever they want, charge what they want, deliver like they want. They do not care one iota that Logos for Mac is crippled and constantly crashes, locks up, is behind, unstable etc.

If they did, it would be fixed.

They sell access ( not ownership ) to resources, not software.

As I see it, we have bet on the wrong horse and in doing so, crippled other companies that could actually serve our needs and care about the software, the customer and the resources.

I have been waiting for over a year for very basic fixes to the software Logos claims to support, to this day, I still wait.

If there was a problem with software dealing with sales or processing those sales to get their money, that problem would not wait over a year to get fixed-no way, no how.

Logos cares about it's money. ( of course it must to stay in business)

Yet, Logos does not care about it's customers in the same way.

Why?

It does not have to do so, there is no need to do so.

We have been duped, ( at least , I have and will opening admit it ).

We are stuck.

They own the resources.we don't own a single one.

We cannot use them without Logos and, they know it.

They have us in a very backward position of us needing the company more then the company needs us, therefore we just have to accept whatever treatment we get.

Point: Mono and all the software will remain pretty much as it is as long as Logos is able to generate money with it.

Nothing is going to change, they have quite clearly stated this from the owner on down.

It is what it is, they have no reason whatsoever to change it.

I agree brother Jack!

Yes, I know of Accordance, I own it, works great, best tech support in the world, only needed it twice and have owned it longer than Logos.

Yes, less posts on their Forums, more posts of praise.

However, what in the wide world of sports does that have to do with anything?

I was not here discussing Accordance, I was here discussing Logos, my financial investment is why it's important to me, and the topic was concerning why it is the way, it is- perhaps that being Mono.

Accordance has nothing to do with that discussion.

Why did I buy Logos if I am happy with Accordance?

Resources! Logos has left little on the table ( smart business man that Mr. Pritchett ).

The issue for me is that nothing IS getting any better.

To be clear: I waited over a year after Logos for Mac ( the current version ) was released to the public as stable, before buying.

I bought on the recommendations of many on these boards: that it was working pretty well, it was stable, functional.

My purchase was quite some time ago, ( can't say how long without looking ), my experience is daily quite unsatisfactory. 

I want it fixed, i have no other place to get the resources I need because there is no other place to get them.

I can use my own library which is extensive, but the point was to have the resources available at a click and searchable.

I cannot do so with any regularity, without frustration, without crashes, hangs etc.

Mono is what is "claimed" by many to be the issue, but Mono for Logos is not going to change.

Thus I stand by my point that I am stuck- there is no resolution of this issue that I can see based on the experience I have had with Logos- it is what it is.

Will there be some improvements- I would certainly think so, hope so.

Will it here be what I thought I was purchasing?

No.

It is NOT coded to be what I thought it was-Software specifically made for a Mac.

It is Windows software ported over to Osx through an intermediary layer to try and make it compatible.

It is what it is, this is what it will be.

They have invested far to much time, money and effort at this point to go back.

ditto , What Mike said. Great Post!

Ok: Where is that program I thought I bought?

The one I got is not the one advertised.

Next:

So sorry for blowing the thread way off  course, thus:

Back to Mono:

Apparently it is here to stay.

Good Post KS4J.

It is frustrating.

All the titles/resources and such potential, yet such frustration.

Notice: Not trying to be ugly with what I am about to say.

I have Accordance as well , with a good library in it.

It is "instant" in most everything it does, can't seem to overload it, searches provide instant results, scrolling is never an issue, always loads, never hangs or freezes.

When I load it, I have mine set to come up with several workspaces and each of those has several panes.

If working on a difficult study, there will be many tabs within those panes.

Yet, it always seems instant, never slows down.

All that to ask this:

Why is it I cannot even get Logos to do basic stuff well, scrolling is horrible ( don't dare open more ), inconsistent loading of workspace, cannot add more panes/workspaces without it killing itself or my Mac.

Logos should be able to do these things, should be able to compete.

This discussion was/is about open Cl and Mono.

If Mono is the bottleneck, what good is open Cl going to do?

If Mono is the problem, then why do we put up with it.

If we say: We are not going to support this, not buy resources- will they not have to respond?

I went through this same garbage with Biblesoft.

Software engine has not been upgraded side Moses rode a tricycle.

I had a lot of money tied up in a platform they broke and would not fix, been years since they even tried to.

They kept leading people on with : we are going to update/upgrade-please be patient.

All the while continuing to sell more and more resources.

When you get to a certain point, they tell you that you have to remove some resources because you are overloading the program. ( sound familiar ).

After a couple of years I said goodbye, ( I know, I'm slow )  switched to Mac/Apple.

I don't want Windows interface objects, I want Bible software that works and resources that I need for that software and, a company that cares about it's product.

Only in the world of Bible Software to you find people so willing to put up with dysfunctional products. Christians do not make excuses and pray for the car dealership if they give bad service.

They don't make excuses and tell people to pray for the staff of companies that sell them things that do not work properly,,,,,unless it's Bible Software.

Personally, after owning a lot of software- I think we get what we get, because we don't require them to do any better.

If the local Church does poorly, people move to a different Church, if the Pastor breaks his word, makes too many mistakes etc.

But Bible Software! It's like we should not demand the best for our money, we act as if doing so is some type of sin.

Bible Software Companies are just that-Companies. They make a product, for a profit. ( they do not love us, we are just customers )

Someone earlier mentioned that we vote with our money. Correct.

So, why do we allow them to continue selling us products that are not what they advertised, continually perform poorly, and are not fixed in a timely fashion.

In my case: The Sin is mine. I cannot consider it good Stewardship to sink money into products that do not give good value.

I certainly cannot throw more good money after a poor investment.

Logos will not get another purchase from me until they can perform as advertised and do so consistently while providing real value for my investments.

Mono? Who cares.

Does it work- that's what matters.

IMHO