Logos 4 Mac. . . VERY POOR PERFORMANCE

Page 2 of 8 (150 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last »
This post has 149 Replies | 3 Followers

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 15 2010 11:30 AM

Jack Caviness:

John Fidel:
Are any of you running Parallels at the same time as L4 Mac? The do not play well together and will really slow down Logos.

John

I believe this depends upon the amount of installed RAM. I have 11GB, and Parallels does not affect L4 Mac. KS4J seems to have no interference, but he reported having 12GB.

Actually reported 16 GB (sometimes using 12 GB) - personally try to avoid running resource intensive items at same time (similar idea as avoiding brake lights in rush hour traffic).

Do monitor memory usage - lots of page outs => performance issue (everything slows down while memory is paged out to disk).

By the way, my performance tolerance bit more - have worked with databases that have millions of data rows - some actions take very long time.

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 15
MikeV81 | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 15 2010 12:58 PM

@Keep Smiling for Jesus

Well, I followed your advice, and verified that my iMac was booting into 32-bit mode by default (extremely odd choice by Apple). After following the guide you linked to, I booted into the 64-bit kernel and gave Logos a try.

The verdict: BIG IMPROVEMENT. It's still far from being where it needs to be, but the performance increase is very noticeable. THANKS FOR THE TIP!!!

Maybe some others could try and share their results!

GOD BLESS,

Mike

Posts 10821
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 15 2010 1:17 PM

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :):
Actually reported 16 GB (sometimes using 12 GB)

That's what sometimes happens when I quote from memory. Big Smile

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :):
personally try to avoid running resource intensive items at same time (similar idea as avoiding brake lights in rush hour traffic).

It has been many years since I regularly drove in rush hour to & from the Navy Annex (next door to the Pentagon), but I remember brakes and the accelerator being the most important parts of the vehicle.

Posts 5318
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 15 2010 3:27 PM

Ray D:

 

Same here... slooooooooow to the point of which I have lost the joy of using Logos4 Mac. Still use it quite a bit each week for word studies and such. Out of necessity though since I have no other alternative at this point. So it’s a matter of trying to remain content and lumber through the performance issues and trust that Logos will one day deliver a product that is ready for prime time. Feel better now, been holding that in for some time. Big Smile

 

I am a long time mac user, and have used accordance for years. Mac Logos may be slower but it is a good piece of software and I would be hard pressed if I could only have one. I am happier with accordances interface and performance but Logos has so many good reference works for it. I tend to start a passage guide off in Logos and then go do stuff in accordance till Logos is done it's thing. 

-Dan

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 15 2010 3:33 PM

MikeV81:

@Keep Smiling for Jesus

Well, I followed your advice, and verified that my iMac was booting into 32-bit mode by default (extremely odd choice by Apple). After following the guide you linked to, I booted into the 64-bit kernel and gave Logos a try.

The verdict: BIG IMPROVEMENT. It's still far from being where it needs to be, but the performance increase is very noticeable. THANKS FOR THE TIP!!!

Maybe some others could try and share their results!

GOD BLESS,

Mike

Likewise Thankful for noticeable improvement Cool

Concur with odd choice when Mac OS X would benefit from 64 bit kernel (over 4 GB memory).

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 91
Seth Hewitt | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 15 2010 4:18 PM

Here's a link to a performance update guide by a photographer who pushes Macs more than Logos 4.

Seth

http://macperformanceguide.com/index_topics.html#OptimizingYourMac

Posts 103
Simon | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 15 2010 9:02 PM

COMMENT:

Thanks for the link re: "Mac OS X v10.6: Starting up with the 32-bit or 64-bit kernel." Did not even realize my kernel was booting with the 32-bit kernel by default.

ACTION:

Needed to set the system configuration kernel setting, Method 2 in the article, to boot with the 64-bit kernel. The startup hotkey option, Method 1 in the article, didn't work for me on my early 2009 MacBook Pro ruunning OS X 10.6.5.

RESULT:

Noticed overall speed improvements in OS X but nothing eye catching with Logos4Mac. Still runs like an ant swimming in custard. Or something vaguely to that effect. ;-)

Posts 91
Seth Hewitt | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 15 2010 10:13 PM

I have an earlier MBP than you, late 2008 (MacBookPro5,1) 2.53 Ghz 2 core intel processor with 6G RAM. Mine was like you described, with processors pegging everytime I scrolled anything until I changed the graphics processor setting. It's System Preferences > Energy Saver, then select higher performance instead of better battery life in the upper left corner. You'll have to reboot to have it take effect, but when I did that it speeded mine up immensely. It uses the more robust graphics chip which takes a load of the main processor. Adding the additional 2G RAM helped as well, but the performance spike was with the graphics processor change.

Seth

Posts 103
Simon | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 16 2010 12:17 AM

Switching to the MBP's higher performance graphics chip set was one of the first things I did to improve Logos4Mac performance. That and killing all other running apps. Still not impressed and sympathize with others experiencing (very) poor performance. I reiterate the "ant swimming in custard" analogy. 

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 16 2010 12:48 AM

S Mack:
I reiterate the "ant swimming in custard" analogy

Please elaborate custard flavors and consistencies => help Logos developers know what performance improvements would be most helpful and appreciated - repeatable steps worthwhile.

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 103
Simon | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 16 2010 3:28 AM

Certainly happy to add detail where possible but as has already been discussed in this posting the user interface response time of Logos4Mac is and has always been sluggish. This is my view and perception. Note: I'm discussing the user interface.

I find myself thinking I've got 4Gig of RAM, a 2.53GHz dual core intel processor running a 64-bit kernel under OS X 10.6.5 with the high end graphics chip enabled and this app still lacks the crispness I see in other apps for the Mac.

Click, pause, click, wait, click, take and take a coffee break.

This sort of experience really hampers my desire to use this app and I note others here have mentioned having the same or similar experiences with Logos4Mac.

Posts 19
Rich | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 16 2010 10:49 AM

Yeah, me too.  fairly new iMac with 4GB Ram.  Performance of Logos is just plain pathetic.  I have accordance (not to mention many other Mac programs i.e. Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Final Cut Pro, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, which are all fairly big programs) and it is as snappy as snappy can get.  Quite amazing in fact.  Not sure what Logos' problem is, but I sure hope they decide to hire a good Mac programmer (and fire their current ones.  Sorry but business is business.  If you can't do the job go find one you can do) and get this thing fixed pronto.  Outside its performance, I love Logos and don't think any other Bible software package can touch it.  But, the performance!  sheeeesh, I almost can't stand to sit and use it.

-Rich

Posts 10821
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 16 2010 11:48 AM

Rich:
I sure hope they decide to hire a good Mac programmer (and fire their current ones.

Are you an employed Mac programmer that makes you the kind of expert who is qualified to make such an insulting declaration? Having used Macs since June 1984, I am impressed with the current Mac Dev Team.

Rich:
I have accordance (not to mention many other Mac programs i.e. Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Final Cut Pro, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, which are all fairly big programs)

Not one of these applications—including Accordance—is anywhere near as complex as L4. 

Posts 1
Earath Kurt Citizen | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 16 2010 11:54 AM

I am really upset with the whole logos 4 mac progress. Im to the point where i use the libronix engine for mac rather than using logos 4, despite the libronix does not have notes and highlighting it surely moves a whole lot faster and in my mind is a lot more stable. I feel like i have a program that just does not deliver the anticipation that is comes across as nothing is wrong with my mac the program is just not where it should be at this point......    :( 

Posts 10821
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 16 2010 11:54 AM

Chuckk Gerwig:
yep im stuck with it and it is very slow choppy and frustrating to work with,

Is that a general statement, or is the app slow and choppy in some specific areas? If you can give details of your problems, perhaps forum members can help you improve your experience.

Posts 2534
Forum MVP
John Fidel | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 16 2010 11:55 AM

Rich,

First of all welcome to the forums.

How long have all these programs had Mac versions? Accordance has been Mac forever. How about softening your tone as the Mac Dev Team have done remarkably well in the year or so of getting L4 to this point. I disagree with your conclusion regarding the speed of the program as well, but that is subjective.

Vent if you need to, but don't insult the team.. that's not called for.

 

 

Posts 10821
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 16 2010 11:56 AM

Jack Caviness:

Rich:
I have accordance (not to mention many other Mac programs i.e. Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Final Cut Pro, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, which are all fairly big programs)

Not one of these applications—including Accordance—is anywhere near as complex as L4. 

Take a look at this post and the next one by the same user for the impressions of an experienced Mac programmer 202345.aspx

Posts 5318
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 16 2010 11:59 AM

Rich:

Yeah, me too.  fairly new iMac with 4GB Ram.  Performance of Logos is just plain pathetic.  I have accordance (not to mention many other Mac programs i.e. Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Final Cut Pro, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, which are all fairly big programs) and it is as snappy as snappy can get.  Quite amazing in fact.  Not sure what Logos' problem is, but I sure hope they decide to hire a good Mac programmer (and fire their current ones.  Sorry but business is business.  If you can't do the job go find one you can do) and get this thing fixed pronto.  Outside its performance, I love Logos and don't think any other Bible software package can touch it.  But, the performance!  sheeeesh, I almost can't stand to sit and use it.

-Rich

I fully understand our frustration and share much of it, but firing the staff for better programmers would be very short sighted. The programers are doing their best and are quite handicapped by Logos4. The code is roughly the same for both platforms, Logos wants this, by doing this everything will have a bit a uniform feeling even if that means feelings windowish to us mac users (but seeing the windows product I think the mac programers have given us a fair mac interface). The mac product is far from done, when everything is working bug free the programs probably can work on optimizing the APP. For Logos and the programers it has been a real catch 22, Logos has a long history of disappointing mac users from pulling the 90s release due to platform changes, to the Libronix 1 product being delayed from the reported 2005 release date to 2008 or was it 2009 (I know the alphas were out in 2008 anyway). A goal of getting the mac version released to public by the holiday season seems to me a very logical thing, and with the program being fairly stable I honestly do not mind the premature (all features not functioning properly) release. A poor running program is still better than no program. While there are a fair amount of us beta testers out there, all the bugs and glitches are not going to show up till you get a whole lot of people using it. In someways I would say development has sometimes felt slower sine the official release, but I have little doubt that this is because getting the final few features working plus squashing all the bugs, PLUS integrating  new code being put into the windows side is a very big task. This task will be put back to square one if all new programers were brought in. Now that is not to say a mac programmer specializing in optimization wouldn't be nice but with the mac being almost caught up, performance can be focused on.  I LOVE ACCORDANCE, but i was using version 2.0 and it had it's issues and wasn't nearly as fast or as user friendly as the freeware Online Bible Mac, after many years they have refined a power and fast program, their programers have had years of experience working on it. If Logos could have hired the original programers of Libronix 1 for the mac things might have gone faster but maybe not. I did think the Libronix mac interface while a bit limited felt very mac like. Once all the programming is caught up I am sure the mac programmers can refine the interface and optimize the program but until then it seems a bit premature to pay the queen of hearts and shout out OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!! (I will keep my queen of hearts outfit on stand by for later this spring though... ;-)  ).

-Dan

Posts 762
Patrick S. | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 16 2010 12:20 PM

Hmmm — there are different areas that people are referring to which make this thread a bit like lumpy custard in its consistency.

There are a number of factors to consider and also re: different peoples machines will have different performance, so there perhaps should be more quantitative investigation then subjective reaction.

Firstly (and some of you may remember my early postings about this) it has to be understood that due to business requirements (as they saw them) Logos made certain technical architectural decisions with Logos 4 Mac. The major one being that, to reduce time to market, they re-used code developed for the Windows version in Logos 4 Mac. Meaning, to utilise .NET programming they used the Mono cross platform layer. How much code (book engine, user interface etc.) was reused is not clear (and Logos are not saying) but what is definitely the case is that Logos 4 Mac is not a 'pure' Mac application. If you look inside the Mac app bundle you will see dozens of .DLLs.

Does this matter? Well that depends. The purist in me objects to having Windoze (ugh) code on my Mac, and the Logos 4 Mac interface is very much like the Windows app stuck in a Mac app container — but one can come to terms with all that when the result of having the Logos platform available is considered.

A concern I voiced back in Jan when I started posting to the forum was — would there be a performance hit resulting from having an intermediate runtime layer (Mono) used, and Jack C. in reply to your comment back then — this is no longer alpha software Wink

Anyway I see a few things:

  1. I don't believe the Mac version will ever reach the performance of the Windows version — not lumbered with the extra baggage of the Mono cross platform layer. Macs on average are better and faster machines than Windows, and that will offset things somewhat but there will always be the Mono (monkey) on its back. Again, one has to come to terms with that, keeping an eye on the benefit of having Logos available on Mac.
  2. We need to look at where Logos 4 Mac can be helped to improve performance. I have said in another post that as Logos (both Win & Mac) can tend to be HDD bound, putting the whole Logos 4 Mac installation onto an SSD drive should help it a lot. One of the developers agrees.
  3. When people say the interface is slow they have to realise that the app often can't draw the screen until it has got the data (from the HDD) that it needs to place on the screen — see point 2.

Looking to improve performance, and being a realist, I'm very close to deciding to get a 60GB model of these SSD drives. 60GB would be enough to comfortably put Logos onto. Here's another website (http://www.ssd-for-mac.com/) with info for Macs. If Santa (my better half) is nice to me and I get one I'll report results.

It would be good for people to have a quantitative basis for comparison of their Macs — the Geekbench utility is not bad (only doesn't  do HDD performance) and there is a free version — http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/

Here's the main info from my machine, and BTW I don't find Logos 4 Mac that bad. Sure it won't start any performance fires but it also depends on what you ask it to do — a full Bible chapter Passage Guide is a guarantee of a long coffee break, but do you need to work that way?

"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein

Posts 1
John Amoah | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 16 2010 12:25 PM

I have similar problem and feel that I should have stayed with Logos 3. I believe it is a waste of money and logos should probably give discount to Mac users for such an unfinished product. I had talked to a tech support person about getting similar interface for passage which also give illustration and they told me this is also another feature we are working on. Another means there are other numerous reports of other missing features. This all come down to the fact that it is an unfinished.

Page 2 of 8 (150 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last » | RSS