Logos 4 Mac. . . VERY POOR PERFORMANCE

Page 5 of 8 (150 items) « First ... < Previous 3 4 5 6 7 Next > ... Last »
This post has 149 Replies | 3 Followers

Posts 1416
Wes Saad | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 20 2010 8:47 AM

Dan Francis:
that does leave me scratching my head slightly and thinking the users complaining about speed now actually have a very valid complaint. If mono isn't a bottle neck why is the released mac version slower

One advantage with Mono, as devs have pointed out, is that Logos devs can add their own enhancements since Mono is an open source library. So if there are places where Mono is found to cause performance issues, devs can work on a patch for Mono. I have no idea how often this actually happens, but I've seen comments before indicating that it does happen.

So performance issues are probably found in the UI code or somewhere in the controller. Improving performance would be a matter of tweaking/improving code written specifically for the Mac app. Refactoring can be quite tedious, is not as exciting as adding new code and features, and is not always as noticeable to users so users continue to clamor for new features. But without refactoring problems have a way of piling up in code. I think Logos is doing enough to avoid long-term issues in their code, but I still wish more attention were being given to improve existing code.

All that to say, I don't think Mono is the issue, and whatever issues exist in Mono can be addressed by Logos, so it is within Logos' power to clean up most of these performance issues, it will just take time. Eventually we will see a Logos for Mac with both the features and the performance of the PC version. We may even see the Mac team begin to add some Mac-only enhancements (in fact, there are some in place already!) and then the PC users will experience a new level of Mac envy.

Posts 45
WAM Project | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 20 2010 10:18 AM

Seems kinda lame to blame this on the abstraction layer..

 

Considering I can run the windows version of Logos inside Parallels in crystal or coherence mode and it STILL out performs the Mac version.. Go figure....

 

Now that's an abstraction layer.

 

 

Posts 222
Bob Turner | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 20 2010 11:46 AM

Seth Hewitt:
go to Settings and under Energy Saver, at the top, select Higher Performance Graphics instead of Better Battery Life.

 

i went under Settings - Energy Saver... and i don't see this as an option... where do i find this??

River of Life Church: http://LifeOverflowing.org

Visit my blog: http://LifeOverflowing.org/pastor

 

Posts 762
Patrick S. | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 20 2010 2:38 PM

Dan Francis:

Todd Phillips:

S Mack:

I did not previously know Logos4Mac was sitting on a .Net compatibility layer. 

They've commented many times in the past:

http://community.logos.com/forums/p/13210/102596.aspx#102596

http://community.logos.com/forums/p/12648/99060.aspx#99060

http://community.logos.com/forums/p/12648/101970.aspx#101970

These were most informative links, I apologize for suggesting mono was a hampering effect on Mac logos ultimate performance. From others saying it I had assumed that it was true, but that does leave me scratching my head slightly and thinking the users complaining about speed now actually have a very valid complaint. If mono isn't a bottle neck why is the released mac version slower (I can only assume it is, I have no experience with Logos4 windows only the mac).

I'm the guy who started the 'controversy' mentioned in those posts above in the first place — and suffered for it. However I still hold to my technical opinion that any 'translation/intermediary' layer is going to impact the performance of a system. It was put to me back then that the decision to go down that road was a commercial one — I believe I said then, and I will elaborate now, I trust the commercial decision does not overly impact technical aspects, in which case those technical aspects may start to impact commercial aspects. I respect Logos' decision, it is their decision to make. I also trust, and hope, that it does not impact the product (speaking as a consumer).

Of course it is also a shame that likely L4M cannot take advantage of other, Apple unique, (performance) technologies — but this side of the resurrection it's not a perfect world.

At the same time I have been very balanced in comments in the forum, and actually have pointed other people back to speaking in quantitative terms instead of saying statements like "it's slow". And in at least one case in this thread made it clear that an installation someone was calling slow was actually an installation that was corrupted.

Chris Roberts:

 

One advantage with Mono, as devs have pointed out, is that Logos devs can add their own enhancements since Mono is an open source library. So if there are places where Mono is found to cause performance issues, devs can work on a patch for Mono.

I really do see that as a work around (hacking Mono) on top of a work around (Mono in L4M). It takes the L4M Mono implementation out of the 'mainstream' Mono codebase which makes it then more difficult/more time to implement updates to Mono.

 

Anyway... I'm running L4M and it's not (painfully) "slow" for me Smile

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

Posts 5318
Dan Francis | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 20 2010 4:22 PM

Patrick S.:

Anyway... I'm running L4M and it's not (painfully) "slow" for me Smile

Usually it's pretty good for me too. I just experienced the scrolling problems i have heard about from other people, and when trying to quit Logos had to force the quit. But I am using the latest beta and expect hiccups like that now and then.

-dan

Posts 1416
Wes Saad | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 20 2010 5:07 PM

Patrick S.:
I really do see that as a work around (hacking Mono) on top of a work around (Mono in L4M). It takes the L4M Mono implementation out of the 'mainstream' Mono codebase which makes it then more difficult/more time to implement updates to Mono.

Not if they are submitting their patches to the Mono project, which I assume they are.

Posts 1861
LogosEmployee
Tom Philpot (Faithlife) | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 20 2010 9:45 PM

Chris Roberts:
Not if they are submitting their patches to the Mono project, which I assume they are.

Several of Logos Mac devs have contributed patches to Mono.

Mobile Development Team Lead

Posts 1956
Donovan R. Palmer | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 20 2010 10:40 PM

Patrick S.:
Anyway... I'm running L4M and it's not (painfully) "slow" for me

For me it is not 'painfully slow', but slower than L4 Windows and certainly slower than earlier versions. I purchased my Macbook Pro in February... and have considered going to 8mb, but that shouldn't be necessary as I don't run a lot of 'extras' and Logos shouldn't be that heavy resource wise.

Anyhow, I figure that this is part of the maturation process of Logos developing for the Mac platform.  Keep in mind that while the label has Logos for Mac version 4, this is a product that is only months old on full release. At least as far as I am concerned, this is version 1 if you don't take into account the windows history and the obsolete version 1.2 that was ditched about a year ago.

Posts 219
Dennis Miller | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 21 2010 3:30 AM

So we basically have a windows port running through a translator? That is not what I thought I was purchasing when I was sold a Mac application (L4M).  Nowhere do I remember seeing this in the pre-sale literature, all I remember seeing was that they were going to try and make an application that looked and functioned similar to each other not that they were developing a Mac app from a windows platform.  Wow, it just keeps getting worse, and this after their epic fail the first time around. You would think they would learn their lesson and do it right this time. But no, cost wins out over quality once again in the corporate world.

Posts 1246
David Mitchell | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 21 2010 8:26 AM

Dennis Miller:
So we basically have a windows port running through a translator?

No, that's not the case at all. Nearly all major applications that are available for multiple platforms (Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Excel, Word, Adobe's applications, etc.) have code that is shared between the platforms—to do otherwise would be silly and wasteful.

In designing Logos 4, we made a choice to write much of the logic using C# and the CLR, which, while originally developed by Microsoft, is also registered with an internationally-recognized standards organization (http://www.ecma-international.org/). On OS X, we use the most popular non-Microsoft implementation of these technologies (http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page). However, this only applies to the core logic of the application. The UI was written entirely from scratch using Apple's technologies.

David Mitchell
Development Lead
Faithlife

Posts 1416
Wes Saad | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 21 2010 9:18 AM

Dennis Miller:
So we basically have a windows port running through a translator?

No. Something like that would mean Logos comes bundled with an emulator, which is certainly not the case. The heart of Logos' code is written in a language originally designed by Microsoft for Windows but the language specifications are available and Mono is a set of libraries that will build those programs natively on OS X (and some other platforms, though that doesn't apply to Logos). So even though the language specification was originally designed for Windows, it will build natively on the Mac. What you are running is a native Mac app, not something running through an emulator or translator. And as David pointed out, all of the UI code is written using language specifications designed specifically for the Mac. 

Posts 219
Dennis Miller | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 21 2010 9:40 AM

Good to know, thanks for the info, I can rest more peaceful now.

Posts 5
Eric Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Dec 21 2010 11:53 AM

Hi I also us Logos and I have two Macs one that is new a Macbook pro 15' with a i5 the other is a desk top iMac  with a 2.16 I got it in 2006.Both of my Macs are able to run. Logos. I have only had one problem running Logos and it seems to have been caused by flash. After I installed the program ClickToFlash the problem went away. This program turns flash on only then you need it. This is the link http://clicktoflash.com/ 

Also I hope that you have already ran disk utility and repaired your permission.

Eric

Posts 103
Simon | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 22 2010 6:43 AM

 

S Mack:

>> Full OS X reinstall, wiped the drive and started again. This did help. For some unknown reason the previous 10.6 upgrade resulted in slow OS performance the first time around. ::: I was pleasantly surprised by a noticeable significant overall performance boost in OS X and Logos4Mac.

>> Noted the post regarding the 32-bit / 64-bit state of things for ~pre 2009 MacBook Pro's. My MBP is now running the 64-bit kernel by default. ::: Noticeable but minor performance gain.

>> Removed / shutdown every possible running application but saw no appreciable performance gain with Logos4Mac.

>> With regard to stability. I have now decided to perform a full re-installation of Logos4Mac in an attempt to clear out any potential data or application hiccups / corruption, suspect legacy layouts or configuration files etc.

Reinstall completed.

>> Already set the energy settings to higher performance.

>> Verified and repaired file permissions, suggested in one posting.

>> Deleted all Layouts in case there were legacy beta issues.

So far since yesterday, Logos4Mac has crashed once and hung once. Monitored memory usage when the app hung and memory usage steadily increased from ~420meg to 700+ meg over about 7 minutes at which point the rate of increase slowed down but still continued to increase at a very slow rate. Note:- Logos4Mac is set to display the home screen by default. When the app hung all that appeared was a blank white region where the app should have been displaying itself.

Next step will be to try and repeat / induce crashes to determine the events leading up to these events for bug submission.

>> Some postings have mentioned L4W in a VM runs quicker than L4M. Currently installing Logos4Windows on Windows XP Pro with SP3 (clean install) plus all updates to date on VMware Fusion 3 to compare performance and test this claim.

Posts 456
Roger Feenstra | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 22 2010 7:25 AM

I've been out of the country for several weeks and just now brought up L4 Mac.  It has really slowed down. Bringing up a layout takes 10 seconds or more.  Please work on getting this up to speed, guys.  

Elder/Pastor, Hope Now Bible Church, Fresno CA

Posts 656
Jeremy | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Dec 22 2010 9:29 AM

I am assuming you downloaded updates and that supposedly slowed it down? If not I don't see how not using L4Mac for a couple of weeks could slow it down.

Posts 97
Martin Diers | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Dec 23 2010 4:14 PM

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I wanted to add a word regarding the concerns some have express regarding Logos being built around a Mono core.

A number of people have assumed that Mono is some sort of "compatibility" layer, that allows the Mac to run Windows software. This is not true.

Most modern Windows software is developed using Microsoft's .NET technologies. .NET is a set of core libraries, compilers, and the CLR (Common Language Runtime). The CLR is basically a virtual machine, kind of like the Java Virtual Machine (but very different than the JVM under the hood). Windows software built using .NET runs on top of the CLR, which in turn runs on top of Windows.

Mono is exactly the same thing. It is an open-source implementation of the .NET CLR, core libraries, and compilers. The only difference is that Mono can be compiled for Mac, Linux, or even Windows (although that would be kind of dumb).

To get semi-visual, on Windows, you have a layered platform that looks like this:

Logos GUI (Built using WFP)
-----------
Logos Core
----------- 
.NET CLR
-----------
OS (Windows)

 

And on Mac, it looks like this:

Logos GUI (Built using Cocoa)
--------------
Logos Core
--------------
Mono CLR
--------------
OS (Mac)

 

See? Same number of layers. In other words, if Logos for Mac is using a "compatibility" layer, then so is Logos for Windows.

Posts 1861
LogosEmployee
Tom Philpot (Faithlife) | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Dec 24 2010 8:20 AM

Martin Diers:

To get semi-visual, on Windows, you have a layered platform that looks like this:

Logos GUI (Built using WFP)
-----------
Logos Core
----------- 
.NET CLR
-----------
OS (Windows)

 

And on Mac, it looks like this:

Logos GUI (Built using Cocoa)
--------------
Logos Core
--------------
Mono CLR
--------------
OS (Mac)

 

See? Same number of layers. In other words, if Logos for Mac is using a "compatibility" layer, then so is Logos for Windows.

Yep... That pretty much sums it up.

Mobile Development Team Lead

Posts 757
Fr. Charles R. Matheny | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Dec 24 2010 12:33 PM

It is still "porting" is it not?

My question is why not just write it for Mac OSX  straight from the Logos core, why put the other layer in there at all?

Would it mean "rewriting" the Logos Core, is that where the issue comes in?

Not being critical here, just trying to understand better.

 

Thanks.

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Dec 24 2010 1:28 PM

Fr. Charles R. Matheny:

It is still "porting" is it not?

My question is why not just write it for Mac OSX  straight from the Logos core, why put the other layer in there at all?

Would it mean "rewriting" the Logos Core, is that where the issue comes in?

Not being critical here, just trying to understand better.

Sharing code base cross platform allows compatibility for resources, language display, interaction, etc - minimal differences between platforms.  Also as new features are added to Logos 4 code base, much quicker availability on Mac  - only needs GUI addition to expose functionality for use.

With Logos 4.2a Beta, appears cross platform feature parity now a priority Big Smile along with performance enhancements for both platforms Geeked

Logos for Mac 1.2.2 was written exclusively for Mac OS X, but lacked many features compared to Libronix 3 (e.g. notes, PBB's, reading plans, resource update scripts, etc) - also took years for Logos to deliver (much longer than Logos 4 user interface "porting" to Mac - impressive progress in past 14 months).

Keep Smiling Smile

Page 5 of 8 (150 items) « First ... < Previous 3 4 5 6 7 Next > ... Last » | RSS