Logos 4 running slow on mac...

Page 2 of 5 (96 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next >
This post has 95 Replies | 7 Followers

Posts 757
Fr. Charles R. Matheny | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 15 2011 10:41 PM

Dear Michael: I think your point, is the point.

The software works well on "one mac" , but not on another.

The macs are not the issues, something is "inconsistent" in the software code, or indexing, somewhere.

I know several people who are having these issues, for some it actually runs better on their Macbook core 2 duo, than it does on their Imac with faster processor, more ram, faster hard-drive.

 

Not so with "any other program".

 

So it's not people bashing Logos, or being silly speed hounds, it is about something being consistently, inconsistent, across installs.

This is something very uncommon for Apple owners.

 

Blessings

Posts 1
Jason | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Mar 15 2011 11:55 PM

I'm running L4M on my iMac, a 2 ghz 2 core duo processor with 3 gb ddr2 sdram, with a cable internet connection. The reality is that a majority of the resources are hosted on Logos' server. Whatever the case, I have not been impressed with the speed of searching or loading. It takes quite awhile to load, and while the search through "the entire library" may be "6 seconds" on their server...from the time I press enter until the search is complete is much much longer than that! It's not my internet connection, and I have no problem running multiple graphic programs, so I can only assume it's somewhere in the coding of L4M. 

Wish they would have had this ironed out before now, because I'm considering getting my refund in the next few days before 30 days is over and waiting until the release a quality mac product. 

I've had fewer issues searching through my phone. 

Posts 5444
Forum MVP
Mike Binks | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 16 2011 12:32 AM

Jason:
The reality is that a majority of the resources are hosted on Logos' server

The resources that your computer uses are stored locally. The resources on the Logos servers are only downloaded not processed.

All of the books you own are stored on your machine and that is the copy that is searched.

The speed of your internet connection is only important if ...

1. You are downloading resources or updates.

2. You  are syncing stuff between two computers.

3. You are using an iphone or ipad.

tootle pip

Mike

How to get logs and post them. (now tagging post-apocalyptic fiction as current affairs)

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 16 2011 12:38 AM

Jason:

I'm running L4M on my iMac, a 2 ghz 2 core duo processor with 3 gb ddr2 sdram, with a cable internet connection. The reality is that a majority of the resources are hosted on Logos' server. Whatever the case, I have not been impressed with the speed of searching or loading. It takes quite awhile to load, and while the search through "the entire library" may be "6 seconds" on their server...from the time I press enter until the search is complete is much much longer than that! It's not my internet connection, and I have no problem running multiple graphic programs, so I can only assume it's somewhere in the coding of L4M. 

Wish they would have had this ironed out before now, because I'm considering getting my refund in the next few days before 30 days is over and waiting until the release a quality mac product. 

I've had fewer issues searching through my phone. 

Welcome Big Smile

Logos 4 on Mac downloads all licensed resources from Logos servers to Mac computer, followed by local indexing (that can take several hours).  For many searches, speed is impressive, but time to display search results is not.  Currently know wildcard searching ('*') is sluggish in Logos 4.2a on Mac & PC along with developers being aware of issue and planning to fix in upcoming beta cycle.

Option: can verify that Logos resources are local on Mac by disconnecting internet connection, then open Logos and perform searches.  Forum notes search speed display improvement between 4.0b and 4.2a Beta => http://community.logos.com/forums/p/27972/207478.aspx#207478 - searched for 'David' in Old Testament.

Wiki Getting Started with Logos page includes Exegetical Guide customization tip since Word by Word section can be slow to populate and scroll.

On a 2007 model iMac with 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, launching Logos 4.2a to last used layout with half dozen linked bibles and three floating windows takes a minute or two.  Opening a layout with fewer resources responds quicker.

The Logos iOS application defaults to using resources on Logos servers along with searches being done on Logos servers.  With Logos 4 base package purchase, do have option to download Logos resources for offline use.

If desire refund, suggest contacting Logos => http://www.logos.com/about/contact

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 16 2011 12:43 AM

Mike Binks:

Jason:
The reality is that a majority of the resources are hosted on Logos' server

The resources that your computer uses are stored locally. The resources on the Logos servers are only downloaded not processed.

All of the books you own are stored on your machine and that is the copy that is searched.

The speed of your internet connection is only important if ...

1. You are downloading resources or updates.

2. You  are syncing stuff between two computers.

3. You are using an iphone or ipad.

4. Using Passage Guide .com sections on Logos 4 Mac to retrieve information from internet (by default 4 sections are enabled)

5. Refreshing Logos 4 Mac Home Page (default customization reads several items from Logos servers)

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 5444
Forum MVP
Mike Binks | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 16 2011 2:33 AM

Thanks KS4J ever comprehensive and accurate.

What is more - both good points.

tootle pip

Mike

How to get logs and post them. (now tagging post-apocalyptic fiction as current affairs)

Posts 219
Dennis Miller | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 16 2011 4:52 AM

Fr. Charles R. Matheny:

QUOTE:Yes, Accordance runs quicker - but that's also what you get when you run a program that's much more limited than Logos. END QUOTE

I find that statement has no basis in fact or function.

Accordance is not less powerful than Logos, not at all, not in any way.

Accordance has been a native Mac software for a lot longer than Logos, thats the difference in operational consistency/speed, not that Accordance has limited ability.

You can search every resource you have in Accordance faster than you can move a mouse, Logos cannot do the same with the exact same resource library.

The Statement of limited ability concerning Accordance has no basis in fact.

Feature sets are presented differently, the philosophy of usage is different, but Accordance is not more limited than Logos.

I have to agree. People keep saying Logos is so much more powerful than Accordance but since switching and getting used to the functionality differences I find Accordance a pleasure to use and very fast. If I had stayed in the PC Windows world and not upgraded to L4 I would probably still prefer logos 3 for the power and resources I had available to me. But, I'm sorry this new direction they have decided to take with L4 is a step in the wrong direction in my opinion and the decisions made when deciding to code for the Mac platform were poorly thought out, again in my opinion. I still have L4 and continue to purchase some of their community pricing offerings but most of my investment is now going toward my Accordance library.

Posts 570
Rev Chris | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 16 2011 7:42 AM

To those that say Accordance is just as powerful as Logos: What Logos package are you running?  I've used Accordance before on a computer that had an extensive Accordance library.  But, the word-study tools that come with the Scholar's edition of Logos beat anything I've seen with Accordance.  Also, there simply are better library selections available with Logos.  I agree that Accordance searches faster and runs smoother - but I don't think it's entirely fair to compare the two programs as apples to apples.  Not being a computer programmer myself, I can't comment on whether Logos has some easily-fixable flaw in it that is causing it to be slow.  If it does as some of you say, hopefully the Logos techs have seen this forum and are already working on a solution.  But in the mean time, I'm happy with my investment.  As I said above, making a few tweaks from the wiki helps out a ton.  Basically the only tweaks I made was to remove some of the resources available on the Passage Guide and Exegetical Guide, and to force my macbook to run in 64-bit mode (a problem with Apple, not with Logos).  I didn't bother with any of the other tweaks because those two were enough to make it run quite nicely on my mid-range macbook.

Pastor, seminary trustee, and app developer.  Check out my latest app for churches: The Church App

Posts 2749
mab | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 16 2011 7:57 AM

The big speed increase with the last update comes only a couple months after L4M launched. I consider that ample proof that Logos is committed to improving their product. 

The mind of man is the mill of God, not to grind chaff, but wheat. Thomas Manton | Study hard, for the well is deep, and our brains are shallow. Richard Baxter

Posts 757
Fr. Charles R. Matheny | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 16 2011 9:21 AM

Dear Rec. Chris : The difference is subjective in most cases.

If you or anyone else, is happier working with Logos than Accordance , then that is certainly fine.

However, you will find a lot of people who are more familiar with Accordance tell you that it, will do more than Logos, that it's functions are much wider and deeper, especially in original Languages, in fact, in that area, most reviewers agree, and most own both.

For the average user, what we are actually taking about is just preference, it's purely subjective, it's about what one wants to do, the way they do it, they way "they" study.

It's a tool, and that's all, at the end of the day.

 

Logos is the "Library software" , Accordance is more concerned with searching and original language work, both are valid and commendable approaches.

Accordance is not "limited in what it can do or perform", not at all, it's the fasted software out there, of any, on any platform.

Logos is intensive in pulling results from huge libraries, detailed information, it is indeed a powerful platform, currently limited by some coding issues I grant you, some consistency issues, but no one can say it's not powerful.

 

I have both, one gets more attention than the other, but both have their place.

You are correct that Logos has the larger library, this is both good and , for some, like myself, a real hindrance for upgrades.

I realized with my previous software library that I had many, many books that had no value to me at all, were seldom if ever used, some that had never been used, would never be used, yet, no way to purchase what I did need instead of having an index full of things I did not.

 

For some, this Library picked by others is fine, for others, this is not so good.

 

Again, it's subjective, personal.

Both Accordance and Logos have strong points and weak points.

 

My only point was there is a difference between the subjective and the factual accounting of the programs "capabilities".

Ones preference for a Ford, does not mean a Chevy is not a capable car.

Posts 570
Rev Chris | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 16 2011 9:37 AM

Fr. Charles R. Matheny:

My only point was there is a difference between the subjective and the factual accounting of the programs "capabilities".

Ones preference for a Ford, does not mean a Chevy is not a capable car.

Agreed ... this would seem to support my point that the two are not truly comparable. 

 

I do agree that Logos has many, many books that I find no use for and I'm sure this hinders the searching speed.  It would be nice if we could take some resources off of our local machines, but also do a 'server search' for all books we have in our purchased library for those books that are occasionally helpful but do not warrant staying on the local machine and taking up resources.

Pastor, seminary trustee, and app developer.  Check out my latest app for churches: The Church App

Posts 757
Fr. Charles R. Matheny | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 16 2011 12:48 PM

Yes, it would be nice to set up certain "sets" of resources and limit Logos to those, say for certain functions.

One would certainly think speed would increase dramatically if Logos was not searching the whole index.

 

This is a feature in Accordance btw, and has proven very fast, very useful, a real "workflow" tool that saves a great deal of time.

One of the time savers is you are not sorting through a lot of results which have no real bearing on the study being done.

 

 

Posts 570
Rev Chris | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 16 2011 1:05 PM

Have you tried setting up a collection and adding it to My Passage Guide instead of "entire library"?  That seemed to help for me, although as I posted in another area there seems to be a bug with that feature when trying to search materials using publication date as a criteria.

Pastor, seminary trustee, and app developer.  Check out my latest app for churches: The Church App

Posts 10832
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 16 2011 1:26 PM

Fr. Charles R. Matheny:
Yes, it would be nice to set up certain "sets" of resources and limit Logos to those, say for certain functions.

That is the very purpose for which collections are designed. I suspect that you are far more familiar with Accordance than you are with Logos. As I said in an earlier post, I have used Accordance since before it was Accordance, so I am familiar with both, and I disagree with your assessment. However, I am unwilling to engage in a debate on the issue.

Posts 757
Fr. Charles R. Matheny | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 16 2011 1:42 PM

yea, there are "just issues" still being worked on.

It will be interesting to see what Logos comes up with on down the road as they become better at dealing with the Mac/Apple/Unix Platform.

It is easy to forget this is just infancy in this area for Logos.

 

I would agree with those who say it is expensive and frustrating for many, to work with, while Logos learns, but hey, they have to start somewhere I suppose.

It is frustrating for those who do not have installs working well, and, more so when those persons are made to feel there is something wrong with them, or their computer/set-up.

The reason most people come to a Mac is to get away from those "type of frustrations" and to a platform that generally, no matter what software you use: "Just Works".

So, given time, I think Logos will get some things worked out be a good Mac program, different than Accordance in philosophy, but good for it is designed to do.

 

I love my truck, and my car, both are vehicles for transportation, both have value to me, yet are purchased (and often used ) for different purposes.  

Posts 757
Fr. Charles R. Matheny | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 16 2011 1:46 PM

Dear Jack: Agreed on debate, again, It is just preference, it's subjective.

Both programs were loaded on my computers at about the same time, within a day of so of each other.

 

There are some things Logos does that Accordance does not, there are some things Accordance does that Logos does not, some that both do, but in different ways, with differing levels of results.

Again, some of it depends on what work one is doing, some of it is simply preference, some of it is which UI fits our personality better.

 

It's just software.

Posts 757
Fr. Charles R. Matheny | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 16 2011 1:57 PM

But yes, you are correct, ( full disclosure ) I do use Accordance a great deal more.

I love the UI concepts in Logos, and many of it's features- ( I do think some of them are really nice ), but I need the functionality and stability Logos cannot give at this time.

 

Posts 10832
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 16 2011 2:09 PM

Fr. Charles R. Matheny:
But yes, you are correct, ( full disclosure ) I do use Accordance a great deal more.

And I use Logos more. I have all of Dr J's podcasts, but have not taken the time to really learn Accordance 9.2.

Like you say, they are tools. No need to become fanatical about either one.

Posts 757
Fr. Charles R. Matheny | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 16 2011 3:17 PM

Agreed, and I would bet "a dollar against a donut hole" if I needed help using the tools you know so well, you would be gracious and give me said help.

Same true in reverse.

 

We do seem to "personalize" these things don't we, get offended if others say anything negative.

Oh that I would be so willing to protect my fellow man, and keep all things in the right perspectives- then, I would of a certain, be a better man myself.

 

 

Blessings Jack and all .

Posts 109
Darryl Burling | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 16 2011 8:17 PM

I've come from Logos 4 on PC to Mac and while it wasn't particularly snappy on the PC, it isn't much worse on my Mac Mini (4Gb RAM).   It is a serious memory hog though and after a while this becomes a problem.  Yesterday for instance I found that Logos was using 1.2Gb of Virtual Memory and 600Mb RAM - which is significantly more than any other app - including hogs like iTunes.  Whats more is that there doesn't seem to be a good reason for Logos to use this RAM, and in spite of using more RAM the application ran slower and slower - as did my machine - until I closed Logos and everything returned to normal.

Having said that, I believe the issue is to do with the base architecture and technology.  From what I understand Logos 4 on PC is based on Microsoft's .Net technology, which is a great development experience.  As a former Microsoft employee, I can say that it certainly allows for rapid and flexible development, however, in my experience it requires great care when developing multi-tier applications and/or applications where you have a large call stack - which I believe (I haven't seen the code) Logos does.

When it came to the Mac, I understand that Logos took the Open Source .Net platform (Mono) and ported the PC code to the Mac.  This allowed them to essentially bug fix and tweak the Windows app to run natively on the Mac quickly.  However, this introduces several layers into the application stack that wouldn't normally be there.  Normally the Operating System (OSX) would run the executables that the program uses which might then call libraries, etc to do the work they do.  In this case, you have OSX with one or maybe more runtime layers within which the executables run and call libraries to do their work. Each of these intermediate runtime layers has to make calls back to the operating system and pass information between the application and the operating system.  This makes development quick, at the expense of execution time.

Apologies if it is too technical, but I believe that this is why both the PC and Mac versions are slow and why the Mac version is slower.

I agree with someone earlier on who said that it would be good to do an architecture review.  It might be possible to take some of the components written in .Net and rewrite just those bits on the Mac and call them from the existing code.  Small things like this might not mean a full rewrite, but might allow significant incremental improvements if the bottlenecks could be identified.

But with all the Logs that Logos receive (which should all have component timings in them), they should already know where the bottlenecks are - in which case there is something else holding up performance improvements.

Page 2 of 5 (96 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > | RSS