Experiences with Logseq MD on macOS 26?

Questions & Help
1

Has anyone here tried running Logseq MD on macOS 26 yet? I’m wondering if it’s safe to update, or if the app is still affected by the reported slowdowns linked to the Electron bug.

From what I’ve read, Apple has started rolling out a fix, but it doesn’t seem to address every Electron-based app. For example: Developers begin rolling out fix for major bug that caused slowdowns on macOS Tahoe - 9to5Mac

Curious to hear if Logseq is running smoothly for you on macOS 26, or if there are still performance issues.

2

As far as I can tell from looking at the code, Logseq is not using the affected APIs, and this has not been reported as an issue.
I am using Logseq MD and DB on version 0.11.x without issues at the moment.

3

Thanks ! I’m still on the older version 0.10.x - could it be affected by the those API’s ?

4

One day after upgrading to Mac OS 26 I noticed my battery draining faster than usual and after checking the Activity Monitor I attributed it to a higher usage of the CPU (and GPU) by Logseq, for no particular reason. I think I found a discussion (which of course now I can’t find anymore) where other people noticed the same issue. I noticed it only because suddenly my Mac’s battery was draining faster than usual and it happened only with Logseq open and the Activity Monitor showed it being up there amongst the high consuming apps.
I have to say, recently I’ve not been using Logseq very much, but if I open it right now it seems not to be a problem anymore.
I’m running 0.10.14 (89)

5

This is what I was asking about: Slow startup on MacOS Tahoe – Electron version issue? (non-DB version)

6

Yes, I have read it. I am not experiencing any slowdown at startup.
From your first link I landed on the Shamelectron page, which lists applications using a version of Electron which allegedly has a big impact on GPU performance. Logseq is among those, but personally I haven’t noticed a visible slowdown, certainly not the 25 seconds startup.

Could it be to a particularly complicated graph which is loaded on opening?

7

It’s been updated in Logseq 0.10.15

8

It has. And I’m not happy with it. :angry:

Now 2 processes, Logseq Helper (Renderer) and Logseq Helper (GPU), are back in the top 5 more CPU consuming processes (% CPU), even if Logseq is only just open on a not particularly complex journal page and I’m not doing any work with it.

Back in September the appearance of these 2 processes in the highest ranking of % CPU was correlated to a higher battery consumption.

I would like to know what’s happening.

9

Make sure you have installed using the ARM binary and not x86, and see if that helps.

1 Like
Slow startup on MacOS Tahoe -- Electron version issue? (non-DB version)
10

Of course I have installed the ARM version, I don’t even think that the x86_64 could run, because I have no Rosetta or other similar emulation layer.

By the way, the homepage still suggests the Intel version as “most common in Macs”.

11

Thank you, Danzu. I’m embarrassed to admit that, in my case, this was the problem all along (as described in my post that was linked to above). I guess the fluidity of using the Intel version decreased when switching to MacOS 26, and after updating to Logseq 0.10.15, the problem became much worse, to the point of Logseq becoming almost unusable. That’s when I found your post. Now that I’ve got the proper version, all is well.

1 Like