Page 7 of 8 (146 items) « First ... < Previous 4 5 6 7 8 Next >
This post has 145 Replies | 9 Followers

Posts 4508
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Nov 6 2009 1:24 AM

Br. Raymond Minot:
So I did not pay $70, I paid hundreds... the same exact price that a Windows user paid, and did so because eventually it was supposed to work the same way.

Raymond,

If you paid hundreds then you bought a package right?

The resources you bought in that package are yours...even if you just get the free engine...you are out nothing. Your resources are yours.

If you now want MORE RESOURCES that enhance the v4 engine...then that's 70 dollars.

 

But those resources are yours.

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Posts 14
Br. Raymond Minot | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Nov 6 2009 2:35 AM

Yes and no. This is what Windows users don't seem to understand. At least as far as what I've seen here. Yes the resources purchased in the package are mine. The books don't change and work with the new version 4. This is all good. No one is looking for more. It's the "no" part that makes all the difference.

In the Windows version, things like pronunciation, hymns, Biblical people (which is really cool), Timelines (excellent for the historically challenged), etc. work. They are called add-ons. They are called so because they are not (as far as I've been able to tell) part of the engine itself. Can I use them? Sure. Why? Because somehow I figured out how to install the Mac package that I bought on a Windows machine. This works. These add-ons were supposed to be incorporated into the Mac version.

The Mac version 1 cannot make use of those add-ons and does not have them incorporated into the engine. This was supposed to be happening. Instead, version 4 has come out. So having to pay something means paying for the same thing twice.

Posts 4508
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Nov 6 2009 4:41 AM

Ray,

I think I get what you're saying now...whew...it was a long haul...

 

I agree...there are elements that cross over and you'd be "in effect" paying twice for the same elements....

I would hope Logos would waive the 70 dollars for those who went to v4 for this reason...(that is unless I as a windows users still don't understand)

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Posts 14
Br. Raymond Minot | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Nov 6 2009 5:36 AM

Alleluia! You've got it.

Posts 5
Paul A. Wright | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 9 2009 6:53 AM

Bob,

I puchased the Logos4Mac and now I find that it will not work on PowerPC machines.

Is there plan to offer a PowerPC version?

Paul Wright MD

wrightpa@suddenlink.net

 

Posts 59
Chris Gardner | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 9 2009 2:50 PM

from everything I have been reading they have no plans on offering the program for PPC.  I have been told that they have a 30 day refund policy so if you are going to be running PPC might want to check into that.  Have a great day and God bless.

Posts 14
Jerry W. David | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 10 2009 2:48 AM

I can say I feel exactly the same way.  I changed from Windows to MAC platform about a year ago BUT was never told at the time that not all of the functions I had previously purchased would work.  At the time - I swore I'd never repeat that mistake.  WELL - never say never.  I stupidly bit the same hook!

This new MAC version of Logos 4 is barely functional.  I understand the disclaimer and all - - but this thing works totally different on two different machines - - and both exhibit constant hangups and shutdowns of the program without any reason.

Total frustration with LOGOS right now.  Trying to remain a Christian in my thoughts and attitude realm!

Posts 10
Brian Wagner | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 10 2009 11:16 PM

I downloaded the link and it did alot more , I had to go to the librairy and I selected NIV bible but I couldn't type in the passage I had to use the contents pane. It also gave me some media to look at on the passage guide. Every little bit helps.Big Smile

Posts 4
Kevin Brown | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Dec 12 2009 8:00 AM

I completely agree with Colin and Mark. We were promised a Mac version for years before it materialized.  When it was finally made available I was disappointed by the quality and the high price to crossgrade, and it sounds like others were too.  Needless to say, that did not help endear Logos to the Mac community.  I found it was better to use Parallels or Fusion and run the Windows version of Logos, even when I hate using Windows.  In fact, I installed Windows on my Mac solely to run Logos.  The same was true for the pastor who first recommended Logos to me.

I have watched the Logos 4 video and it looks terrific, but upgrades are so confusing I am not really sure what I am buying.  The video does not say that many of the highlighted features may only be available on upgraded versions; it sounded like those are basic functions.  Looking at the comparison chart it looks like it will actually cost hundreds of dollars to buy what is presented in the video.  In addition, the Mac beta (or alpha) page sounds a lot like the promises made before and it makes me wonder if Logos will live up to those promises.  In my opinion, Mac users have been buying nothing but promises since Logos first mentioned a Mac version was forthcoming many years ago.

I too have a considerable investment in my Logos library and have not been eager to switch to another program, but I am looking.  The irony for me is that Logos seems to have adopted the Microsoft "vision" for pricing its products - overcharging and under-delivering - and those are some of the reasons I quit being a Windows customer and switched to the Mac.  As loyal as I have been to Logos, I feel insulted and frustrated.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, I do consider Logos to be a quality company, but they have enough quirks and inconsistencies that I am reluctant to keep investing in their Mac products or recommend them to others.

Posts 10715
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Dec 12 2009 5:56 PM

KevinBrown01:
The irony for me is that Logos seems to have adopted the Microsoft "vision" for pricing its products - overcharging and under-delivering - and those are some of the reasons I quit being a Windows customer and switched to the Mac.  As loyal as I have been to Logos, I feel insulted and frustrated

As one who has in the past been one of Logos' most harsh Mac critics, I must say that I have learned to disagree with this statement. The underlying code for L4 is identical on both Mac and Windows versions. What is being developed through the Alpha program is the interface. It made good business sense for Logos to develop L4 on Windows first. The Alpha phase for L4 Mac had progressed nicely. Some will disagree with the decision to release an Alpha version, but I am not one of them. Had Logos waited another six months to release a fully functional Mac version of L4, Mac users would have screamed even more loudly. Logos has posted an apology to Mac users and a explanation of the process on their web page. Bob P has explained it in detail on these forums.

It is interesting to me that most—not all—of the most bitter Mac posters have extremely low post counts. It appears that many come here vent their frustration without asking for help or an explanation and then disappear. I don't know that this is your intention, and I hope that it is not. If you want to see a quality Mac version of Logos 4, join the Alpha process, submit bug reports, and post logs. That way, you can have the satisfaction that you have made a positive contribution.

Sorry to have vented on you, but maybe I'm just attempting to atone for my previous harsh and frequently unjustified criticism. Hopefully, I am now a reformed malcontent who would like to help the process.

Posts 71
Colin Thornby | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Dec 12 2009 6:32 PM

JackCaviness:

It is interesting to me that most—not all—of the most bitter Mac posters have extremely low post counts. It appears that many come here vent their frustration without asking for help or an explanation and then disappear. I don't know that this is your intention, and I hope that it is not. If you want to see a quality Mac version of Logos 4, join the Alpha process, submit bug reports, and post logs. That way, you can have the satisfaction that you have made a positive contribution.

Hello Jack.

I'm perhaps one of the people who might be grouped into the 'bitter Mac posters' cohort - though I don't believe that to be an accurate summary of my position or posts. I certainly have a low post count - the reasons for which are below. I did want to respond to your message, though.

For myself, I would be much more active on these forums, much more willing to participate in the Alpha process, submit bug reports and post logs if two things hadn't happened:

  1. Dan's inflammatory posting, which was very hurtful. I know he apologised for this, but for me the damage is done and I mostly now opt out.
  2. The tendency on these forums to flame users. This is unhelpful and, in my opinion, not Christ like. Again - I find it unedifying, and now mostly opt out.

In the end, my contribution, or lack of it, matters little. Because I try to model the behaviour I teach, I have not made criticisms outside of Logos, the forums, or the product anywhere but here. I still recommend the product (though not to Mac users - I can't do that in all honesty, though I may be able to when it reaches a stable, useable version).

Colin

Posts 10715
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Dec 12 2009 7:01 PM

Colin Thornby:

  1. Dan's inflammatory posting, which was very hurtful. I know he apologised for this, but for me the damage is done and I mostly now opt out.
  2. The tendency on these forums to flame users. This is unhelpful and, in my opinion, not Christ like. Again - I find it unedifying, and now mostly opt out.

Colin

I'm not sure whether you are accusing me of unchristian behavior in #2 or not, but does your reason #1 reflect a lack of forgiveness? I had no intention of "flaming" the original poster. Rather, as one who would have previously been at the head of bitter Mac posters, I wanted to offer an alternative view. By "low post count", I was referring to those with less than 10 posts, almost all of which are nothing but continuous complaints, most of which have been repeated over and over.

Posts 71
Colin Thornby | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Dec 12 2009 7:13 PM

JackCaviness:

Colin Thornby:

  1. Dan's inflammatory posting, which was very hurtful. I know he apologised for this, but for me the damage is done and I mostly now opt out.
  2. The tendency on these forums to flame users. This is unhelpful and, in my opinion, not Christ like. Again - I find it unedifying, and now mostly opt out.

Colin

I'm not sure whether you are accusing me of unchristian behavior in #2 or not, but does your reason #1 reflect a lack of forgiveness? I had no intention of "flaming" the original poster. Rather, as one who would have previously been at the head of bitter Mac posters, I wanted to offer an alternative view. By "low post count", I was referring to those with less than 10 posts, almost all of which are nothing but continuous complaints, most of which have been repeated over and over.

Dear Jack

No, I'm not accusing you of un Christian behaviour. I was simply, as a low-post user who was quoted in the message you responded to and who has posted critical comments of Logos' communications particularly, clarifying why I'm a low-post user.

I don't believe my reaction to #1 reflects a lack of forgiveness - I did and do forgive Dan. It just reflects a decision to put energy and care somewhere more useful, really. I don't really feel a need to justify my public withdrawal from this Alpha process on an internet post, but it is something I did pray about and consider.

 

Colin

Posts 439
Mark Stevens | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Dec 12 2009 7:31 PM

I think in the beginning information was very slow in coming especially for mac users who had been expecting Logos for Mac to be finalised as a product. Having said that, I never had a problem with having to upgrade once I understood the whole process. In fact I love Logos 4 so much I simply reverted to suing a PC!

 

My extreme frustration was an early unwillingness to answer my questions. However, I made enough noise and eventually got answers to my questions. My major complaint was Mac for Logos 1.2.2 was not working with Snow Leopard thus rendering the product I paid for partly useless. As I have posted recently Phil Gons has been very helpful and gracious and the issue has now been resolved.

 

Like Colin, I think Dan's post was inflammatory and unhelpful and made matter worse...having said that, totally understandable given his workload and stress. I hope he is doing better now.

 

Lack of information is in my opinion what has frustrated Mac users most!

Posts 10715
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 13 2009 4:30 AM

Colin Thornby:
I don't believe my reaction to #1 reflects a lack of forgiveness - I did and do forgive Dan. It just reflects a decision to put energy and care somewhere more useful, really. I don't really feel a need to justify my public withdrawal from this Alpha process on an internet post, but it is something I did pray about and consider

Just thought I would ask, hopefully in a non-accusatory manner. Sometimes, I need someone to jar my consciousness. I admit I was also jolted by Dan's post, but I would have continued anyway. After all, I am addicted.

Posts 10715
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 13 2009 4:37 AM

MarkStevens:

I simply reverted to suing a PC!

I have always felt that way. Did you hire a good lawyer ?Big Smile. I know what you meant, but sometimes our typos can be amusing.

MarkStevens:
I think in the beginning information was very slow in coming especially for mac users who had been expecting Logos for Mac to be finalised as a product

Perhaps I complained about that so much in the days before the release of version 1 that I wore myself out. My post was the ramblings of a reformed (hopefully) malcontent who wanted to present an alternate viewpoint.

MarkStevens:
Lack of information is in my opinion what has frustrated Mac users most!

Agreed. Lack of communication has always been a sore spot. Hopefully, Logos will do a better job in the future. If we didn't care, we would probably not get so upset. Cool

Posts 4
Kevin Brown | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 14 2009 11:37 AM

JackCaviness:

KevinBrown01:
The irony for me is that Logos seems to have adopted the Microsoft "vision" for pricing its products - overcharging and under-delivering - and those are some of the reasons I quit being a Windows customer and switched to the Mac.  As loyal as I have been to Logos, I feel insulted and frustrated

As one who has in the past been one of Logos' most harsh Mac critics, I must say that I have learned to disagree with this statement. The underlying code for L4 is identical on both Mac and Windows versions. What is being developed through the Alpha program is the interface. It made good business sense for Logos to develop L4 on Windows first. The Alpha phase for L4 Mac had progressed nicely. Some will disagree with the decision to release an Alpha version, but I am not one of them. Had Logos waited another six months to release a fully functional Mac version of L4, Mac users would have screamed even more loudly. Logos has posted an apology to Mac users and a explanation of the process on their web page. Bob P has explained it in detail on these forums.

It is interesting to me that most—not all—of the most bitter Mac posters have extremely low post counts. It appears that many come here vent their frustration without asking for help or an explanation and then disappear. I don't know that this is your intention, and I hope that it is not. If you want to see a quality Mac version of Logos 4, join the Alpha process, submit bug reports, and post logs. That way, you can have the satisfaction that you have made a positive contribution.

Sorry to have vented on you, but maybe I'm just attempting to atone for my previous harsh and frequently unjustified criticism. Hopefully, I am now a reformed malcontent who would like to help the process.

I appreciate your post, but I stand by my statement.  If I were to moderate what I wrote a bit I would add that I do see progress in how Logos is integrating Mac, and the path that Logos 4 is on seems ideal.  I have been a loyal Logos customer since 2002 and still consider it the best Bible program on the market - for Windows.  I initially switched to a Mac in 2006 because of frustrations with the reliability of Windows and Microsoft's apparent indifference to the needs / wants of their customers; in other words I stopped being a Microsoft customer because of high cost, confusing product structure, poor quality control and mismanagement of expectations.  Perhaps I am just sensitive to the Microsoft business model and see some similarities in how Logos handles things.

 

I am not sure I would consider myself a "bitter Mac poster" though, skeptical perhaps, but not bitter.  I expressed an opinion because I thought that is the purpose of these forums.  I wasn't "flamed" into posting, I had been forming my opinion over many years and finally took the time to express it, that's all, although I do appreciate the fact that there are "like minds" out there.  Keep in mind that in the early days of Logos for Mac development we were kept largely in the dark and perhaps that conditioned some of us into passively awaiting crumbs to drop rather than actively providing constructive input.  I don't even remember an alpha or beta program then.  Now there is one and I give Logos credit for putting it out there so we can participate.  Low post counts doesn't mean I don't care or haven't been paying attention.

To reiterate, we have been promised a Mac equivalent for years.  My expectation has been to see a Mac version that had all of the functionality of the Windows version and in my opinion we have yet to see those promises fully realized; my original Logos Series X for Windows is still the most functionally complete version I have.  I readily admit that I see Logos 4 as a fulfillment of the promises, when it actually happens.  Given the years of unmet promises I think it is understandable that there may be some, like me, who lack confidence and are holding back until they see a delivered product.  I just don't have the money to keep investing in promises.

Still, let me stress again that I do see progress.  For me it is not a matter of which platform "got it first" and the fact that it will take more time for the Mac version is perfectly understandable and acceptable.  My issues are with longstanding unmet expectations and the confusion around the cross-grade / upgrade.  Other than these forums I see very little information to help Mac users fully switch their Windows versions to Mac, it looks to me that we are still working in half-measures with integration of a true Mac platform.  I realize Logos 4 for Mac is not there yet, but I mean integration of Macs in general.  Logos Mac 1.2.2 certainly didn't do it.  I would predict that if Logos 4 for Mac does deliver as promised a lot of the pent up frustration by Mac users feeling like unwanted step children may dissipate fairly quickly.

Posts 4508
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 14 2009 12:39 PM

KevinBrown01:
I realize Logos 4 for Mac is not there yet, but I mean integration of Macs in general.

Kevin,

Can I ask; what specifically are you referring to here when you say "integration of Macs in general" what do you have in mind?

I'm not asking to slam you; in fact I see your point and your post came across to this user as well spoken and calm.

I ask because I'm a curious windows user and just wanted to know.

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Posts 4
Kevin Brown | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 14 2009 1:59 PM

Robert Pavich:

KevinBrown01:
I realize Logos 4 for Mac is not there yet, but I mean integration of Macs in general.

Kevin,

Can I ask; what specifically are you referring to here when you say "integration of Macs in general" what do you have in mind?

I'm not asking to slam you; in fact I see your point and your post came across to this user as well spoken and calm.

I ask because I'm a curious windows user and just wanted to know.

I mean that Logos has been mainly a Windows program/company.  The company started out in Windows and to this day Macs have been more or less a subsidiary.  That reflects the market; there are a lot more Windows users than Mac users so I understand how business priorities play a role in product development and I understand that Windows was the environment that was most comfortable for the developers early on.  It has been encouraging to see how Macs have gained in prominence at Logos and I suspect that Mac users are not an insignificant percentage of Logos customers or they wouldn't bother, but they still are not up to the level of the Windows version.  

This is far from unprecedented.  Intuit has done something similar with its Quicken products (and make lousy Mac products, BTW). Microsoft, not surprising, favors its Windows versions (although Microsoft's Mac Business Unit seems to have been re-awakened in its development of its Office suite).  Both Intuit and Microsoft have run their Windows and Mac product lines on independent timetables.  Adobe has done a pretty good job of producing for both Mac and Windows concurrently, but their customer base is probably fairly evenly balanced between the two platforms.  

I just think many Mac users are hopeful that Logos will become more of a Bible software company catering to both rather than perceived as primarily a Windows software development company.  It appears they are well on their way to achieving that with Logos 4.  We Mac users are just waiting for a Mac version that really is on par with the Windows version and we have waited a long time.  That is where the rub has been for me; we haven't seen a true Mac equivalent, we have just been promised one.  The "integration" would be more of a seamlessness between platforms.

Posts 4508
Robert Pavich | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 14 2009 2:22 PM

Kevin,

thanks for the detailed explaination...

I have no idea what it's like to be a Mac user in this situation...although I must say that reading the threads, and the responses over these last few months has made me more sensitive to the issue....

God bless,

bob

Robert Pavich

For help go to the Wiki: http://wiki.logos.com/Table_of_Contents__

Page 7 of 8 (146 items) « First ... < Previous 4 5 6 7 8 Next > | RSS