Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :):Logos lacks NIV 2011 Reverse Interlinear resource.
Only in the OT:
Mac | iOS | L5 Gold | Win Logs | Mac Logs
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :):Accordance forums have 32,126 posts compared to 354,373 posts in Logos forums.
Could it be because Accordance has less problems than Logos? A significant portion of those 354,373 posts have been complaints. Also the Accordance forums are more closely moderated than the Logos forums. Flame wars and fluff postings are not allowed over there.
Since Accordance is Mac only, it could be expected to have less forum participation. What percentage of those 354,373 posts are from Windows users? You are comparing apples with oranges.
Although I prefer L4 Mac to Accordance, I still believe we should be fair in our posts about the two products.
www.logos.com/support/logos5/mac/logging
alabama24: Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :):Logos lacks NIV 2011 Reverse Interlinear resource. Only in the OT:
Mea culpa appears Logos NIV 2011 Reverse Interlinear was last updated on 3 Feb 2012 (now have tagged resource appropriately).
Jack Caviness: Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :):Accordance forums have 32,126 posts compared to 354,373 posts in Logos forums. Could it be because Accordance has less problems than Logos? A significant portion of those 354,373 posts have been complaints. Also the Accordance forums are more closely moderated than the Logos forums. Flame wars and fluff postings are not allowed over there. Since Accordance is Mac only, it could be expected to have less forum participation. What percentage of those 354,373 posts are from Windows users? You are comparing apples with oranges. Although I prefer L4 Mac to Accordance, I still believe we should be fair in our posts about the two products.
Apologies: not know how Accordance and Logos compare for problems (as a % of user community). Both forums have a number of user complaints (albeit Logos forums have more complaints online than Accordance); learned OS X Lion has some issues that adversely affect Accordance and Logos. Also both forums are lacking a number of complaints, which were not posted online (e.g. technical support phone calls and email). Likewise both companies do not want their forums used to advertise sales of their products, especially by those who no longer want/need them.
Accordance forums include their iOS app while Logos forums include discussions on more platforms. Also Logos forum post count includes Proclaim discussions, which runs on Mac and PC, plus Biblia and web sites.
Forum reply on 25 Sep 2010 => http://community.logos.com/forums/p/23527/175427.aspx#175427 includes: "Observation: Accordance forums have 19,654 total posts compared to 174,313 Logos forum posts."
Forum reply on 7 Dec 2010 => http://community.logos.com/forums/p/26891/198641.aspx#198641 noted: "Fully 29% of posts in the Accordance forum are in the Bugs or Technical Support forums."
Accordance forums now have 18 % of posts in the Bugs or Technical Support forums. Searching google for the word bug in Logos forums finds 10,200 results while a search for help find 35,100 results although a search for smiling finds 4,480 results (seems less than half) so guessing Logos forum bug and help threads to be from 13 % to 39 % overall. Noticed both Accordance and Logos have learning curves along with organizing forums and product pages differently (e.g. Accordance has two Español forums while Logos has one). Accordance has a better forum for sharing user contributed books and tools.
Personally Thankful for many friendly forum discussions about Logos Bible Software: have learned a lot plus have a lot to learn (amazed by amount of my learning this year).
At times wish could be with some Logos 4 users experiencing anguish (commiserate and perhaps help). The Logos 4 user interface on Mac and PC provides opportunities for click and wait (e.g. Morph Search resource drop down list while Logos 4 searches collections to include in drop down list). Choosing Logos resources for Text Comparison tool is challenging on Mac and PC (quirky user interface for comma separated list, which can lose selections).
Keep Smiling
Logos Wiki Getting Started Logos 5 Beta
Larry: As far as my practical experience running a business ( with many employees btw) goes: you have made an un-informed assumption and, a mistaken one.
My Point about Logos licensing everything they could was indicated as a very smart business move- I have no issues with that, it gives them a huge marketing edge.
The Problem I have is with false advertising ( software does not perform as advertised) and with the fact the ongoing issues are still, ongoing- i.e. , not resolved, not fixed.
This is no longer new software, in fact, in the world of software- it's actually getting a little long in the tooth. Logos should be working on minor issues related to individual user setups, minor glitches etc. Instead, they are still trying to make basic code work correctly for the Mac platform.
To all: My point concerning Mono was perhaps not clear, so let me try to clear the air.
Osx and "normal" Mac software is coded in certain ways with particular tools with benchmarks that can be looked at for one to see if they are getting expected results. ( Windows too, Linux as well).
Anytime one try's to code across platforms "by inserting something to make two different code types play together" you are going to get certain types of issues. ( Performance, compatibility with other areas etc.)
This IS what all of the Mono conversations have been about.
My point is : Logos is not going to change what they are doing- they have committed to this path, have stated plainly they are not going to change it.
The issue of Mono, use or not, as a discussion point with Logos is over, has been over.
It's a done deal.
Thus, Logos for Mac is not ever going to run the same way other programs coded for Mac run, it cannot, it will not.
The reason is simple, it has another layer of code called Mono that has to be taken under consideration.
Who knows, perhaps there will be some breakthrough and Mono will be come the new way all Mac software is coded, but until then, Logos will not run on a Mac the same way other Mac software runs on Macs , because it by definition "cannot".
If it ran better than other software on macs, it would be because of Mono, so again, it would not be running the same as other Mac Software- because it's different due to Mono.
It's that simple.
Yes, I know of Accordance, I own it, works great, best tech support in the world, only needed it twice and have owned it longer than Logos.
Yes, less posts on their Forums, more posts of praise.
However, what in the wide world of sports does that have to do with anything?
I was not here discussing Accordance, I was here discussing Logos, my financial investment is why it's important to me, and the topic was concerning why it is the way, it is- perhaps that being Mono.
Accordance has nothing to do with that discussion.
Why did I buy Logos if I am happy with Accordance?
Resources! Logos has left little on the table ( smart business man that Mr. Pritchett ).
The issue for me is that nothing IS getting any better.
To be clear: I waited over a year after Logos for Mac ( the current version ) was released to the public as stable, before buying.
I bought on the recommendations of many on these boards: that it was working pretty well, it was stable, functional.
My purchase was quite some time ago, ( can't say how long without looking ), my experience is daily quite unsatisfactory.
I want it fixed, i have no other place to get the resources I need because there is no other place to get them.
I can use my own library which is extensive, but the point was to have the resources available at a click and searchable.
I cannot do so with any regularity, without frustration, without crashes, hangs etc.
Mono is what is "claimed" by many to be the issue, but Mono for Logos is not going to change.
Thus I stand by my point that I am stuck- there is no resolution of this issue that I can see based on the experience I have had with Logos- it is what it is.
Will there be some improvements- I would certainly think so, hope so.
Will it here be what I thought I was purchasing?
No.
It is NOT coded to be what I thought it was-Software specifically made for a Mac.
It is Windows software ported over to Osx through an intermediary layer to try and make it compatible.
It is what it is, this is what it will be.
They have invested far to much time, money and effort at this point to go back.
Jack Caviness: Hapax Legomena: Jack Caviness: Fr. Charles R. Matheny:We are stuck. I would disagree with this evaluation. You could always cut the losses you claim to have and switch to Accordance, which is a very real alternative to Logos for Mac. And walk away from the ca. $10,000 I've spent on Logos. I have invested over $18k US in direct purchases from Logos, but if I had half the problems some complain about in this forum, I would cut my losses and return to Accordance. It is a very good application. I just happen to prefer L4 Mac at this point.
Hapax Legomena: Jack Caviness: Fr. Charles R. Matheny:We are stuck. I would disagree with this evaluation. You could always cut the losses you claim to have and switch to Accordance, which is a very real alternative to Logos for Mac. And walk away from the ca. $10,000 I've spent on Logos.
Jack Caviness: Fr. Charles R. Matheny:We are stuck. I would disagree with this evaluation. You could always cut the losses you claim to have and switch to Accordance, which is a very real alternative to Logos for Mac.
Fr. Charles R. Matheny:We are stuck.
I would disagree with this evaluation. You could always cut the losses you claim to have and switch to Accordance, which is a very real alternative to Logos for Mac.
And walk away from the ca. $10,000 I've spent on Logos.
I have invested over $18k US in direct purchases from Logos, but if I had half the problems some complain about in this forum, I would cut my losses and return to Accordance. It is a very good application. I just happen to prefer L4 Mac at this point.
Maybe the application itself is good, and maybe your workflow is such that you could just switch if you wanted to, but for me it's no alternative at all. They don't have what I need.
Mac Mini late 2010 8GB RAM 10.6.8
fgh: Jack Caviness: I have invested over $18k US in direct purchases from Logos, but if I had half the problems some complain about in this forum, I would cut my losses and return to Accordance. It is a very good application. I just happen to prefer L4 Mac at this point. Maybe the application itself is good, and maybe your workflow is such that you could just switch if you wanted to, but for me it's no alternative at all. They don't have what I need.
Jack Caviness: I have invested over $18k US in direct purchases from Logos, but if I had half the problems some complain about in this forum, I would cut my losses and return to Accordance. It is a very good application. I just happen to prefer L4 Mac at this point.
Since the problems I have with L4 Mac are non-show-stoppers, I can probably make rash statements such as the above. However, I have no intention of actually deserting Logos because it offers so much more than Accordance does. But then, I have not have problems like those others in this thread have reported. In the US Navy we had a warning: "Don't let your alligator mouth overload your hummingbird …" Perhaps I should have remembered that
While I have my own frustrations which are higher at times than others depending on the issues with a particular release, I haven't arrived at all the exact same conclusions as the right honorable Fr. Charles R. Matheny. I am aware of his journey and respect his position though. His experience is valid and I have encountered similar issues.
mitchellisdumb:It is far, far too early to make the call you just made in point #2. In fact, I would say it's been pretty roundly refuted by David and others earlier in this thread. Logos 4 is still pretty young, and isn't even feature-complete yet. Once it's feature-complete, I hope (and frankly expect) that significant amounts of development time will be devoted to refactoring and optimizing the application for stability and performance.
I do respectfully disagree on this. Unless there is agreement on what 'feature complete' is, then this will be a moving goal post. There also has to be agreement on what is an adequate time frame. It boils down to expectations, which is the root of Fr. Matheny's frustration. Logos 4 has been in 'full release' for well over two years and if memory serves me correct it is actually about two and a half years. Now by my emphasis on 'full release' there's also another definitional issue. So, if it is too early to expect trouble free computing on full release software, what is the adequate time frame for it to be adequately mature and what features need to be in place for it to be 'feature complete'? Until that is agreed, we will probably have circular discussions about expectations.
Further to make this more complicated, is that some will find their experience to be adequate based on the general conditions of their computer and their usage. Some users may be more power users or use features that don't get as thoroughly hammered. Others may use Logos more like an English e-reader. No two users are generally alike. I am somewhat sympathetic to the developers on this. The more features you have in software, the more you have to be everywhere at once, testing combinations of actions!
I can say this much, Logos 4.5a SR-1 has been a bit better for me. That being said, I don't push the software like I use to as I have had to rely on another Bible Software product. I don't report the problems so much here at this stage because I just don't have time to continue to help debug this software. This week Logos 4 is the only app that I have had for 'force quit' on my Macbook to get it to close after a spinning pizza (Jack Caviness' words for when Logos 4 throws a tantrum) :) This is not a one off. Logos 4 is usually the only app that I have to get rough with and I do know that if my Macbook in general had as many issues with OSX, I would have thrown it into the sea by now.
I report this not to throw flames or be overly negative, but rather to back up the comments of those who struggle. Fr. Matheny's experience is valid as well as anyone else who comes to these forums to report what may appear to be dissenting views. No amount of rebuttal, links to wikipages, philosophical ponderings will nullify what he encountered today to study the Bible. It is what it is. On the really bad days, we have to hope for better.
Logos for Mac - Wiki Page and FAQ
Good post Donovan.
Thanks Donovan for pointing out the nuances. I should probably clarify what I disagreed with about Fr. Matheny's post. I'm in no position to discount his experiences with Logos for Mac, and have myself shared many of those experiences. I completely agree that Logos has failed to deliver an adequately high-quality product (in terms of stability and performance) and that they have had adequate time to make that happen.
Where I disagree is in hopes for the future. Fr. Matheny shared the opinion that Mono so heavily cripples Logos 4 Mac that there is no chance for it to become a stable, quality product in the future without a complete rewrite in native Mac code. While I do prefer applications that are entirely native, I think David and others from Logos have done a fairly good job of demonstrating on this forum that Mono is a robust platform with a hopeful future. By doing so, however, they've laid the blame on themselves. By Bob's own admission, only one of the Logos 4 Mac developers had previous Mac development experience when the project started. It sounds bad, but the upshot is that as the developers gain more experience (and as they hire new developers who are more familiar with Obj C and Cocoa) they should be able to go back and optimize the application. Fixing the Mono framework would be very difficult, but fixing sloppy code is a lot easier.
The only question that remains in my mind isn't whether they can make it better, but if they will. I have my concerns. They've been focusing on expansion of the platform, social tools, and that sort of thing lately, which are all good things. However, I would really like for them to have a release something akin to what Apple did with Snow Leopard – a release focused entirely on excising bugs, refactoring code, and otherwise optimizing things. If they don't do this soon, I'll probably get a lot more pessimistic about the future.
mitchellisdumb:However, I would really like for them to have a release something akin to what Apple did with Snow Leopard – a release focused entirely on excising bugs, refactoring code, and otherwise optimizing things.
Snow Leopard included 64 bit addressing for many applications along with option for 64 bit OS X kernel (noticeably faster in many applications, including Logos 4). Wonder if initial Logos 5 release could be focused on optimization and fixing known issues (irritants) along with migrating to 64 bit on Mac and Windows, which includes changing minimum system requirements (e.g. Mac OS X Snow Leopard) so can effectively use multiple CPU cores.
Ideally, Logos 4 and Logos 5 could peacefully coexist on computers that can run both.
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :): Wonder if initial Logos 5 release could be focused on optimization and fixing known issues (irritants) along with migrating to 64 bit on Mac and Windows, which includes changing minimum system requirements (e.g. Mac OS X Snow Leopard) so can effectively use multiple CPU cores.
This would be great as long as the development work continued on Logos 4 until the program we were promised is delivered.
It is now hard to remember exactly how a Mac Program looked and felt back when we were promised a 'Mac program built for the Mac from the ground up'.
Logos doesn't behave like any of the other programs on my machine and, in my opinion too much effort has been made to make the Mac experience similar to the the Windows one which is very frustrating having made a positive decision to ditch the Windows experience.
tootle pip
Mike
View my Library How to get logs and post them L4.
ditto , What Mike said. Great Post!
Ok: Where is that program I thought I bought?
The one I got is not the one advertised.
Next:
So sorry for blowing the thread way off course, thus:
Back to Mono:
Apparently it is here to stay.
Mike Binks:Logos doesn't behave like any of the other programs on my machine and, in my opinion too much effort has been made to make the Mac experience similar to the the Windows one which is very frustrating having made a positive decision to ditch the Windows experience.
Observation: Logos 4 has some unique user interface conventions that are neither Mac nor Windows (Files, Guides, and Layouts quickly come to mind). Personally Thankful that Logos 4 does behave consistently on Mac and PC; easy to switch platforms.
For use on Mac OS X, the primary need is for Logos 4 to work well, which includes responsiveness to mouse clicks. Menus should instantly appear for interaction (lacking in Logos 4 on Mac and PC, e.g. search menu for resource list); Logos User Voice suggestion => Improve Logos 4 Menu Responsiveness
For human interaction, Logos user interface needs to respond consistently in less than a second, whether typing in a note, highlighting, scrolling, etc. When response time is longer than a second, many humans have to rethink what to do since click (type) and wait for second(s) to see visual feedback is not natural human behavior. Also when Logos 4 appears to not be responding, human reaction can include clicking (typing) again (possibly with more downward force), which increases frustration as the computer queues up interactions.
Ideally, consistent human interaction should work on computers meeting recommended requirements, which is not true today. Practically, Logos "recommended" hardware requirements are essentially the minimum hardware needed, which uses similar misleading marketing style as other companies to understate hardware needed for decent human interactive use. Logos 4 is resource intensive on Mac & PC – benefits from fast processor, graphics, and disk along with adequate memory (i.e. newer hardware since Logos 4 being designed for use over 5 to 8 years).
Thread title includes Open CL, which is a technology for offloading computations to graphics processor to improve application performance. Looking forward to Intel shipping Ivy Bridge CPU's later this year, which should improve Logos 4 responsiveness.
With OS X Mountain Lion likely to ship later this, imagine idea of supporting Logos 4 on 4 OS X versions (10.5, 10.6, 10.7 and 10.8) is a bit less than attractive; yet is similar to supporting Logos 4 on Windows XP, Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 8. Wonder if Logos 5 should raise minimum operating system requirement ? (along with using newer technologies for better application responsiveness)
Good Post KS4J.
It is frustrating.
All the titles/resources and such potential, yet such frustration.
Notice: Not trying to be ugly with what I am about to say.
I have Accordance as well , with a good library in it.
It is "instant" in most everything it does, can't seem to overload it, searches provide instant results, scrolling is never an issue, always loads, never hangs or freezes.
When I load it, I have mine set to come up with several workspaces and each of those has several panes.
If working on a difficult study, there will be many tabs within those panes.
Yet, it always seems instant, never slows down.
All that to ask this:
Why is it I cannot even get Logos to do basic stuff well, scrolling is horrible ( don't dare open more ), inconsistent loading of workspace, cannot add more panes/workspaces without it killing itself or my Mac.
Logos should be able to do these things, should be able to compete.
This discussion was/is about open Cl and Mono.
If Mono is the bottleneck, what good is open Cl going to do?
If Mono is the problem, then why do we put up with it.
If we say: We are not going to support this, not buy resources- will they not have to respond?
I went through this same garbage with Biblesoft.
Software engine has not been upgraded side Moses rode a tricycle.
I had a lot of money tied up in a platform they broke and would not fix, been years since they even tried to.
They kept leading people on with : we are going to update/upgrade-please be patient.
All the while continuing to sell more and more resources.
When you get to a certain point, they tell you that you have to remove some resources because you are overloading the program. ( sound familiar ).
After a couple of years I said goodbye, ( I know, I'm slow ) switched to Mac/Apple.
I don't want Windows interface objects, I want Bible software that works and resources that I need for that software and, a company that cares about it's product.
Only in the world of Bible Software to you find people so willing to put up with dysfunctional products. Christians do not make excuses and pray for the car dealership if they give bad service.
They don't make excuses and tell people to pray for the staff of companies that sell them things that do not work properly,,,,,unless it's Bible Software.
Personally, after owning a lot of software- I think we get what we get, because we don't require them to do any better.
If the local Church does poorly, people move to a different Church, if the Pastor breaks his word, makes too many mistakes etc.
But Bible Software! It's like we should not demand the best for our money, we act as if doing so is some type of sin.
Bible Software Companies are just that-Companies. They make a product, for a profit. ( they do not love us, we are just customers )
Someone earlier mentioned that we vote with our money. Correct.
So, why do we allow them to continue selling us products that are not what they advertised, continually perform poorly, and are not fixed in a timely fashion.
In my case: The Sin is mine. I cannot consider it good Stewardship to sink money into products that do not give good value.
I certainly cannot throw more good money after a poor investment.
Logos will not get another purchase from me until they can perform as advertised and do so consistently while providing real value for my investments.
Mono? Who cares.
Does it work- that's what matters.
IMHO
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :): Observation: Logos 4 has some unique user interface conventions that are neither Mac nor Windows (Files, Guides, and Layouts quickly come to mind). Personally Thankful that Logos 4 does behave consistently on Mac and PC; easy to switch platforms.
While I also see the benefit of a consistent user interface, my admittedly limited knowledge of OS X development tells me that those unique interface elements are a factor in the performance issues we see, particularly with respect to scrolling, page refreshes, and the like. I'm told by my developer friends that it's considered a best practice to keep custom UI elements to a minimum, as those elements often forgo some performance benefits offered by Cocoa.
I think most users would have no problem with a more Mac-ified interface. Generally, Mac users expect applications to be similar to other Mac applications, and even those who use Logos cross-platform will be accustomed to different UI paradigms on OS X than on Windows.
mitchellisdumb:I think most users would have no problem with a more Mac-ified interface. Generally, Mac users expect applications to be similar to other Mac applications, and even those who use Logos cross-platform will be accustomed to different UI paradigms on OS X than on Windows.
Indeed poor page turning, wildly non-standard menus, rich text editing, no 'inspector', no full screen, gestures haywire are all things that are dragging the program back and (as far as I can see) are things that are built into the operating system and just need to be made use of.
mitchellisdumb:While I also see the benefit of a consistent user interface
I don't! I expect a Windows Program to operate in a windows way. I expect a Mac Program to operate in a Mac way. Having your own separate way is confusing for both sets of users.
Fr. Charles R. Matheny:Notice: Not trying to be ugly with what I am about to say.
I would honestly like to empathize with you, but either I am not having the type problems you are having or I have become so accustomed to the way L4 Mac semi-works that I do not notice. I do become irritated when using certain features—Notes comes immediately to mind—but then I tend to forget the irritation soon after finishing the task.
L4 Mac does have more problems both in design and execution than it should, but overall I still like the application.
I wish to apologize for the flippant way in which I responded to your problems earlier in this thread. That was very insensitive of me.
Fr. Charles R. Matheny, you have said my thoughts since I purchased this program so well. I have resources I need in a program (Logos) I hate to use, on a platform (Mac) I love. Logos only selling point is that it has a few resources I need. There are a number of individual features I like, but the pain of using the program over all keeps me from using it except as necessary. I keep trying to like the program. I want to like the program. But I merely endure it. However, I will say I prefer Logos over a toothache.