Is it worth trying A3?

Even though I don't use MAC I'll hazard an answer on this one...

No.

Logos for MAC may have missing things and you say a poor interface, but it works.

L4 Alpha has no promise that it will work.  I suggest if you're on a system critical machine that you stick with what works, at least until beta1.  Even then, I would only encourage you to jump on a beta if you really know how to fix a system.

Logos will never break anything on your computer on purpose, but alpha's aren't even ready for beta yet, and beta's are unpredictable.

Kris Puckett said:

Is it worth trying the A3 even with the bugs? 

Kris,

Trying? No.  It's not fully functional.

Testing? Yes.  It's amazing to see how the product builds.  I have the L4 engine running on PC and it looks great.  Can't wait to get my Mac there.

all about Christ,
David Buckham

Colin,

This is shear guesswork but I suspect Alpha-Mac was released to demonstrate in a very tangible way that there really is a Mac version being supported.  After the multiple setbacks on the first mac attempt, I think Logos had to walk a line on this one.  Alpha is a risky thing to release, but I think with said history in place, releasing an alpha was the best they could do in order to demonstrate good faith, short of releasing a full version.

Thomas Black said:

Colin,

This is shear guesswork but I suspect Alpha-Mac was released to demonstrate in a very tangible way that there really is a Mac version being supported.  After the multiple setbacks on the first mac attempt, I think Logos had to walk a line on this one.  Alpha is a risky thing to release, but I think with said history in place, releasing an alpha was the best they could do in order to demonstrate good faith, short of releasing a full version.

I absolutely agree with your reading, Thomas, and I appreciate Logos' desire to demonstrate goodwill. I didn't want to write that, in case my comment was perceived negatively. I've been flamed by users for less!

It is a case of 'damned if you do and damned if you don't', I suspect. I appreciate the gesture - I reckon lots of others will misunderstand the term 'Alpha' and won't appreciate it. Personally, I'd have waited till the Beta and worn the heat of saying 'we're almost there' instead of the heat of 'this is a product that doesn't do anything much at best, and doesn't even load at worst'. But that would be my call. I don't need to run a software company and balance the need to market a product with the need to develop a functional product, and maintain a balance sheet!

Enjoy Kris.

Bob Pritchett said:

Our fear was that if we released 4 for Windows and nothing new for the Mac, Mac users wouldn't believe we were really working on feature parity.

We also, without having done enough testing, believed the Mac product was more stable than it was. We've since learned that the platform we're building it on wasn't as stable as we thought.

Our team is actively improving the Mac product, and working hard to eradicate the crashing bugs. (For the most part these don't reflect "a buggy app", but rather problems we're exposing in the "cross-platform-platform." The good news is that most are of the "fix one bug in the code, fix a hundred different ways it can crash. It's getting much more stable very quickly.)

 

That's cool, Bob, and thanks for the clarification, which is always appreciated.

I guess this, as in many things, is about managing expectations (you managing Mac users' expectations and so on). And that is what my post above attempted to do, in a way - point out that the expectation of an Alpha build shouldn't be any more than what the build is intended to be and do.

Bob Pritchett said:

Our fear was that if we released 4 for Windows and nothing new for the Mac, Mac users wouldn't believe we were really working on feature parity.

I think releasing it as Alpha has a few bonuses:

• It gives users a rare view into what software looks like at the Alpha stage.
• It gives us the opportunity to test, crash and post our results. Hopefully this will speed up the development process.
• If you guys are open to it, it also gives us the opportunity to begin even at this stage in giving input into what the final product will be like.

I think the open strategy of Logos is a lot of fun and is similar to being involved in an open source effort.  Well done!

Colin Thornby said:

I absolutely agree with your reading, Thomas, and I appreciate Logos' desire to demonstrate goodwill. I didn't want to write that, in case my comment was perceived negatively. I've been flamed by users for less!

I understand Colin.  Since Bob has settled the issue above, I'll just state my strategy: <joke type="barely funny">Overhwelm the critics with too many posts to criticize! </joke>And always wear your flameproof underwear. [;)]