Perhaps an Unusual Question.. Upgrade vs Another Software / Capabilities.
I recently purchased the Logos 4 software and have an opportunity to upgrade to the next level but I was thinking about spending the difference and getting B ** W * 8 and I was wondering what those of you who have used both software products and knowing what you now thought.
I imagine my main determiner is if the non-Logos software capabilities were such that they offered a practical advantage in learning the original Biblical languages and thus being more effective in ministry than using only Logos.
I would like to get the additional Bible versions and language tools that are offered with B**W* 8 but as I said I could upgrade my scholars version for about the same cost as getting this software. Instead of WWJD ? WWYD ?
Comments
-
painfree said:
WWYD ?
I can't imagine a situation that would justify running 2 Bible programs FOR ME. Being able to quickly access all my electronic resources within one program offsets any advantage that I can think of.
0 -
painfree said:
I recently purchased the Logos 4 software and have an opportunity to upgrade to the next level but I was thinking about spending the difference and getting B ** W * 8 and I was wondering what those of you who have used both software products and knowing what you now thought.
I imagine my main determiner is if the non-Logos software capabilities were such that they offered a practical advantage in learning the original Biblical languages and thus being more effective in ministry than using only Logos.
I would like to get the additional Bible versions and language tools that are offered with B**W* 8 but as I said I could upgrade my scholars version for about the same cost as getting this software. Instead of WWJD ? WWYD ?
You may gain some understanding from a former thread here: http://community.logos.com/forums/p/27877/206346.aspx#206346
And most likely, you can find a thread or two on the other software's forums. Hope this helps.
0 -
painfree said:
I would like to get the additional Bible versions and language tools that are offered with B**W* 8
The Japanese language Bible versions is the only reason I upgraded to BW8. Biblical Languages are not my strong suit so my opinion is only amateur but I believe Logos 4 now matches BW in language capabilities.
Having everything under one program is much preferable. You only need to learn one program & avoid switching between the two.
If money is no object BUY BOTH . If you can only get one, go with Logos. Someday they will have Japanese versions and whatever your favorites are too .I am confident because Logos already has a handle on Asian text with Chinese & Korean versions out. They are also making great strides in European languages.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
I'm a longtime user of both programs, and I still run BW8 on a near-daily basis, for two reasons.
1) Ease of use. BW has a powerful command-line, which you can access by hitting esc. Consequently, I can change versions and run a morph search (or something) without taking my hands off the keyboard, very very quickly. I can go to the command line and type and run any search in under one second. To do the same thing in L4 requires a lot more typing and/or the mouse, and more time. I requested an easier shortcut to the command line in L4, because right now in the Mac version I can't even recall what it is- 2 or 3 keys that require both hands. [+o(] Even if the muscle memory were there, the speed and ease are not.
2) BW's robust importing facilities. I still have some texts I use frequently, imported in BW, that aren't accessible in L4 at all. Caveat: I was never a PBB user. This combined with #1 is why I still do much of my textual work and reading. Even if they *were* available, I think I'd still use BW because of #1.
That said, I love Logos, and I think L4 is a great step forward. I just use it differently than BW, as my research library.
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton
0 -
painfree said:
I imagine my main determiner is if the non-Logos software capabilities were such that they offered a practical advantage in learning the original Biblical languages and thus being more effective in ministry than using only Logos.
If you're not currently familiar with Greek and/or Hebrew, then Bibleworks is not for you. Bibleworks is brilliant for super-fast work in the original languages, but doesn't try and compete with Logos in helping you to learn the languages. There are no interlinears, or reverse interlinears, for example.
I doubt there's anything you want to do in Bibleworks that Logos can't do (apart from possibly import your own texts). That's not to say that Logos will do everything that Bibleworks can do, but Logos does do all of what most users would want. And it's not to say that Logos does everything as well as Bibleworks (or certainly as quickly). But it's probably not worth you spending a few hundreds dollars and running two programs just to save yourself a few seconds when you run a search.
If there's something particular you think you might want from Bibleworks, let us know, and we can see if Logos has an equivalent.
This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!
0 -
I move across 4 products depending on who's got it and how fast can they deliver. The downside of that is that I never bother to learn each package in-depth. And so for example, much of Logos4 for me remains as an interesting discussion in the Wiki. Thus a single package well-learned can be a big plus.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
painfree said:
I recently purchased the Logos 4 software and have an opportunity to upgrade to the next level but I was thinking about spending the difference and getting B ** W * 8 and I was wondering what those of you who have used both software products and knowing what you now thought.
I imagine my main determiner is if the non-Logos software capabilities were such that they offered a practical advantage in learning the original Biblical languages and thus being more effective in ministry than using only Logos.
I would like to get the additional Bible versions and language tools that are offered with B**W* 8 but as I said I could upgrade my scholars version for about the same cost as getting this software. Instead of WWJD ? WWYD ?
I'm not a user of BW, but I can say something as an observer. I have seen users of BW post texts in places such as b-greek and note that their Greek really isn't readable. It seems that BW doesn't really comply with the unicode standard and is thus not a tool which you can use easily to communicate with non-BW users. I heard that they had an export in unicode option, but that didn't seem to work either. Why this is the case is not something I can explain. It may be simply that the user didn't know how to implement it properly or perhaps it is the case that there simply is no way to accomplish it.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
BW can and does export in Unicode. I can't speak to posting on BGreek or elsewhere though, but that reminds me...
I'm also much happier with BW's note-taking abilities on chapter and verse than L4. But YMMV.
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton
0 -
Ben said:
BW can and does export in Unicode. I can't speak to posting on BGreek or elsewhere though, but that reminds me...
I'm also much happier with BW's note-taking abilities on chapter and verse than L4. But YMMV.
It is SUPPOSED to have a facility to export in unicode, but it doesn't seem to work. I've seen pure gibberish come through from supposedly unicode text from BW.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Works just fine for me. I export Unicode Hebrew into my notes without any problems, SBL Hebrew font I believe.
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton
0 -
George Somsel said:Ben said:
BW can and does export in Unicode. I can't speak to posting on BGreek or elsewhere though, but that reminds me...
I'm also much happier with BW's note-taking abilities on chapter and verse than L4. But YMMV.
It is SUPPOSED to have a facility to export in unicode, but it doesn't seem to work. I've seen pure gibberish come through from supposedly unicode text from BW.
This all depends on the user's settings.
BW8 and L4 are two different animals. If you know the original languages, you will get a lot of millage out of BW8. If you do not know the original languages, it is a total waste of money.
0 -
I still use both programs. I started with LOGOS 2 and then added a couple of resources and went to LOGOS 3. I wasn't really happy with original language resources and purchased Gramcord (which I still have on my laptop but rarely use). I bought Bibleworks 8 and use it daily. It is fast and I am comfortable using it. I wanted more resources so when LOGOS 4 came out I bought the scholars level package and added a couple of commentary sets to it, thinking I would mainly use it as a reading library. As the program has matured and I have learned how to use it a little more, I have been impressed. I am glad that I have both, but if I had to do it over I would probably have just invested more in LOGOS. The things I do in Bibleworks can probably be done in LOGOS - I am just not as familiar or comfortable with it yet. I don't use the notes a lot, but if I did I would choose Bibleworks for that as it has a decent editor in it.
0
