Can some Accordance users help me?

MJ. Smith said:

I am very interested in comparing features between software as a prod to see how to improve the software I do own.

Thanks for doing this.

One I appreciate is the instant offline lookup of greek and Hebrew words on mobile. 

I just press and hold on a word and this pops up. Instantly.

Note parsing and a gloss. Below it automatically loads the text of your top divtionary

you can scroll the pop up to read the whole article, or click Amplify to go to the dicti article. 

note also the search button. I can search the book I’m reading for the word, lemma, root, morphological tag, or strong number. Instantly. And offline. 

And thr Greek and english texts scroll perfectly in sync, when reading a text... or when displaying search results. 

I cant do any of that on Logos. I can’t even search my bible!!??

MJ, you (and the Logos team) might appreciate an insider's perspective here 

https://www.accordancebible.com/forums/topic/18488-had-the-logos-guys-give-me-a-demo/#entry112839

MJ, a lot of the time people talk about Accordance being more nimble or quick. To give you an idea of what they mean, I've done a screen capture of:

#1 Accordance

#2 Logos

... doing similar functions. In both I am using the curser to hover over words in the original language, letting it light up the parallel words in the english and showing parsing information. If I was reading a text in greek, this would be something I would be doing constantly to quickly understand how the passage is working. I then triple click on a word to go to the dictionary article, then do a search, and finally demonstrate synchronous scrolling. In each of these use cases, which are 100% core tasks for me and all the Bible College students I work with - Accordance is noticeably more nimble. Actually the screen capture hid the difference slightly, making Accordance seem slower than it is - in real life the difference is more pronounced.

I'm running a MacBook Pro retina, which was the top model exactly 3 years ago. Not cutting edge but comparable or better to what many of Logos' potential customers would be using, I would expect. 

This nimble / agile nature is what people prefer about Accordance much of the time. Their first time using Logos can feel like someone has poured honey into the computer and slowed it. right. down. with. a. slight. pause. in. every. single. task. 

MJ. Smith said:

Andrew116 said:

This nimble / agile nature is what people prefer about Accordance much of the time.

Question - is this true on a PC as well as a Mac? I can explain it if it is Mac only.

I have only ever used either on a Mac, but I would say this agility difference is sufficiently widely recognised to make me guess it applies on both platforms. Any PC users want to comment? (Do people still use non-Mac computers these days?)

This video is kind of old, but suggests the difference holds on Windows. And it seems like this has been a deliberate strategy from that company for years:

"When we develop a feature, if it runs too slow for us, or seems to place a drag on the program, it is regularly optimized or retooled before it ever reaches the hands of the beta testers." (I won't link to the source of this but I'm sure you can find it)

The videos I uploaded were on an SSD. 

The fact that you can see some results load while others are yet to load speaks to some lag that must be more than 0.1 second. But it’s not just the time to do the search once you have pressed the button, it is also the speed of the contextual menu that allows you to get to the point of pressing the button. Plus the general snappiness of the interface and the responsiveness of hovering over words and corresponding words being lit up. 

The good news for Logos is that if they can get on top of this they will have destroyed 1 of Accordance’s 3 competitive advantages, potentially their biggest one. (The other two are certain advanced searches [im told], and the offline use of mobile apps documentled in one of my earlier posts in this thread. 

Justin,

INTERTEXT simply is another metatag search, Logos looking up reference tags that have been embedded in a text. INFER on the other hand is a "cluster" search that looks for a defined number of lemma or surface form matches permitting  intervening non-matching worlds (if desired) between any two bodies of texts using similar tagging. INFER has an incredible amount of granularity built in; I can decide whether I'm searching for a string of 5 words in a specific order, or a cluster of 6 lemmas allowing for one intervening non-matching lemma in any particular order. Any decent software package will give the obvious hits, but used properly INFER goes way beyond. 

How quick a query runs might not be the only criteria to define the "snappiness" of Accordance. Logos on the Mac (and I go back to the original Mac release) has a cycle: it is snappy at the version release, then it gets slower and slower (with more and more forum questions about how to speed it up), then speed gets prioritized in the Logos TODO list and speed is good for a while. The state of the client on the Mac has been for me a week to week experience. Accordance (my experience is strictly with the Mac here) is consistent release after release after release. The load times on the Mac (late 2015, 10.13, 8 gig RAM w/ SSD) for similar workspaces (ESV, NA28 and BDAG) tell another story: 9 seconds until I can work in Accordance vs. 29 seconds for a very similar configuration in Logos. Tools also exist for me to work with Accordance (copy texts, look them up and display) from Alfred. The "snappiness" (or the laggy feeling I have when the Logos Mac client is at the low point in its cycle) is the sum of all these things.

I have no experience with INFER, but my impression is that it is basically a specialization of Accordance's FUZZY search. An algorithmic search for phrases that are similar.

http://www.accordancefiles2.com/podcasts/p89_INFER_and_Search_Back.m4v 

I started using Accordance out of curiosity when it was being ported to Windows. It quickly became my go-to for Mobile because it works offline. That is what led to my picking up one of their larger libraries and other resources. I always turn to accordance for mobile because it works.

Accordance desktop:

• Has a pretty good Fuzzy search, which I think is closely related to the mentioned INFER command.
• Is generally very snappy as mentioned. There usually is little lag in activating context menus and such.
• Has unchallenged Maps. Not the prettiest. Not the best UI. But they do everything you could want. Layer on top of layer. Define exactly what elements you want to show/hide. Add your own elements. FL is working on new maps, but my impressions from what they've said is that they still have no clue how to do this right.
• Is very customizable. Pages and pages of options to make it look and act the way you want. I wish Logos had a fraction of that customizability.
• Is slightly more sane when spawning new tabs in a sensible location.

This is a list of things where Accordance has some advantage. Not a two-way comparison. If it were, Logos would probably have a longer list and is still my favored platform.

I own Accordance and use it interchangeably with Logos. I even crossgraded some of my Logos resources to Accordance when I needed to fit them into my Accordance workflow (and I plan to crossgrade more resources into Accordance over time).

Here are some of the benefits of Accordance over Logos:

1. Way faster at searching. I've ran Accordance and Logos on PC, Mac, hard drive, flash drive, etc. You're never going to beat Accordance at sheer speed on searching. When I need to quickly open a Bible program and run a quick search, it's always Accordance, not Logos, where I turn. I can run searches in Accordance in the amount of time it takes Logos to startup. 

2. Accordance's search analytics are very powerful and user-friendly to work with. I can perform similar results in Logos, but it's far more complicated. Accordance offers a range of search analytics that are a click away when running a search.

3. Accordance does offer powerful search commands such as the INFER command (which I need to use more often), plus their search interface is far easier to learn how to use over the complex command line in Logos. I plan to drop back in on a few Accordance webinars to brush up on some of the various search commands in Accordance. My only "issue" is I've mastered the complicated command line for Logos searches, I need to mentally "re-train" myself to embrace the simplicity that unlocks the power of Accordance searches. Similar to when I moved from Windows to a Mac, I needed to mentally "re-train" myself to embrace the simplicity of a Mac. If I really ever spent quality time in Accordance searching, I'd probably get to a point where I'd cringe every time I ran a Logos search. The "Amplify" feature is a powerful feature yet a breeze to use as well.

4. I prefer Accordance's "Instant Details" pane over how Logos handles the same content in tooltips or the Information Panel. It's far cleaner to work with from a user experience perspective.

5. Creating User Tools in Accordance is overall simpler than trying to create Personal Books in Logos, although Logos offers more extensive tagging of Personal Books (although I've moved away from storing too many user files inside Bible software and consolidating everything under Nota Bene).

6. Overall I've found biblical language texts to be better quality in Accordance in terms of searching, breathing marks in Greek, etc. When I need to perform biblical language searches, I tend to run those in Accordance. Their graphical construct feature is far simpler to use than the equivalent in Logos. Their syntax modules are also simpler to understand, although I've mastered the Logos syntax modules and now need to try my attempt at running those searching in Accordance. Accordance also offers pre-made diagrams of the Greek NT which are helpful too.

7. I find the overall layout of BDAG/HALOT more user friendly in Accordance than Logos. I've tried to use both in Logos, but I find myself going back to Accordance to use them every time.

8. Accordance is un-matched on visual tools. Their atlas is far superior to the Logos atlas and the atlas I turn to when teaching and studying. I've used the Logos timeline more since I'm more familar with it, but the Accordance timeline has been around longer, so I may transtion to using it more in my studies. Accordance also offers high-res images of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, and their PhotoGuide and PhotoMuseum are un-matched. I use them extensively in studying and teaching, plus I can waste way too much time in them if I'm not careful since they're too fun! They've also rollled out audio Bible for Hebrew and Greek.

9. Some content that's not available in Logos, such as the Thompson Chain Reference Bible which I enjoy using.

10. Last time I taught a video series, I noticed I spent the bulk of my on-screen time in Accordance versus Logos. While I did much of my study preparation in Logos, Accordance has an overall simpler, cleaner, less bloated interface that looks and functions way better on video over Logos. The Bible text was always simple, and I could effortlessly move around the interface to display what I needed to. It's a far better tool for teaching and presenting Bible software live in a classroom or video environment.

Those are the technical benefits. Here are some additional benefits:

1. Upgrading between versions is a far less complicated process over Logos. When I "took the plunge" with Accordance, I did it on Accordance 10 with the Essential Collection. Upgrading to Accordance 11 Essential ran be about $75. Accordance 12 changed the collection structure to more specialized collections, so I originally purchased the engine upgrade and the PhotoGuide and PhotoMuseum upgrades which ran me a little over $100. I later went for Triple Learner since I needed those tools for school which ran me in the $80 range. I later went for Triple Discoverer which ran me about $150. I may  later upgrade to Greek Pro and Graphics Expert. With Logos, Logos 4 cost me $400+ to go from Gold to Platinum, $500+ to upgrade to L5 Platinum, $600+ to upgrade to L6 Platinum, and $700+ to upgrade to L7 Platinum even with Logos Now and academic discounts. Accordance has been way more cost effective at upgrades and far simpler to decide how I need to upgrade, as well as no subscription hassles or drama.

2. Customer service is far superior on Accordance versus Logos. I had a major issue with Logos and needed urgent help. When I called in to customer service, the rep gave me a half-baked answer, incorrect information and information which actually worsened my issue, and tried to rush me off the phone so he could message other customers on Faithlife. And I've spent five figures in sales with Logos (more than I have on a car) plus had an active Logos Now, Logos Cloud, and payment plan with the company. Only when I let loose on the forums and emailed Bob did a higher up rep jump in and assist, although I still had to go through an ordeal to get Logos functioning again at a time when I needed it the most. With Accordance, I had a somewhat-major issue happen. I called into support, and the rep tirelessly worked with me for over an hour to assist with the issue and even called me back after the office closed. Turns out the issue wasn't even with Accordance but my ISP releasing a security update which blocked access to their server by accident. The rep even emailed me the next day to ensure my issues were answered. I've spent far less with Accordance than Logos (although enough), yet their support rep treated me as though I had spent six or seven figures with them. That's customer service.

Wow then why are you even here ?

I'd like to throw in a few additional thoughts here.

First of all, as I said before, I use both Logos and Accordance (as well as WORDsearch) in my Bible study workflow (the only program I'm not using yet is BIbleWorks since I haven't been given a solid reason on why I need to add it to my Bible study toolbox at the moment). I've also invested more money overall in Logos than Accordance and have used Logos for far many years over Accordance (I got into Accordance far later when I realized my Greek and Hebrew professors were using only Accordance and I wanted to work on the same platform as them during my Greek and Hebrew classes). So my critiques are from someone who ran exclusively on Logos for years and only been using Accordance regularly for a few years.

In terms of running programs, I tend to quit many of my programs when I'm not extensively running them (regardless if it's Logos, Accordance, Safari, a word processor, etc.). The need to do so is probably less now that I have a new iMac Pro, but I don't keep everything running in the background just for the sake of it. Logos launches way faster on my iMac Pro versus my old iMac, but Accordance is still faster. One issue could be the Logos homepage (disabling it might help).

In terms of searching, I've masted the Logos search commands, so I'm personally proficient in them. However, if I were showing people how to search in a Bible software program, it'd be easier to do so in Accordance versus Logos. Accordance's search interface is overall simpler than Logos, even though I've climbed and conquered the mountain of Logos searching.

In terms of Accordance Instant Details, there is a way to keep it hidden and allow instant details to appear in a popover when clicking and holding on a word. My goal was to originally keep the Instant Details window hidden and just use the popovers. However, I got to a point where I was using it enough to keep it open all the time. Additionally, on both of my iMacs (and even when I worked off a MacBook Pro or Surface Book), my Instant Details pane doesn't use a ton of screen real estate. The Logos Information Panel uses more screen real estate overall. I've also noticed the delay of getting data when the Logos Information Panel loads as well (it's never bothered me, but I have noticed it). The tooltips of data in Logos are of a small font, especially on higher-res monitors. When teaching, the Logos tooltips fonts are too small for my students to see them, and the Logos Information Panel is too large to comfortably place in a position where it doesn't feel intrusive. The Accordance Instant Details Pane is small enough where it's not eating into my entire workspace but displays the content in a comfortable enough font where I can be working in a text and easily show students the related information.

In terms of BDAG/HALOT, how I have Accordance is set when I amplify to them from a text, it also searches the reference along with the lemma form and highlights the reference instantly. This allows me to instantly zero in on the section of the resource I need. I haven't found a way to entirely duplicate this in Logos (I've gotten somewhat close, although I'm still doing some additional scrolling and reading to find what I need). My professors taught me how to use BDAG/HALOT in Accordance (neither one use Logos), so for those who haven't gone through the training, the outline mode in Logos might be easier for them. Since I had two Accordance using professors teach me how to quickly work through BDAG and HALOT in Accordance, I've gotten down a workflow that's quicker than Logos for these tasks.

I will look into the improvements on the Atlas, although I do use features such as the 3D Atlas, as well as some of the custom layers features. These I can't perform in Logos (plus the reliance on the Internet has made the atlas overall laggier than Accordance. Offline atlas would be nice). Logos had a standalone Atlas program years ago that I think did all of this, but alas, it was also discontinued years ago. 

In terms of media, the L7 Media tool has helped, and I've been using Visual Copy every week since L6 to put together Scripture artwork (although I've been having issues with it in a few recent builds of Logos, so I've been running some tests in YouVersion as a backup in case Visual Copy continues to struggle). The PhotoGuide in Accordance is still where I turn when I need images of the Holy Land. The articles that are included give me a good overview of each biblical site, and the images I need are all a click away and have a user-friendly layout, especially when teaching and I need to walk people through various biblical sites virtually. I had an older version of Glo Bible and may upgrade to the new version, as I haven't found any program that offers its range of virtual tours, etc. 

Hey Paul, sometimes the overlap is inevitable in some cases. That is because the base packages in Logos and Accordance can have similar resources.

If I have one set in one software program I won't buy it in the other program unless it is part of a base package type of deal where it is really cheap. For example I have NICOT/NT from Accordance, I don't have any plan to get it in Logos. The same goes for Understanding the Bible Set. I have sets in Logos that I won't buy in Accordance.

I go for the best prices and sales. I use both programs in conjunction with one another and I don't see why that has to be such a bad thing, there are benefits to having both. 

Paul Lee said:

Although I have tried to buy all my commentaries in Logos, "just to keep everything in one place." More and more I wonder whether this is wise.

I initially started by buying things in both programs. But more and more I found it frustrating having to navigate in 2 programs, and lost the functionality of active hyperlinks between resources. In the end I sold all of my resources in a competitor and bought them in Logos. 

Joseph Sollenberger said:

Your innate comfort level with multitasking among divergent operations will really control your success in working with multiple Bible software platforms.

It is much akin to automobiles. Do you prefer Ford or Chevy or would you like both? After all, both will transport you from home to work and back.

Shalom,

Joseph

Correctomento. I keep 3 Bible software open, until a periodic reboot. Whichever one can deliver quickest in the format I want.

As to which would I recommend to someone new, it'd depend on the person, not the software. Are they a real pastor, or desk-jockey? Is money tight? OL that important? Are they going to trying to use it in a group (several users)? And so on.

JT (alabama24) said:

Denise said:

Correctomento

I believe you meant "Correctamundo."

I really need to brush up on my pseudo-spanish. The apostle Paul was far more talented in greek word creationing.

Originally my goal was to have all my content in Logos if possible. I even wouldn't heavily use resources I couldn't get in Logos (such as web-based resources). Now that I've moved to Nota Bene for my academic word processor and store all my citations in Ibidem, I've broadened my sources since I consolidate all my research in Nota Bene now.

In terms of Logos vs Accordance, I used to only crossgrade a handful of resources to Accordance (they have a crossgrade program which allows for discounts) if I felt I needed it on a regular basis in my Accordance workflow instead of bouncing between Logos and Accordance. I only crossgraded a couple commentaries to Accordance and always did the bulk of my commentary pricing in Logos. Overall, I'll probably still mainly crossgrade the resources I use on a regular basis to Accordance, although I have a little more of an incentive Now to crossgrade more resources in Accordance than try to run everything under Logos.

In terms of Olive Tree, I had a small library with them, but Olive Tree allowed me to donate my account to a student, and I ended up phasing it out in terms of simplicity. Right now I use Logos+Accordance+WORDsearch, and I may add YouVersion or Glo Bible into my workflow.

In terms of program speed, during research projects, I tend to keep all three programs open. I only close them when I'm not actively using them since I also have a secular job and have to run other non-biblical tools when I'm not knee-deep in biblical research. I should probably just keep everything open and leverage macOS virtual desktops instead and put my Bible stuff in a desktop and my work stuff in another desktop. On my older iMac, it would have been more painful to do so. On my iMac Pro, I have plenty of room to breathe.

In terms of the Information Panel, the delay doesn't really bother me. It's more the overall size/placement of it. I haven't found a way to comfortably display it yet when teaching like I can with the Accordance Instant Details pane. I've tried both when teaching and Accordance just performs better in a teaching environment. I've tended to heavily do my research in Logos then do my teaching in Accordance. 

In terms of the tooltip font, this may be doable in Windows. I remember back on Windows when I worked in a weather program I had to stream live on air, its tooltip fonts were tiny and hard to read. I was able to go in and bump up the tooltip font and change the color of tooltips to make them easier to read. Not sure if this can be done directly on macOS or how it'd work with Logos. I agree it's a feature Logos should look at adding. It's one major reason I've been using Accordance over Logos in teaching.

In terms of BDAG/HALOT, I thought Logos somehow implemented this feature. Thanks for sharing that. I'll check it out.

With Accordance, when I install a resource, I'm done.  No indexing, which is a big win!  [Y]

What I'm looking for is a way to get the Information Panel horizontally at the bottom of the screen in a way where it doesn't take up too much screen real estate (similar to Accordance's Instant Details pane).