[resolved] BUG: Pop-up System font bug for Samaritan Pentateuch in BHSSESB ed. (Logos 6.3 6.3.0.0038

Open BHS (LLS:1.0.204; 2009-03-12T22:17:45Z;BHSSESB.lbxlls), go to Gen 1:11, note "b" in the manuscript (or anywhere in this resource which presents reading variants of Samaritan Pentateuch, e.g.: 1:21, note "a", 1:26, note "a"). Hover the mouse on it and the pop-up window (which reveals the Apparatus Criticus, LLS:8.10.3; 2014-05-13T01:07:01Z; BHSCAPP.logos4) will not display correctly the Samaritan Pentateuch symbol (just a rectangle)... I'm using SBL Hebrew font. Windows 7 SP1 [img]http://oi58.tinypic.com/2yjzlue.jpg[/img]

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Martin Grainger Dean

Bump.

Mark Barnes

It works fine for me using SBL Hebrew.

Martin Grainger Dean

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/727393#Comment_727393

Thanks, Mark. It seems Logos 6.3 has deleted some of my Windows fonts (including LBXApparatusFont, LBXPaleoHebrew, Libronix Symbols and LogosSymbolUnicode). Same problem was reported here: [url]https://community.logos.com/forums/t/105138.aspx[/url]. I resolved it by installing them from here: [url]https://www.logos.com/support/logos6/windows/missing-fonts[/url]. Thanks Logos for nothing and for your help... Maybe this should be included in release notes of L6.3. Martin.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/727393#Comment_727393

The deinstallation of the fonts shouldn't have affected 6.3. My understanding is that rather than installing fonts, they're now embedded in 6.3. If that character doesn't display without manually installing the font, it would suggest that perhaps that font isn't embedded properly.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/727461#Comment_727461

My understanding is that rather than installing fonts, they're now embedded in 6.3.

Maybe they forgot some.

And actually I think it is weird to deinstall commonly usable stuff on a working system. If they know the fonts don't hurt and may even be used elsewhere, such as in Word, why take them out and disrupt everything, just because Logos installed them in another release years ago (same goes for the deinstallation of the older C++ runtime Dave had issues with).

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/727450#Comment_727450

Maybe this should be included in release notes of L6.3. Martin.

I certainly think they should have been, along with notification about Smart Tags & possible issues with Chrome.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/727450#Comment_727450

It seems Logos 6.3 has deleted some of my Windows fonts (including LBXApparatusFont, LBXPaleoHebrew, Libronix Symbols and LogosSymbolUnicode). Same problem was reported here: https://community.logos.com/forums/t/105138.aspx. I resolved it by installing them from here: https://www.logos.com/support/logos6/windows/missing-fonts.

Thanks!

Maybe this should be included in release notes of L6.3.

Yes, absolutely.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/727499#Comment_727499

along with notification about Smart Tags

I think I remember someone from Logos posting last week that they would fix Smart Tags before 6.3 going live.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/727497#Comment_727497

And actually I think it is weird to deinstall commonly usable stuff on a working system. If they know the fonts don't hurt and may even be used elsewhere, such as in Word, why take them out and disrupt everything, just because Logos installed them in another release years ago (same goes for the deinstallation of the older C++ runtime Dave had issues with).

I would suggest two reasons:

Because they were installed as part of a package (pre-requisites), and if you're going to uninstall any of the pre-requisites you need to uninstall them all.
Because if some people have old pre-requisites and some people don't, it's going to make diagnosing bugs caused by the changes more difficult. (You could have bugs that only affect new installs, but don't affect upgrades.) Better to have everyone on the same system.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/727523#Comment_727523

Because if some people have old pre-requisites and some people don't, it's going to make diagnosing bugs caused by the changes more difficult. (You could have bugs that only affect new installs, but don't affect upgrades.) Better to have everyone on the same system.

But to knowingly breaking systems and thereby introducing issues that will cause support calls and forum threads for months to come, in order to potentially allow better diagnosis of potential issues that potentially may come up in the future ?! And it makes things worse than it was, because you will now not have the same system, but systems with the new prerequisites plus any combination of the fonts manually installed (e.g. I choose four from the Faithlife ones, not all of them, and no others right now - and I think I had some already installed directly from SBL earlier) - this will make it harder to diagnose.

Ryan Gano (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/727550#Comment_727550

This should have been included in the release notes (along with smart tags). It was an intentional change and it will make things better going forward (it's one of the reasons we're able to install application updates without user interruptions.)

We do embed all of the fonts that were previously installed. As with any change this can lead to situations were something is missed and fonts don't display properly. As these issues come up we fix them. You should not need to install any font installed in order to see expected results in Logos. The only reason to install a font is for use outside of Logos. This is a bug and we will get it reported and resolved.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/727550#Comment_727550

But to knowingly breaking systems and thereby introducing issues that will cause support calls and forum threads for months to come, in order to potentially allow better diagnosis of potential issues that potentially may come up in the future ?!

They've only knowingly broken SmartTags. I presume that was left broken because Faithlife thought it more important to hit the 6-week release schedule than to hold a release back for a minor and little-used feature, which could be fixed in a few days with a service release. The SR has the additional benefit of testing whether the 6.3 update system works, too! (Of course, it should have been in the release notes.)

Dylan Rondeau

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/727656#Comment_727656

They've only knowingly broken SmartTags. I presume that was left broken because Faithlife thought it more important to hit the 6-week release schedule than to hold a release back for a minor and little-used feature, which could be fixed in a few days with a service release.

Pretty spot on, AFAIK. The change wasn't ready in time for RC-2. The fix for that should be in SR-1, which should be available this week.

(Of course, it should have been in the release notes.)

Yeah, that was an oversight on my part. It's been added to the top of the release notes now, along with a notice about Font changes: https://wiki.logos.com/Logos_6.3

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/727661#Comment_727661

(Of course, it should have been in the release notes.)

Yeah, that was an oversight on my part. It's been added to the top of the release notes now, along with a notice about Font changes: https://wiki.logos.com/Logos_6.3

Thanks a lot, Dylan!

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/727461#Comment_727461

The deinstallation of the fonts shouldn't have affected 6.3. My understanding is that rather than installing fonts, they're now embedded in 6.3. If that character doesn't display without manually installing the font, it would suggest that perhaps that font isn't embedded properly.

So is there an issue for Faithlife given that Martin resolved his problem by re-installing fonts?

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/729283#Comment_729283

So is there an issue for Faithlife given that Martin resolved his problem by re-installing fonts?

They've already acknowledged that:

As with any change this can lead to situations were something is missed and fonts don't display properly. As these issues come up we fix them. You should not need to install any font installed in order to see expected results in Logos. The only reason to install a font is for use outside of Logos. This is a bug and we will get it reported and resolved.

Dylan Rondeau

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/729307#Comment_729307

This is working correctly in 6.3 SR-1 without re-installing fonts. I'm currently finishing the testing of SR-1, so barring catastrophe (I've been burned on mentioning this release timing once already...) it should be available later today or tomorrow.

Edit: 6.3 SR-1 has now shipped.