Open Question: Quality vs. features

Page 2 of 2 (29 items) < Previous 1 2
This post has 28 Replies | 3 Followers

Posts 13360
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Dec 4 2015 12:04 PM

Eli Evans:
Logos is architected for large, heterogenous libraries

That's the reason I'm so committed to Logos. It's underlying architecture is orders of magnitude more advanced than anything else in the market, and has been since the earliest Libronix days. Logos does things now that other applications still won't be able to do in three years time, and then only if they rewrite their apps virtually from scratch.

Posts 490
R. Mansfield | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Dec 4 2015 3:54 PM

Eli Evans:

It's not a small thing, actually. It's largely a function of the different architectural approaches to electronic texts I've alluded to. Logos books are essentially documents, that is, large, mostly unstructured chunks of text, with indexes for finding locations within them at the time a search is executed. Accordance and Bibleworks modules (last I checked, which was a while ago, so apologies if this isn't the case any more) are essentially databases, that is, small, highly structured chunks of data that are assembled at run time to resemble documents. We think the Logos architecture is more flexible and more closely models non-electronic books. This flexibility and higher-fidelity modeling of a print book is part of what allows us to have such an expansive and diverse library. Other architectures, on the other hand, are more readily optimized for speed.

Flexibility versus speed is one of the basic trade offs in computer science. We went one way, they went another. That said, we never stop optimizing. It matters to us, too! Smile

Okay, I try very hard not to come on these forums and troll. And, in fact, I said nothing when this statement was first made; I just let it go. But now that it's being repeated, at the very least, I want to say that the characterization being made above as to why Accordance is significantly faster than Logos is simply not factual--at all. 

There are reasons as to why Accordance is faster than Logos. I don't feel it is in the spirit of propriety to go in to such in the Logos forums, but if anyone here wants to come to the Accordance forums and ask that question, you have my blessing.

RMansfield@mac.com
http://thislamp.com 
youtube.com/user/rfmansfield
twitter/thislamp
facebook.com/rmansfield

Posts 87
J R | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 6 2015 12:01 AM

I originally started with Logos, and switched over to Accordance (in case its relevant, all on a mac). There are a few main reasons I switched, but the primary one was this.

When I opened Logos, because I wanted to check a bible verse, it would start opening, and then I would be like, "argh this is annoyingly slow" then I would start opening accordance, and it would open and I would type the bible verse in accordance, and be reading it before Logos was even open. This happened 4-5 times, and I just decided, this is stilly, and deleted Logos from the menubar.

Posts 26531
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 6 2015 1:16 AM

If opening speed is what you value most, your choice makes perfect sense - and serves as a perfect example of why different software is the best software for a particular person doing a particular job.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 1422
Forum MVP
Veli Voipio | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 6 2015 3:30 AM

We are very impatient when waiting the computer to do something but very patient when waiting for the parousia Indifferent

Gold package, and original language material and ancient text material, SIL and UBS books, discourse Hebrew OT and Greek NT. PC with Windows 8.1

Posts 468
BKMitchell | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 6 2015 3:55 AM

Reuben Helmuth:

Those are important issues to think about and features I wish LogosBible Software had.

חַפְּשׂוּ בַּתּוֹרָה הֵיטֵב וְאַל תִּסְתַּמְּכוּ עַל דְּבָרַי

Posts 8017
LogosEmployee

R. Mansfield:
But now that it's being repeated, at the very least, I want to say that the characterization being made above as to why Accordance is significantly faster than Logos is simply not factual--at all. 

See update here: https://community.logos.com/forums/p/88436/786633.aspx#786633 

Posts 490
R. Mansfield | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Dec 6 2015 5:20 PM

Yes, I saw. I am subscribed to both threads :-)

Thanks.

RMansfield@mac.com
http://thislamp.com 
youtube.com/user/rfmansfield
twitter/thislamp
facebook.com/rmansfield

Posts 1690
LogosEmployee
Bob Pritchett | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Dec 7 2015 8:17 AM

R. Mansfield:
There are reasons as to why Accordance is faster than Logos.

Rick makes a great point, and reminds me to point out that our choice of .NET as a platform has some performance implications; we're writing code at a higher level of abstraction on a platform that isn't quite as performant as C++ or other languages. (Though our core book display engine is still in C++...)

I don't know for sure that we would make this choice again if we had a chance to change it, but we're heavily invested in .NET at this point, and it does bring some advantages. We're able to share a remarkable amount of code over multiple platforms (using Mono to run on the Mac), and we're able to code many things faster and more reliably, at a pretty reasonable price in raw performance. And .NET is actually improving, with Microsoft investing in true compiling technology and sharing their (often fast, better) implementations via open source in a way that improves Mono.

I think it's awesome that we get to work in an industry where everyone has the same interests: providing tools for more and better Bible study. We all do that in different ways, and offer different solutions, and our competition sometimes encourages each of us to 'step up our game.' In the end I think that makes you -- the users -- better off.

Page 2 of 2 (29 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS