********** 10 released

Page 4 of 5 (99 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next >
This post has 98 Replies | 4 Followers

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 24 2012 9:06 PM

Jack Caviness:
Wanted to find all appearances of παρὰ with an accusative object in NA-27

Logos Morph Search can find παρὰ before accusative words; albeit initial setup took longer than 30 seconds while waiting for a pop-up menu for g:para (seems many words begin with παρὰ).  Syntax search can find παρὰ before accusative words in the same phrase.

Personally wonder if ********** 10 can visually combine search results of Greek Morphology in English and Greek resources:

Logos 4 can visually combine over a hundred searches at one time; albeit does take many seconds for combined result to appear (overall less than 1 second for each search item).

Also wonder if ********** 10 can group a set of searches so can turn on or off, similar to visual filter menu in Logos 4 ?

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 1956
Donovan R. Palmer | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 25 2012 2:12 AM

I think a fundamental issue is the number of bugs that are cropping up in Logos 4 Mac. I am always pleased when people say that they seem to have trouble free experience. Yet if you look at the version release notes, there seem to be considerably more bugs being fixed in the Mac version of Logos. I have even considered doing an analysis of these reports to quantify them to emphasize the point. Speed aside, nearly three years on, we still don't have a relatively mature product.  Something is bad wrong.

Just today I posted a graphic rendering bug in relation to the Faithlife Study Bible.  I have posted bugs about rendering graphics at least on three occasions in the last four months. Yet it doesn't go away. There are also regressions in regard to popups on the prayer list that I have pointed out a couple of times, we still get the small window treatment at times when installing new resources, etc. etc, but for the most part, I don't take the time to point these issues out any more. OK, some bugs are annoyances rather than significant deal stoppers, but it appears the windows gang has the clear upper hand right now. 

If you consider the amount of time that we gave to the Mac alpha releases and now the time being given to beta and full release software, one has to ask how many more years do we need to invest before we have a relatively trouble free product? I'll put up with the speed and lack of functionality to get at some of the resources, I just wished it would just work.  It scares me to think that Logos 5 might be released in the next year or two when it feels that Logos 4 was never quite finished.  Maybe a new version is what is needed to reboot this whole thing, but I keep hearing from even the most hard core Logos faithful that combined with the pain over Logos mac 1.x, we still hope for a better day.

When the time for Logos 5 comes, I would suggest that Logos seriously consider getting some of the long term faithful involved in the private beta testing of Logos 5 to find out how things really are if they would like a confidence check that things are on the up and up.  Or maybe it just doesn't matter and the strength of resources can continue to carry the day?

I can tell you that my list of complaints is almost non-existent with Accordance. Is it perfect?  No, but it is about as close to perfect as you can get in terms of trouble free 'just works' computing and I highly recommend it to all.

Posts 10832
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 25 2012 4:00 AM

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :):
Logos Morph Search can find παρὰ before accusative words; albeit initial setup took longer than 30 seconds while waiting for a pop-up menu for g:para (seems many words begin with παρὰ).  Syntax search can find παρὰ before accusative words in the same phrase.

I don't really want to be part of this discussion. I was just responding to Lynden's question when I posted the remark about syntax searching. I have over $20k invested in Logos, so I am not interested in advertising Accordance. I was merely pointing out a strength of that application in comparison to Logos 4. Father Matheny posted an excellent comparison 390962.aspx

What irritates me most about Logos 4 Mac are the continually spinning beach-balls (pizzas) that cause even simple operations to take minutes instead of seconds. I have submitted bug reports on this that remain unacknowledged by Logos. Now, that is irritating.

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 25 2012 5:11 AM

Donovan R. Palmer:
I just wished it would just work.

+1 Yes for Logos 4 on Mac and PC, which is part of motivation for WIki list of Feature Parity – Mac needs many improvements

Donovan R. Palmer:
 It scares me to think that Logos 5 might be released in the next year or two when it feels that Logos 4 was never quite finished.  Maybe a new version is what is needed to reboot this whole thing, but I keep hearing from even the most hard core Logos faithful that combined with the pain over Logos mac 1.x, we still hope for a better day.

Personally Thankful for visual filter highlighting in Logos 4, which was not in Logos for Mac v1.2.2 (still have dmg from 17 Sep 2009); dreaming about sharing highlighting palettes and visual filters.

Likewise hoping for a better Bible study experience using Logos plus looking forward to Logos 5 improvements along with anticipation of Logos 5 working well on Mac and PC.

Personally puzzled by a number of Logos 4 crashes/issues on Mac and PC with SQLite database files and some sync issues.

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 757
Fr. Charles R. Matheny | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 25 2012 8:54 AM

I just wish Logos for mac would work. I have no Logos software again, Dead, no function at all, won't even try to open.

Here is the deal: Logos has never had any trouble with my MONEY. My Money has never crashed on them, it has always worked for them, it has never failed them.

On payment plan things I have bought, I have never been late, never failed, never been slow.

 

Posts 757
Fr. Charles R. Matheny | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 25 2012 10:55 AM

I might add another huge difference between Professional Software and a Library Program. I can "always" get tech support with Professional Software, one cannot with Logos. Logos closes on weekends and does not provide help at night.

Accordance can always be reached for help.

 

Posts 1721
LogosEmployee
Bob Pritchett | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Aug 26 2012 4:04 PM

tom collinge:
IMHO, Logos is now a company that wants to be the Walmart for the electronic Christian culture.  Do you want a program to study the bible, we have that (L4).  Do you want a program to display slides on a screen during worship, we have that (proclaim).  Do you want a christian social media website, we have that (faithlife.com).  Do you want to read christian fiction, we have that (vysro).  Do you want an electronic study bible, we have that too (faithlife study bible).

Yes, we do have a bigger ambition: instead of just serving the two people in each church who were serous about Bible study ("the pastor, and that other guy...") <smile>, we are trying to serve the larger market of digital Christian content consumers. We're also trying to help our users connect to the other people in their churches, classrooms, and "faithlife" who want to share notes, read books together, conduct small group BIble studies, etc. While this means we have many different customer-facing products, as you point out, I think you'll find that they are all connected: none of them is a stand-alone product, and each -- including Proclaim -- has many connections to our broader platform.

tom collinge:
IMHO, I think Bob has made some bad decisions, and because of this Logos is stretched very thin.

Yes, I have made plenty of bad decisions. And I expect many more bad decisions, unless I stop trying to do new and interesting things. I hope the bad decisions don't outweigh the good ones, and that the net result is that we move ahead and serve you better, but we'll have to see. I believe that if we aren't having some failures, it means we aren't trying enough new things. I wouldn't want to work somewhere no bad decisions were made.

Yes, we are stretched. Too much? Maybe, maybe not. We'll see. Part of it is our decision to build a broader platform, and part of it is the wider hardware/software platform proliferation. It's not as easy as it was 5 years ago, when developing for desktop Windows meant you covered 95% of the market.

tom collinge:
Bob guessed wrong with L4 and the platform they used to build it.

Yep. We thought WPF had a long-term future, and that desktop Windows would continue to be the most important platform. We called that wrong. I'm sorry. We're now working hard to address the consequences of those poor predictions of the future (made around 2006, in our defense).

I was wrong. I was wrong, I was wrong, I was wrong. The Mac IS important, mobile is driving the future, and WPF is a dead-end. Those who told us we were wrong in 2009 were right.

Do we all feel better now? :-) I know I do. Now, can we drop this point and stop castigating Logos for this horrible, terrible decision? Practically speaking, there's no way for us to travel back in time and not choose WPF, nor can we re-write Logos 4 without it. We will continue to suffer consequences in performance and cross-platform coding issues. We are working to fix these issues, but it's going to take time. In some cases we are re-writing components in C++ for better performance, in other cases we are hand-coding Mac-native implementations of shared code, in other cases we are writing our own implementations of WPF-provided functionality. It will get better, but it'll take time. (And, in case you forgot, it's my fault.)  :-)

tom collinge:
(from bob's statement to write code first, and design, debug, and optimize later)

If you're going to keep attacking this, let's at least get it right. The quote is: "Code first, optimize later." This is good practice, and I stand by it. You don't know where real performance problems are until you implement. And sometimes performance is dramatically different on different platforms; we often use the same code on Windows, Mac, iOS, Android and server-side web. Platform differences (in the time system memory allocation requires, for example) can be dramatic.

For the record, design precedes coding, and includes multiple phases: "interaction design", where we get the feature, usability, and basic look right, and "technical architecture", where we plan the data structures, coding patterns, etc. "Graphic design" is done both before coding and then again "in the code" on the actual implementation. (You can see what our actual specifications look like here: https://faithlife.com/whatsnext These are all for Faithlife.com, but we do the same for our Bible software products, too. Even Logos.com is starting to get this treatment for new features.)

And debugging can't precede coding, by definition, so I don't see the crime in its placement in the workflow.

tom collinge:
IMHO, I also think Bob has guessed wrong with faithlife.com.

Could be. But we don't need Faithlife to be adopted by every Christian with a computer or mobile phone (though we'd welcome that). It offers lots of useful functionality for the groups that collaboratively edit Proclaim presentations, classes that use Logos Bible Software, and more. We'd love to see it get widespread adoption, and we're planning for that, but it will be useful even if only for our users. You'll see tighter integration between all our products and Faithlife.com in the coming months. I think you'll find it really useful, even if you never do anything with anyone else there.

 

Posts 1721
LogosEmployee
Bob Pritchett | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Aug 26 2012 4:17 PM

Graham Owen:

Given that 30th October will be the third anniversary of my upgrade to Version 4 it would be nice to see:

 

  1. As many of the as yet missing features completed by that date as possible.
  2. A commitment from Logos with dates for any features they cannot deliver by that date.

We've been working hard on "missing" features. After 4.6 goes live (it's in beta now) I believe the only significant missing feature will be Sermon File. If there's anything else I'm forgetting, please remind me.

Graham Owen:

Areas that need focus are:

 

  1. Notes, is it really all down to WPF?
  2. Displaying search results - forget the search complete in .nn seconds for me it is not over until the results are displayed.

Yes, it is WPF's fault on Windows. (The notes typing performance.) And the notes issues on Mac relate to the differences in the native text editor there. We've been addressing many notes functionality issues already -- like the new "split" view in 4.6 beta.

To address notes typing performance we are turning our display engine into an editor. This is a massive project that someone has already been working on for months. We hope this will address the performance issues when typing, but we won't know how much better it is until we're a little further along and can run some comparison tests. The plan is to release this in an upcoming beta, though I can't yet say when.

Displaying search results is something of a WPF issue, too. I believe you'll find the Bible search results (in grid format) are the fastest to display. That's because they aren't shown as a page full of WPF text objects, but rather are "painted" onto a single display surface. This is much more difficult than using the built-in layout features, and requires our doing all the layout ourselves, but it's faster. Hand-coding these optimized displays is very time-consuming, but may be our best solution. (Though we're hoping new versions of .NET may help here; I'm not sure yet.)

Posts 1721
LogosEmployee
Bob Pritchett | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Aug 26 2012 4:21 PM

Donovan R. Palmer:
I am tracking seven issues that I am hoping is fixed in a future release. (all are reported and others have noted them on this forum)

Is it safe to assume these are all Mac issues? I've checked your recent postings, and they seem to be about Mac bugs. I'm afraid I don't know as much about the Mac platform as I do about Windows, but I do know that we're working on fixing outstanding Mac-specific issues. As explained in other posts, many recent regressions relate to some particularly significant platform changes in Mono and Xcode, so these things should stabilize now. Other issues relate to platform differences, or simply the fact that our code and experience are 17 years less mature on the Mac.

Feel free to email me (bob@logos.com) your specific issues so I can look into them. I know you've posted them in forums, but I don't see every post, and sometimes it's hard to sort out "ongoing issues" from the miscellaneous bug reports that come in, are fixed in the next release, etc. 

Posts 1721
LogosEmployee
Bob Pritchett | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Aug 26 2012 4:23 PM

Robert C. Beckman Jr.:
4. There are some Logos 4 features which make me tingle every time I use them. The analysis tab in Search which allows you to turn you search into a pivot table; WOW. But you can't graph the resulting table, nor can you print it.

Most of the results in the "pivot table" are textual; how would you like to see them graphed? Or do you just expect graphing when there are numerical results?

Posts 757
Fr. Charles R. Matheny | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Aug 26 2012 8:52 PM

Dear Mr Pritchett: Good posts. I would agree mistakes are part of trying. Old racing quote" If you aren't wrecking, your not trying to get faster".

However, I have not had three weeks in a row of Logos for Mac working since I have owned it. I have called customer support, reported bugs, had screenshares, been helped on the forums more than I can express. But still, when logos works, it opens in a little box and some new place on or off screen, or it crashes, or , as it is now, will not open at all. I have a lot of money tied up in software with your company that I often cannot use or does not work well. I am not looking for an Apology or for who to blame. What I am looking for is the product I bought to work properly. To be honest, the feature parity things is of absolutely no concern to me, I would not even mind if logos lost some features if it means the software would function properly and do so on a consistent basis. I could care less what features the Windows folks have on their side, I don't spend any time coveting their world. I just want the product we bought over here on the Mac side to work as advertised and to do so with some consistency . Again, not trying to "bust your chops" , don't need apologies , what I need and over all what I think others keep trying to say is simply that we need this product fixed. You have the greatest Resources available on any platform, you have a nice interface, you just don't have software that works well. Again, just trying to be open and honest. Really, the only problem is the software does not work well.

Thanks

 

Posts 757
Fr. Charles R. Matheny | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Aug 26 2012 8:55 PM

I would like to add one more thing: Having the greatest resources and great features does us absolutely no good workflow wise if we cannot depend on the software to support the library and feature sets. Having a nice car in the driveway that does not run is not transportation .

Blessings

Posts 611
Graham Owen | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Aug 27 2012 4:38 AM

Bob Pritchett:
After 4.6 goes live (it's in beta now) I believe the only significant missing feature will be Sermon File. If there's anything else I'm forgetting, please remind me.

Thanks for taking time to respond, as far as I know it is only the Sermon File Addon that is left, it would be good if a working version of this was available before the XP version freeze. I'm sure that you have already given this some thought as there is bound to be at least one person out there who is currently on XP and is waiting for the Sermon File Add On....

Bob Pritchett:
Yes, it is WPF's fault on Windows. (The notes typing performance.)

Bob Pritchett:
Displaying search results is something of a WPF issue, too.

If it's any consolation I agree with you that the person who never made a mistake never made anything and that with hindsight I'm sure Logos 4 would be a WPF free zone. In fairness the search display issue is more one of perception than real performance as the screen becomes 'active' fairly quickly the only issue then is the amount of resource that is consumed in the 'background' as the display layout is being built as I find that when I click a link the system is not that responsive and the resource takes a while to open. Is there anyway that the on going screen build can be made a lower priority so that the user response is faster?

Also, I think that the visual queues on the screen are a bit misleading and I have to remind myself that I don't have to wait for the moving squares to stop. I suspect that many new users wait for the squares to stop before they start using the results.

So I guess what I'm saying is that the slow build may be less of an issue than the perception that it creates (if that makes sense).

God Bless

Graham

Pastor - NTCOG Basingstoke

Posts 418
davidphillips | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Aug 27 2012 6:09 AM

Bob Pritchett:
If there's anything else I'm forgetting, please remind me.

Graphical Queries!

Posts 1721
LogosEmployee
Bob Pritchett | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Aug 27 2012 10:11 AM

David B Phillips:
Graphical Queries!

We do not have plans to bring forward the old system of graphic queries; we believe the new syntax search capabilities replace that. (We also are planning some other new search interfaces for the future that we think will be better than both graphical and syntax search for specific cases.)

Posts 418
davidphillips | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Aug 27 2012 10:26 AM

Thanks for the response! I look forward to seeing what is planned for the future :)

Posts 2964
tom | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Aug 28 2012 3:45 AM

Hi Bob, once again thanks for responding to my post, and for the most part, I agree with your post.  Because it is very boring talking about where we agree, I will share the areas where we will have to agree to disagree.

The first is:

Bob Pritchett:
If you're going to keep attacking this, let's at least get it right. The quote is: "Code first, optimize later." This is good practice, and I stand by it. You don't know where real performance problems are until you implement. And sometimes performance is dramatically different on different platforms; we often use the same code on Windows, Mac, iOS, Android and server-side web. Platform differences (in the time system memory allocation requires, for example) can be dramatic.

I believe that optimization needs to be at the very beginning of the design process.  While it is true that new items do pop up during implementation, it should not be used as an excuse of not doing it during the design phase.  

FWIW, from a former developer/designer, it looks to me that coding went before/during the design phase.  For an example, notes and clippings are basically the same thing.  The programming code for these two items could have been shared.  Why do clippings have tags and notes don't (and IMHO - notes is what needs the tags - and a much more robust tagging system than what is in L4).

Bob, I do think that our main difference comes from the fact that I am not an early adapter.  On the bell curve, I believe that it is important to be at the part of the bell curve when it starts to make its turn up.  This allows me to learn from the mistakes from the early adapters. I also believe that you must include the people who are not early adapters into the product because they many many many many many many more of them than early adapters.  When you design something for the future - the future doesn't always comes.

Bob Pritchett:

tom collinge:
IMHO, I also think Bob has guessed wrong with faithlife.com.

Could be. But we don't need Faithlife to be adopted by every Christian with a computer or mobile phone (though we'd welcome that). It offers lots of useful functionality for the groups that collaboratively edit Proclaim presentations, classes that use Logos Bible Software, and more. We'd love to see it get widespread adoption, and we're planning for that, but it will be useful even if only for our users. You'll see tighter integration between all our products and Faithlife.com in the coming months. I think you'll find it really useful, even if you never do anything with anyone else there.

And again, for the most part, I agree with you.  But I would have done in much smaller steps.  For an example, I would have only designed and put into production for the group that I believed would use it the most to see how it was adopted by those users.  If it was successful, I would then expand it for the next group.

IMHO, faithlife.com is trying to be all things to all users too soon.  Thus, why it is not being used that much.

I agree it will be helpful for your users, but did the cost exceed the benefits (i.e. would something smaller and cheaper done the same thing)?  Only time will tell.

Again, thanks for taking the time out of your day to respond to my post.

Posts 93
Robert C. Beckman Jr. | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Aug 28 2012 5:25 PM

1. Thank you for addressing the group. As a Bivocational Pastor in don't get back to the forums every day and it was gratifying to see your many responses.

2. Primarily in searches for verbal structures on large amounts of text (I'm preaching from Ephesians so: All the verbs in Ephesians, I can get a table which organizes the verbs by tense and mood, It would be helpful to have a graphic representation of finite vs. infinitives and participles, or visually picture all of the subjunctives together, all of of the imperatives, etc.

3. Some of us neanderthals, migrants to this electronic culture, (bless us) pretty much want to print everything. If its on the screen I'm gonna want it on paper. Smile Those detailed, indented lists on the screen would be handy to mark up with a good ol' pencil

 

Posts 93
Robert C. Beckman Jr. | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Aug 28 2012 5:35 PM

The broader resources from antiquity (duke Papyri, Perseus classics, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, and others we might not even know about yet) are going to require the ability to further refine search criteria. A data-set that spans several centuries will at least need the ability to narrow the search down chronologically.  I think that it is exciting that Logos can help define the way that searches are conducted between biblical and other corpus's of materials. I think the coders understand that searching for all forms of all words in "classics" or "Duke Papyri" is not going to cut it. The exciting thing will be figuring out how to do a biblical search and then move the mining criteria into a parallel corpus. Sadly, I can see how the graphical search paradigm does not fit as the search interests of the program grow.

Posts 381
Clint Cozier | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Aug 29 2012 4:41 AM

Bob,

Please let me urge you to reconsider the idea that syntax searching replaces some kind of improved morphological query interface. First, the syntax search function in Logos for Mac has been plagued by unexplained problems. One day it works for a given group of users, another day its broken. Scatterings of this can be seen on this forum over the past year. The problems of Logos development on the Mac have been beaten to death already, but syntax searching may well be a causality of this.

Second, there is really no documentation for syntax searching. Take a look at how your competitor rolled out this feature. Their documentation made it possible to work with syntax searching from the first day. I had stuff I could read that explained the tagging, terminology and query methodology. The syntax search interface was an extension of the morphological interface....it felt comfortable and made sense. In contrast, learning to use syntax searches on Logos is a time investment too few of us have.

Third, the body of literature that can be searched using syntax tags is minute in comparison to the collection with the older morphological tagging. I remain grateful every day for the Perseus collection but don't use it to its fullest because of the limitations of morphological searching in Logos. I'd spend serious money for the ability to use the old Graphic Query editor in 4 to do searches in this collection. I'm sure that syntax tagging opens up new possibilities, but I'm skeptical that we will transition from morphological to syntax searching as a mainstay in the next several years. 

Page 4 of 5 (99 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > | RSS