BibleWorks 9 vs Logos 4 Original Languages

[robrecht]

Hi, all.

I'm contemplating buying BibleWorks 9 or Logos 4 Original Language package. I would very much appreciate any helpful advice people have, especially those who use or have used both programs recently. I know John Reece here uses Accordance but that is Mac only so that's not an option for me.

1. One of my concerns is that the very cluttered 'look' of BibleWorks. Is there a full screen toggle where the menu bars can be eliminated from the screen? Does one always need to have three windows (search, browse, analysis) open all the time? Is the size of each of three these windows adjustable?

2. Does anyone have a list of things that one can do on BibleWorks that cannot be done on Logos? Or vice-versa? On of the things that I read in a comparison of older versions of both programs was that purely syntactical searches were able to be done on Logos but not on BibleWorks. I've heard that this is no longer be the case, but I am very interested in this aspect so if anyone has some specific information along this lines, please share.

3. I am already aware of the larger assortment of books that can be added to Logos, but I'm not interested in all their older commentaries or confessional or apologetic, even devotional or self-help types of works. I am interested in their more modern academic stuff, eg, the 3-volume Davies & Allison commentary on Matthew, especialy if they can be linked to the textual analysis part of Logos.

4. One of the biggest advantages of BibleWorks for me is the parallel Hebrew-LXX module. It seems like that is not available on Logos. Correct?

5. Another substantial advantage of BibleWorks are the morphologically analyzed complete works of Josephus, Philo, and the apostolic fathers. It seems like that is not available on Logos. Correct?

6. How good are Logos' iPhone/Andoid apps? Those would be very nice to have depending upon functionality.

7. I've read that searches on BibleWorks are much faster. Any other things that I should be thinking about?

Sorry for so many questions, but I hope some of this information would be very helpful to others looking into this software. Many years ago, when I was doing my doctoral studies I used L-Base by Silver Mountain Software as well as GRAMCORD (free version for some work I did on the Greek analysis), but I have not used anything comparable in a Windows environment. Neither of these companies seem to be at the forefront any more, but I could be wrong about that.

Thanks for your time!

[robrecht]

Update: Apparently, I was mistaken about the availability of some add-ons for Logos. For example, E. Tov's excellent interlinear commentary on the LXX is available for $100 and it can be integrated into their morphologically analyzed LXX. Likewise there seem to be add-ons for Philo morpohologically analyzed as well as different patristic morphological packages. Their interlinear texts are apparently not simple interlinears but also include morphological analysis that can be searched. Warning: It gets real expensive fast when you add these packages onto one of their base packages.

[Cow Poke]

Sorry to not directly respond to your post, but as an ASIDE, I have used "cheap versions" of Bible Study software, such as QuickVerse, but about 4 years ago I finally broke down and purchased the top-of-the line Logos with all kinds of goodies. I LIKE it, but something I noticed, particularly with Version 4, is that it always seems to be "downloading updates", "indexing", "preparing to update", "updating"..... and it just seems so slow sometimes on my otherwise pretty snappy laptop. If I'm going to look up something simple, I use my old QuickVerse, but for in depth research I still use Logos.

I'll be interested in answers to your actual topic. Sorry for the aside.

[robrecht]

No prob. That seems to be a common criticism of Logos. I just got a new laptop with 8 GB RAM, an i7 processor with 6MB cache, etc, so I'm not too worried about that. People say it runs fine with these specs.

I just found out I can download the Logos 4 engine for free and purchase whatever I would not have in BibleWorks. No need to buy a Logos base package to get the search engine. So I'll probably buy the full BibleWorks, which is a much better value, and supplement any thing I can't get on BibleWorks with individual works on Logos. Looks like a lot of people do this. Logos also has a lot of free stuff, eg, Greek & Latin classical works, a Renaissance module, and even US Civil War texts, all free.

[Cow Poke]

Hmmmmm... didn't know that. Thanks!

[robrecht]

Here's where you can download the free search engine:
http://www.logos.com/support/windows/L4/install

Here's a partial list of their free stuff (sort by price):
http://www.logos.com/products/search...lo&pageSize=15

There's other free stuff, but looks like you have to search for it individually, eg, the abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon:
http://www.logos.com/products/search?q=abridged+bdb

[robrecht]

How can I edit the original post?

Here is an update on several of my questions:

Hi, all.

I'm contemplating buying BibleWorks 9 or Logos 4 Original Language package. I would very much appreciate any helpful advice people have, especially those who use or have used both programs recently.

1. One of my concerns [was] that the very cluttered 'look' of BibleWorks. Is there a full screen toggle where the menu bars can be eliminated from the screen? Does one always need to have three windows (search, browse, analysis) open all the time? Is the size of each of three these windows adjustable?
- This concern has been resolved. The BibleWorks interface is completely customizable.

3. I am already aware of the larger assortment of books that can be added to Logos, but I'm not interested in all their older commentaries or confessional or apologetic, even devotional or self-help types of works. I am interested in their more modern academic stuff, eg, the 3-volume Davies & Allison commentary on Matthew, especialy if they can be linked to the textual analysis part of Logos.
- I've learned that the Logos search engine can be downloaded for free and specific individual works an be downloaded from Logos. One does not need to buy one of their base packages. So, although their individual works are expensive (they would be expensive on top of one of their base packages too), it really is economical to use the full BibleWorks package and purchase whatever additional items one would like in an electronic format from Logos. Perhaps not as integrated of a solution as many would like, but it does allow for the best of both worlds.

4. One of the biggest advantages of BibleWorks for me is the parallel Hebrew-LXX module. It seems like that is not available on Logos. Correct? Not correct.
Some Logos users consider their ability to do parallel MT-LXX work superior to BibleWorks. They do not need to show the English line of their interlinears (I dislike English interlinears) and their text is searchable morphologically and the excellent Tov 'commentary' on the LXX can be integrated into their search tools. It is expensive ($100), but it is not merely an e-book.

5. Another substantial advantage of BibleWorks are the morphologically analyzed complete works of Josephus, Philo, and the apostolic fathers. It seems like that is not available on Logos. Correct? Not correct. But not sure yet how expensive it would be to duplicate this on Logos.

6. How good are Logos' iPhone/Andoid apps? Those would be very nice to have depending upon functionality. No longer an issue. If I use the free Logos search engine with some free and individually purchased items, I would be able to use the Logos iPhone/Android apps, which are free to users of the Logos search engine.

[robrecht]

... about 4 years ago I finally broke down and purchased the top-of-the line Logos with all kinds of goodies. I LIKE it, but something I noticed, particularly with Version 4, is that it always seems to be "downloading updates", "indexing", "preparing to update", "updating"..... and it just seems so slow sometimes on my otherwise pretty snappy laptop. ...

I just got a new laptop with 8 GB RAM, an i7 processor with 6MB cache, etc, so I'm not too worried about that.

New info: In terms of speeding up Logos 4, a fast hard-drive (or better a super-expensive SSD) is also helpful, as well as Windows 7, and a really good graphics card, which you find mostly on very high-end gaming laptops, but not most of the less expensive laptops that are sold at Best Buy and Walmart. But apparently the real problem is that Logos 4 jumped on something called WPF (Windows Presentation Format) too soon and now they may abandon it, which would apparently make for a faster program, but not until Logos 6, but that is two updates away.

[RBerman]

Thanks for the information, robrecht. I have been pondering taking this plunge myself. I'm sure my Alienware machine can handle the software, though I'm somewhat appalled that such would be necessary for displaying static pages of text.

[robrecht]

Starting next year, Accordance will be available for Windows, without the need for an emulator. This combines much of the power of BibleWorks with an interface that many will find much easier to use:

http://www.accordancebible.com/Accordance-For-Windows

[John Reece]

Starting next year, Accordance will be available for Windows, without the need for an emulator. This combines much of the power of BibleWorks with an interface that many will find much easier to use:

http://www.accordancebible.com/Accordance-For-Windows

Worth waiting for (for Windows users)!

By the way, Accordance 10 was just made available today (for Mac users):

http://www.accordancebible.com

[RBerman]

Hmm, decisions decisions...

[robrecht]

... But apparently the real problem is that Logos 4 jumped on something called WPF (Windows Presentation Format) too soon and now they may abandon it, which would apparently make for a faster program, but not until Logos 6, but that is two updates away.

The CEO of Logos posted this a couple of days ago to someone complaining about WPF:

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.) :-)

[technomage]

The CEO of Logos posted this a couple of days ago to someone complaining about WPF:

You've got to give a hat-tip to an answer like that.

[robrecht]

You've got to give a hat-tip to an answer like that.

Absolutely. But, unfortunately, I don't think I would buy his current software at this point.