57 replies to this topic

[Randy Cue]

I may have mentioned this in another thread, but the place where Logos outshines Accordance is in the exporting of Biblical text. There are some issues now with Accordance exporting text as formatted. Logos does offer may more text (Biblical) formatting options. I hope that Accordance soon will address this problem. I would like to be able to specify the font and font size as well as maintaining the paragraph indentations and the poetry format. When that happens Accordance could easily become my only Bible software.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Randy

[Rick Bennett]

I may have mentioned this in another thread, but the place where Logos outshines Accordance is in the exporting of Biblical text. There are some issues now with Accordance exporting text as formatted. Logos does offer may more text (Biblical) formatting options. I hope that Accordance soon will address this problem. I would like to be able to specify the font and font size as well as maintaining the paragraph indentations and the poetry format. When that happens Accordance could easily become my only Bible software.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Randy

I'm familiar with some of the issues you brought up with regards to poetry (and we're still working on them), but can you be more specific on other items you'd like to see (and post in a 'feature request' topic)?

Thanks for the feedback.

[Randy Cue]

Sure, Rick. I'd be happy to.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Randy

[Bret Hicks]

Rick, I have also made this same request a couple of times. I do not know if you can find those or if there is a way I can make a link. I will try to go back and refresh the requests, but as I have said elsewhere, this is the most glaring weakness of Accordance compared to BibleWorks and Logos. It would be great to see a major improvement here that would allow us to create and save multiple export schemes that specify fonts, size, highlighting options, where the citation is placed, and would properly superscript fonts. Thanks!

[AbramKJ]

Others have covered this well already (and I'm glad to have read this), so I don't know that this will add a ton new, but here I compare Accordance (10) with Logos (5) and BibleWorks (9).

[bkMitchell]

The biggest difference I see comes from the audience that Accordance caters to. If you want accuracy you want Accordance. Speed is a great feature of Accordance, but Accordance's trump card is the fact that it like BibleWorks has highly proofed original language texts, and the integrity of their sophisticated search engine. Scholars actually use and recommend Accordance. Basically, any intro to exegesis book will not fail to mention Accordance. Logos is a great program if you primarily want to build searchable library, but in regards to Original Language searches they still have a lot to fix.

Edited by bkMitchell, 27 November 2012 - 06:02 PM.

[HansK]

"Logos is a great program if you primarily want to build searchable library, but in regards to Original Language searches they still have a lot to fix."

bkMitchell, please give us some examples.

Hans

[AbramKJ]

I may have already mentioned this the link in my post above, but one big difference between Accordance and Logos is that in Accordance you can not only save Workspaces, but also have multiple Workspaces open at the same time. Logos does have Layouts (like Workspaces), but as soon as you open one, it replaces the one you already had open.

Regarding original languages, I often find myself with an LXX Workspace, a Hebrew Bible Workspace, and a Greek New Testament Workspace (with texts, lexica, etc. all open), all going at the same time. I don't believe this is possible in Logos.

It's become an indispensable feature of Accordance for me, though.

Also, to bkMitchell's point, there's recently been a fairly lively thread of complaint over at Logos recently about how they basically have let lapse their Original Languages Library with Logos 5. Apparently there still is something comparable to what was in L4, but you have to call customer service to even find out about it, and it's nowhere on their Website.

In this sense, Accordance really does continue to target those who are interested in original languages, academic biblical studies, etc.

[Joseph Ben Zion]

Also, to bkMitchell's point, there's recently been a fairly lively thread of complaint over at Logos recently about how they basically have let lapse their Original Languages Library with Logos 5. Apparently there still is something comparable to what was in L4, but you have to call customer service to even find out about it, and it's nowhere on their Website.

In this sense, Accordance really does continue to target those who are interested in original languages, academic biblical studies, etc.

This is most likely indicative of Logos marketing strategy. For Logos, their mentality has shifted from a Bible Software Company to an E-Book Distribution Center—and are thus attempting to compete with Amazon, or so it has been said.

[DWFrancis]

I also find their pre pub method rather short sighted. The New Interpreter's Bible will likely never see the light of day in Logos since while it is one of the most popular mainstream set, the majority of Logos users/resources are aimed at a very conservative market place and there is nothing wrong with that, but makes it difficult to get resources with different theological views published. Logos claims they are the most powerful Bible study program out there, but there often seems more flash than substance, and while i found 5.0 to be very stable, 5.0a is constantly crashing on me.

-Dan

[Joseph Ben Zion]

I also find their pre pub method rather short sighted. The New Interpreter's Bible will likely never see the light of day in Logos . . .

-Dan

I think their pre-pub method is part of the brilliance of their marketing. It ensures that, at least from ROI perspective, the development cost is funded before production ensues. The pre-pub grants the Logos User the voice of which says what resources are most important to them, while the business side of Logos already has projections of the earnings (especially when the speed of pre-pub is satisfied).

[arcanemuse]

For my fifty cents worth, I find the difference between Logos and Accordance is simple. Logos is a huge research library stocked chock full of stuff you may never use. It is good to keep filling that library up with thousands of dollars of resources since they are all in indexed and when you do a search, it will check everything. That never used resource might just come up with a hit and give you that certain thing you needed to complete a Sunday school lesson. The new 5 version is quicker and much nicer than 4 but it is still slow. This is where the main difference lies is the focus of the two programs. Logos wants to be huge like the Library of Congress on your hard drive and give you tons of STUFF. Accordance doesn't have as many resources but how many do you really need? I feel that with Accordance you get more than enough great resources to use. Accordance is also very very fast and doesn't use up your memory or system resources. Logos is a memory PIG. Although I am just starting with Greek and Hebrew, I have put most all of my language study resources in Accordance as it is much better with those. Accordance bases itself around the text and from what I have heard and seen, it does original language texts flawlessly and with much greater attention to detail than Logos. I've noticed Logos doing some bit of copying of things in their program as of late. They have attempted to clone the instant details window but I still like the one in Accordance much better and I especially like the option click method to get you a popup box instead.
In short, what you get with Logos is the huge library that they talk about and it handles like a BUS. With Accordance you get a well stocked library, excellent original language tools, lovely intuitive interface, AND it handles like a FERARRI. :-)
As a disclaimer, I am heavily invested in both programs so I know of what I speak. I went from Platinum in 4 to Platinum in 5 and have a lot of added resources along the way in Logos. With Accordance, I went up to the Advanced when 10 came out. I've added BDAG/HALOT, Yale dictionary, Mounce, Pratico and more past that. I am about to add some Carta resources as they should augment the nice maps in Accordance very nicely.
My personal opinion is that if you do not have the resources to get both programs and you own a Mac (and soon a PC, as well) you should choose Accordance as your Bible software. You will be very happy with your choice. :-)

[bkMitchell]

"Logos is a great program if you primarily want to build searchable library, but in regards to Original Language searches they still have a lot to fix."

bkMitchell, please give us some examples.

Hans

Sure, let's say that you would like to search:
(1) for everywhere a Hebrew word is ( defective )or haser in it's spelling
(2) for everywhere a particularly word is spelled (fully) Kitve Male spelling
(3) with an accent sensitive Hebrew query (on a word with a particularly accent mark)
(4) on a series of ta'amei ha-mikra of the Hebrew Bible with wildcards in place of letters/characters
(5) on Neqqudot/vowel point patterns with wildcards in places of letters/characters
(6) on close and open paragraphs marked in the Hebrew version of the Pentateuch
(7) Graphically for Morphological features, Logos offers something for syntax, but not for constructing normal searches and morphological ones like accordance does.
To be sure, Logos is improving in fact they just added "root" searches.

If, you are a student or anyone else just interested in getting a basic package with the essentially texts and resources for Ad Fontes (going back to the sources) like an Original Language package or a Biblical language package and you don't want or need any theological or pastoral resources. You're not going to be able to find any Logos5 package to meet your needs. You can always of course build your own library though.

I think Logos5 was released prematurely, after they learned that Accordance for Windows is coming in 2013. I wish Logos the best, but I am pretty sure that Accordance for Windows is going to be a hit!

Edited by bkMitchell, 28 November 2012 - 06:20 AM.

[Joseph Ben Zion]

but I am pretty sure that Accordance for Windows is going to be a hit!

לחיים

[R. Mansfield]

There's another difference between the two that should be pointed out.

First let's assume one thing: any software application that performs powerful tasks will have a learning curve, regardless of how well the interface is designed. In regard to Logos or Accordance, it will take an investment of time to really use either program to their full potential. A user will probably benefit from attending a training seminar for either program, and both programs have extensive help files.

Having said that, the developers of Logos made an interface decision with version 4 (that continues with version 5) that still blows my mind. In an effort to supposedly unclutter the menu system, a command line was added for more complex tasks (and even many tasks that are not complex). In contrast, every command available to Accordance can be found in the program's menu system and usually in the contextual menus as well.

This means that if an Accordance user cannot remember a command to include in a search field, the command can at least be obtained in the menus. But if a Logos user really wants to tap the power of the program, a command syntax has to be memorized for entering into the command field.

As a simple example, if an Accordance user wants to perform an image search, the drop down window on the search field, which lists multiple search options, can be set to graphical tools, and then the subject can be entered into the search field. But in Logos, the user has to remember to type #image and then the subject in the command field to get the same kind of results. This is a very simple task, but a specific command has to be memorized for it to work.

I remember a day when people claimed Accordance was more complicated than Libronix. I never thought that either was necessarily more complicated than the other--both had their own way of doing things and it was just a matter of learning how the programs worked. But with Logos 4, a method of performing tasks was added--the command line--that is the very definition of non-intuitive. It's non-intuitve because it can't simply be guessed at by exploring the interface. It has to be learned and memorized, or a cheat sheet has to be kept nearby, reminiscent of the old WordPerfect 5.1 days when we kept a keystroke guide at the top of our keyboards. In fact, the addition of the command line in Logos is, to me, a throwback to the old pre-GUI days of using DOS programs. Back then you'd better know the commands and the keyboard shortcuts or there would be very little you could do.

Yes, there are times in Accordance I have to consult the Help file to learn or remember how to do something, but at least most of what I want to do is built into the interface itself--very much unlike recent versions of Logos.

[DWFrancis]

I think their pre-pub method is part of the brilliance of their marketing. It ensures that, at least from ROI perspective, the development cost is funded before production ensues. The pre-pub grants the Logos User the voice of which says what resources are most important to them, while the business side of Logos already has projections of the earnings (especially when the speed of pre-pub is satisfied).

Yes it is a useful thing but if you are going to introduce vegetarian options to omnivorous people loving their meat are not likely going to in a rush to get it. And you will end up complaining the lack of vegetarians coming in. I am not saying one should never use a pre pub to determine whether to produce something, but some times one must step out on faith. The NIB is quite popular in many more "mainstream" denominations, and obviously it is popular enough for Abingdon to produce a leather bound edition.

-Dan

Edited by DWFrancis, 28 November 2012 - 03:18 PM.

[Donovan R. Palmer]

I upgraded to Logos 5 (Mac) three weeks ago. It has crashed 10 times so far. I suspect part of this is due to the crummy internet we have here. It likes to 'phone home' to sync with the cloud ever so often and I think it starts to freak out when it has a number of failed attempts. More and more I run it in offline mode, though this means notes and other things don't get synced. It's a bit of a pain in that in order to sync your stuff, you have to completely shut it down and restart it to go back online.

Credit to Logos 5 (Mac), it is what Logos 4 should have been from day one. Much is greatly improved about the program, including speed and there are many refinements. It still crashes, but they are finally on the right track in my opinion. Many of the glaring issues such as UI errors and malfunctions are gone with this version. The passage, exegetical and word study guides, along with prayer lists and syncing in the cloud, appear to be very popular with the general public. If they could just address the propensity to crash with the Mac version, it would really help its reputation.

Why do I even use Logos? Well, I have a sizeable investment from my Windows days. However, I do take the point that they are kind of trying to be like 'Amazon'. As a result, some of the materials I need for some studies are sold by them. As I don't have access to a seminary library and to ship books here would be impractical, I buy them in Logos format whenever possible. If Logos doesn't carry them, I'll buy them on Kindle if possible. Kindle is awful for research though and the research orientation of Logos makes life much easier. To put it bluntly, the studies I am doing right now would be more difficult and in some instances not be practically possible without some of the reference materials that Logos offers. I think between this and some popular tools, Logos has a spot that keeps them growing, even if sometimes the Mac software side lets them down a bit. (I think Windows version is much better)

Next year I will be transitioning my focus to some original language studies. I will be purchasing more resources in Accordance, even though some of the things I need I already have on Logos. Why you might ask? The reason is because I think Accordance shines when it comes to exegetical and original language studies. The speed, accuracy and work flow is much stronger in my humble opinion. The UI is elegant and stable. Programs like Accordance is one of the reasons I came back to Mac five years ago. I think in all the time I have had Accordance 10, it has crashed once or twice and that wasn't even with the most recent release.

Unless people are involved in something that requires access to certain types of materials, I always point them to Accordance. I can't imagine life without it!

[Randy Cue]

Donovan,

You said it well. I'm still waiting for better Biblical text exporting format options, but when they come (soon please ) Accordance will put a great distance between itself and any competitor.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Randy