Jump to content

Can someone explain the difference between Logos vs. Accordance?


wbarkley

Recommended Posts

That said, and this is a very personal opinion, I think Accordance has kept user content creation (currently User Notes, User Tools, User Bibles and Highlighting) to the side for WAY too long. They need to invest in this area as a top priority. The core of reading and searching and helping to drive creative and wonderful ideas, but it's way to hard to do that in the tool. I was hopeful for a while a few years ago when they did a few nice things with User Tools, but that momentum disappeared and we've been told outright it's not a priority. For this reason, I don't buy commentaries in Accordance any more.. ever. I use Logos for commentaries and books, and Accordance for texts and their tightly integrated resources. I do this because I can engage with the Commentaries, link easily, edit easily, highlight the way I want to highlight, not end up with some hideous mix of patterns and colors that I have to print a legend to remember.

 

I think taking notes on Accordance tools wasn't as big of a deal to me until I started reading books on the Kindle where taking notes is so easy. I forgot to mention this in my earlier answer to Tim's question about the Kindle, but this is also a factor, too. Accordance doesn't currently allow for notes on non-text titles and Logos does, but it seems easiest on the Kindle. When I take a note on the book in the Kindle, it's forever there unless I delete it, and it automatically travels from device to device. I don't have to specify what notes file to use as I do in Logos because there's an assumption that the notes for a book simply go with that particular book.

 

I'm very hopeful that in the near future, we will have the ability to include our own notes on all Accordance titles. I think Accordance should follow the Kindle's example and make the process easier than on Logos by simply associating a note on a title with that title and not require the user to specify it and possibly record a note in the wrong place.

 

User tools are another feature that I've long wanted to see beefed up in Accordance. I actually create user tools a good bit, but I'd do it significantly more if there were a few basic features such as the ability to indent text and add bulleted and numbered lists. The ability to add graphics and tables would open up an entire new world for me; however, I'd settle for right now just for improvements in formatting features in user tools.

 

Logos is better in their Personal Book Builder regarding some of the formatting issues, but I do not like the fact that it all has to be done in a Word file with tags added to every level. This seems cumbersome, especially in regard to making corrections. Even if editing the user tool in Accordance means opening a separate window, at least I don't have to go back to a separate source file and then re-import my changes.

 

Logos 4 went for two years without any PBB feature (after it had been included in the previous Libronix software), and I feel that Accordance missed an opportunity to really come out strong in this area by improving user tool features in the interim and really promoting the heck out of it.

 

But there's still opportunity. Like I said, I believe that ultimately creating these kinds of tools in Logos is awkward. Accordance could really shine in this area with some improvements to the current capabilities.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... But there's still opportunity. Like I said, I believe that ultimately creating these kinds of tools in Logos is awkward. Accordance could really shine in this area with some improvements to the current capabilities.

Doing anything other then reading and highlighting in Logos is awkward and I totally agree that Accordance has a great opportunity here, but they need acknowledge it as a priority first. None of these requests are close to being new or few. The lack of progress here over years pains me.

Edited by mikes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick and Donovan, with the rising popularity of other e-readers (e.g. Kindle and Nook) and the fact that books in these formats tend to be much cheaper than those on the Logos platform, do you think you will continue using Logos as an e-reader? Or do you just plan to install, say, Kindle reader on your Mac/iPhone/iPad and purchase these kinds of books on that platform?

 

One more thought in regard to this question: if a title contains original language content, it's usually formatted better in Bible software than on the Kindle. With the exception of titles from OSNOVA, I rarely see Greek and Hebrew reproduced with care and precision on the Kindle, and the situation usually seems even worse on the Nook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are committed to overhauling the User Notes and User Tools features soon, but we have to give priority to some other upgrades. We do appreciate the feedback, and we take it to heart (perhaps too much so). We just cannot do everything at once.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So all this to say, a big thank you to all the gang at Accordance. We as users will always want more and of course you do as well, but we don't have to think through all the details and effort to advance to the next level. We are so grateful for your personal investment and we're glad to support the effort at Accordance!

 

Amen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So all this to say, a big thank you to all the gang at Accordance. We as users will always want more and of course you do as well, but we don't have to think through all the details and effort to advance to the next level. We are so grateful for your personal investment and we're glad to support the effort at Accordance!

 

Thanks for your comments, Donovan. Our name and reputation is very important to us, so we appreciate the feedback!

Edited by Darin Allen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I concur with R. Mansfield. I just finished part 1 of an Accordance & Logos review on my (rarely updated) blog. I am a recent Accordance "convert" and wanted to try and offer an objective comparison between the two. In thinking things through, I felt that there is at least a slight difference in approach to Bible study between Accordance and Logos. My hypothesis holds true at least for myself since the study method I perceive from Accordance is the one I MUCH prefer. I have the Scholar's Library: Gold for Logos and I still find myself doing as R. Mansfield does: using Logos to read some resources but doing my study/research in Accordance.

 

I realize I'm not stating anything new, just wanted to echo an already solid response (great job R. Mansfield!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May we have a link to your blog post?

 

Found it: here.

 

I would note Mike that you can run Accordance on Windows via emulator (running Mac Classic). It certainly isn't pretty, but it can do almost everything the app does on OS X.

 

Also the current version of Accordance is 9.6.3 (free update from 9.x); not sure if that really affects anything, just wanted to note.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, Rick. I'd be happy to.

 

Soli Deo Gloria,

Randy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :-)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...