Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. We have so very much.

‏תּוֹדָה‎, toḏāh thank offering; thanksgiving, confession of thankfulness; song of thanksgiving; thanks is the speaking of the excellence of a person or object, with a focus on the personal gratitude of the speaker

εὐχαριστία eucharistia gratitude; actively, grateful language (to God, as an act of worship):  thankfulness, (giving of) thanks(-giving).

Ceasefire

I've been blogging since 2003, and in that time, I've only completely deleted one post before today.

And yet, I believe that what started out as some friendly competition was getting out of hand on multiple levels, including the level on which I was participating.

While I believe some (but not necessarily all) reaction to my words was due to miscommunication, I must nevertheless take ownership and responsibility for what I write and say.

More seriously, arguing over Bible software seems in the end to be something that brings no glory to God, the one who has given this revelation to us to begin with. Add to that the fact that this discussion is public and a horrible witness to the culture outside of the body of Christ.

So, I have deleted the post, including the comments, and I want to offer a sincere apology to any who were offended.

I am hopeful that we can build better bridges to the future and find opportunities to be as one instead of divided.

SBL: Software Bible Shootout

I had the opportunity on Saturday to sit in on the "Bible Software Shootout" at SBL. This event was described in the program in the following manner:

Invited software vendors will showcase their products by demonstrating how their software solves five real-world problems in back-to-back comparisons. Each vendor will have 30 minutes, with the exception of SESB which will have 15 minutes.

Keith H. Reeves, Azusa Pacific University, Presiding

Logos Systems
Michael S. Heiser, Logos Systems, Respondent [replaced by Bob Pritchett]

Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible
Oliver Glanz, Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible, Respondent

BibleWorks
Jim Barr, Bible Works, Respondent
Glen Weaver, Bible Works, Respondent
Mark Cannon, Bible Works, Respondent

Accordance
Roy B. Brown, Accordance, Respondent
Rex A. Koivisto, Accordance, Respondent

Olive Tree
Stephen Johnson, Olive Tree Bible Software, Respondent
Drayton Benner, University of Chicago, Respondent

Each presenter was challenged to use their respective software packages to solve the following tasks:

1. Give the parsing of a word and its meaning from a standard source.


2. Show all the occurrences of a word in the NT and LXX and show the Hebrew word which corresponds withe the Greek in the LXX (if there is a correspondence).


3. Find all the occurrences of οἰ δὲ in Matthew's gospel followed by a finite verb within the clause.


4. I want to study a part of speech, e. g., demonstrative pronouns or interjections. How do I get all of the lemmas for that part of speech, get all the occurrences of those lemmas, and the results organized in such a way that I could write an article/monograph on that part of speech from the data?


5. I want to study the inflections of the Hebrew middle weak verb, and I want to see what the range of possible variations are for each of the conjugations (perfect, imperative, etc.) person, number, gender, stem. This means I need to find all the middle weak verbs, find all their occurrences, and organize them in such a way that the variation of their inflections are immediately apparent. The goal of the data organization would be to allow me to write an article about the variations of the Hebrew middle weak verb.

I do not know if the session was video recorded, but it should have been. The Accordance team was the only one to provide a paper presenting the steps in putting together the solutions to the problems above. If the Accordance folks decide to post their paper, I'll create a link to it here.

Now, let me say up front that I'm biased towards Accordance. I won't try to hide that fact. I'm so biased, in fact, that I've agreed to work the booth with them here at SBL. But I should also point out that my bias is neither random nor based on anything but my own experience with Bible software.

I've been using Accordance for over 11 years. I own the Scholar's Unlock All, Library Premier, and scores of other modules I've added over the years. But you should know that I also own Logos 4 Gold Level (and other resources bought separately) and have it installed both in Windows (via Bootcamp & Parallels) and in Mac OS X (although the Mac version currently is an alpha version that is of minimal use). I have a very old version of BibleWorks (v. 3.5) which I had from my Windows days before I switched to the Mac in 1998. All of the above, I have paid for with my own funds. I also have a copy of Olive Tree's Bible software on the iPhone, some of which I bought and some of which was given to me by Olive Tree.

Here are a few reflections:

I still don't understand why Oliver Glanz was demonstrating the Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible, since it runs on the Logos platform.

My familiarity with Accordance vs. my lesser familiarity with Logos and my almost nil experience with the current version of BibleWorks made it difficult for me to follow some aspects of the latter two's presentation.

Logos 4 continues to be extremely impressive visually, but I have to wonder how much all the many charts and graphs would be of significant help if I was needing it to solve the problems that were part of the challenge. A good way to describe Logos 4 is "visually overwhelming." And while I don't mean that in a totally negative manner, it's not completely positive either. There simply seemed to be too much thrown at the problems during the presentation, and it wasn't clear how helpful some of the supposed solutions would actually be.

Although Olive Tree could not perform every aspect of the last two challenges, what they could do was very impressive, indeed. The representatives from Olive Tree showed that their "pocket" software can be used for very serious work if someone is so inclined to do so. It's been over a year since I wrote my initial review of the iPhone app, and it's probably time to post an update.

Of all the presenters, only Roy Brown of Accordance provided a handout describing his solutions to the problems. In fact, his handout was 12 pages long! This meant that anyone with access to the software could easily go home and duplicate his solutions, step-by-step. That would really be impossible with the other software unless the attendee was keeping extremely meticulous notes.

Roy is undoubtedly the "father" of Mac Bible software. The maturity and straightforwardness of his presentation, combined with his knowledge of the software as an engineer as well as his insight into the biblical language gave his presentation a certain level of gravitas that the other presentations could not match.

There was an ongoing query during the Q&A sessions regarding the availability of critical apparatuses. Accordance fared best here having a total of eight combined for the LXX, Hebrew Bible, and Greek New Testament, including the near exhaustive CNTTS. Olive Tree does not currently have any. BibleWorks only had one, but an older one of less value (Tischendorf). I don't remember how many Logos had, but I know that have at least one for the NT and one for the OT.

Finally, after the competition was over (no winner was actually announced), I spoke briefly with a former classmate of mine who is now a professor in a prestigious seminary. He told me that in watching the different presentations, he thought Accordance had the most logical and straightforward solutions to the problems. While he said that he did not know how to use Accordance yet, he felt confident that it was something that could be easily learned as a valuable tool for biblical studies.

Let me be clear: no one gave a bad presentation. But if I had to pick a winner, biased or not, I would pick Accordance because of its simple, straightforward and logical approach. The methods employed were both useful (and often multiple in number to achieve the same results) as well as direct and to the point, avoiding the temptation to "wow" an audience with impressive features that do not necessarily or directly address the issues at hand.

One of the Many Problems with Airplane Bathrooms

They're only made for short people.

Logos vs. Accordance, Part 3: Bibliographic Citations

This is the third in a series of video comparisons between Libronix/Logos and Accordance Bible Software. This particular comparison focuses on both programs' ability to produce bibliographic citations in word processing documents. Logos has had this ability for a while, and Accordance added it a couple of days ago with the release of v. 8.4.

Due to the time length constraints of YouTube, I had to split the video in the middle; however, as an alternative you can see a high definition version on my personal gallery in its entirety.

Segment A:



Segment B:



Points of Clarification:

1. In the first example which looks at commentary citations, I'm not suggesting that it's incorrect for Logos or Accordance to provide information that designates the source as an electronic one. Actually, it's very correct, but I find it very interesting that the two programs do this quite differently. And in part of my "corrections," I am merely demonstrating how one might remove this information if turning a paper into someone who might be biased against electronic sources. Believe me, these folks still exist!


2. In one example, I paste a sentence from the TDNT in Logos 4/Windows into Word 2008/Mac. I comment that the transliterated word érōs was capitalized in the process to Érōs. I have confirmed that this does not occur when pasting from Logos 4/Windows to Word 2007/Windows. Therefore, Mac users pasting in a native word processor will want to watch for these kinds of alterations. Once Logos 4/Mac is more fully developed, I assume this won't be an issue.

---

Previous installments:

Libronix/Mac vs. Accordance, Part 1: "Speed" Search

Libronix/Mac vs. Accordance, Part 1.1: Speed Search Revisited

Libronix/Mac vs. Accordance, Part 2: Printing

---

CoD: Modern Warfare 2 -- Too Violent?

This post is adapted from a conversation held earlier today on FaceBook.



On Tuesday of this week, Activision released the eagerly awaited sixth installment in the Call of Duty series: Modern Warfare 2. I didn't get a heads up about the controversy surrounding the game until Monday evening. I was told that there was an early scene in the game that was drawing a lot of criticism not simply because of violence, but rather the particular kind of violence.

Well, I've played the early levels of the game, and I can tell you that the controversial scene is actually pretty shocking. And I've played quite a few games such as this in my time. I think that while the controversy is going to garner Activision a lot of attention for the game, it may become a lightning rod for people who complain about violence in video games resulting in a negative backlash.

Is the level of violence in this particular scene precedent setting? I'm not certain, but I do know this is the first game I've ever played that offered a disclaimer at the beginning of the game allowing the player to bypass the particularly disturbing scene. Activision has also released a statement in regard to the game:

Infinity Ward's Modern Warfare 2 features a deep and gripping storyline in which players face off against a terrorist threat dedicated to bringing the world to the brink of collapse. The game includes a plot involving a mission carried out by a Russian villain who wants to trigger a global war. In order to defeat him, the player infiltrates his inner circle. The scene is designed to evoke the atrocities of terrorism. At the beginning of the game, players encounter a mandatory "checkpoint" in which they are warned that an upcoming segment may contain disturbing elements and they can choose not to engage in the gameplay that involves this scene. Consistent with its content, the game has been given an "M" for Mature by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board. The rating is prominently displayed on the front and back of the packaging, as well as in all advertising.

In regard to the particular scene in question, the player has three option: (1) It can be skipped [a warning allows for this before the player even gets to the initial training level];(2) it can be played and fully participated in, or (3) it can be played and not participated in. I chose the last option. I called Kathy over to look at what was on the screen. She couldn't believe it either.

Okay, let me try to give some context to this entire situation based on my own experience with video games. It's no secret that I like "shooter" type video games. But it's an element of fantasy. This kind of war fantasy has been around with us for millennia. Football is a game of war as is chess. We've always had this kind of thing with us.

Is storming the beach at Normandy in Call of Duty different psychologically than performing in a Civil War re-enactment? Probably the re-enactment is something MORE vivid in the mind of the participant, but I've never been involved in one so I cannot say for certain. For me—and I hope that you don't find this disturbing—the average first person (or third person) shooter can provide a relaxing form of escape for me at the end of a long day. Really.



In spite of many concerns about violence in video games, there's surprisingly little video game tie in to real-life violence. In fact, for testosterone-laden teenage boys (and escapist 41 year old men), these games may be a healthy outlet when participated in under the right conditions. For boys especially,—most of whom in the 21st century don't perform manual labor all day or go to war at early age and probably don't get enough exercise in general—these games are a better outlet than say, getting into real fights or performing actual acts of violence.

But there is a lot of killing.

I reflected on the issue of all the killing a few months back while playing the latest James Bond game Quantum of Solace. FIrst, I noticed that a lot more "bad guys" are killed in the game than in the movie. An unrealistic number, in fact. That may even be true for some of the military games based upon actual events.

As for putting myself in the role of James Bond, I asked myself if I could perform these same acts if this wasn't a game, but real life. No. I couldn't. In fact, I'd be a horrible secret agent. First, I'd crack under the mere threat of torture. Second, when I play a game and I'm shooting a bad guy, I don't really have to look him in the eyes. He's pixels. He has no real existence, personality, emotions, worries, or joys.

But if it were real life, I'd be concerned not just over taking someone's life (that would be great enough), but I'd also be concerned for the fact that he has a wife, children, amother who loves him, etc. — even if he were a "real" bad guy. I'd still have those concerns beyond the issues of right and wrong, justice and injustice. I couldn't be a secret agent. Heck, I don't even think I'd make a good soldier of any kind regardless of how much I admire those who have chosen this profession. I'm content to merely play the soldier in the virtual world where there are no "real" consequences.

So, that brings us back to the new Modern Warfare Game. There is a scene in the game in which your character is a CIA agent who is in deep cover with a Russian Terrorist Cell. They walk into a Russian public airport with machine guns and start shooting civilians. They are doing this for the same reasons that any terrorist does what he does--to spread fear and send a message to their enemies. The scene depicts literally hundreds of men and women who are not soldiers, but merely airline travelers, being shot in cold blood. These innocents don't have any means to defend themselves. Some of them are shown as wounded, crawling along the floor. Often the other terrorists in the game would shoot a wounded and dying and victim to quicken his end.

Although the character the gamer is playing is expected to participate in the setup of the story, I just didn't. I simply walked along. It was never even a question for me. I was not going to participate, even if it meant that I could proceed no further in the game. Fortunately (seems like an odd word at this point) non-participation is allowable in the game. There's no "penalty" for not shooting the innocent victims yourself. But it's disturbing nonetheless to watch it take place.

This kind of violence is simply over the top. It has no precedent to my knowledge in any previous video game. And it doesn't mean that my virtual hands were free of blood last night because (1) my character simply walked along as it was happening [there was no other playable option at that point], and (2) once the police descend onto the airport, there is really no choice in playing the character other than to fight back. In this sense, I did violate my own sense of video gaming ethics. I have chosen not to play games such as the Grand Theft Auto series because some of them have requirements to kill policemen and other vile deeds. Yet when the policemen started firing on me last night while playing the game, I admit that I fired back.

Even though this is virtual, even though no one got hurt in real life, I don't like this. I like playing the good guy in games. Defeating the bad guy. Being the hero. I didn't feel heroic after this mission in Modern Warfare 2.

Now, there are interesting considerations here. First, does the fact that the character is a CIA mole in a terrorist cell justify such actions? I mean, is this whole portion of the game supposed to be "okay" because he's working for the supposed "good guys"? On a level of reality, would the CIA have planted a mole inside the group that was responsible for the 911 attacks and then helped them carry it out? I seriously doubt it.

Second, and to give away the ending of this scene, the character in the game who is undercover gets killed. But is this justice served? Is this supposed to be Activision's answer for what has just taken place?

Third, is this level of violence really necessary for setting the stage for how bad the villain in the game really is? Keep in mind that this wasn't an atrocity that you watched, this was an act you were supposed to take part in through the avatar of game character. That's what makes this different. I can hear about the shootings at Fort Hood. But I don't want to recreate the scene so that I take part in it—even as make believe.

Somehow it's not enough. None of these reasons justify what takes place in the game. I'm not going to tell anyone not to play the game. This is not about censorship. And I'll even play through the rest of the game knowing that there are no more scenes like this. But I urge you to take caution if you have teenagers who play this. The option to skip the controversial mission comes at the beginning of gameplay.

In hindsight, I wish I'd skipped it.

Create Your Own Audio Books

If I hit traffic at the wrong time, I can be in the car up to an hour each day traveling from home to my office and back. Sure, I like music, but just not that much. It seems a bit mindless after awhile. Talk radio? Even more mindless.

So I listen to a lot of audiobooks, podcasts, lectures from iTunesU and other sources—you get the idea. I import them into iTunes and then I transfer them to my iPhone.

You've heard the old saying, "Necessity is the mother of invention." Well, for me this afternoon, it was the mother of discovery. See, I'm teaching a six-week Wednesday night class at my Baptist church on understanding and dialoguing with Jehovah's Witnesses. Just as I do with my Sunday morning Bible study, I like to over-prepare. Certainly, I don't mind saying, "I don't know the answer to that; I'll get back to you," but I'd prefer not to if I don't have to.

So this afternoon, as I was packing up to drive home, I thought to myself, I wish I had an audio book about Jehovah's Witnesses to listen to on my commute home. I wondered if there was something cheap at christianaudio.com. There wasn't. I also looked at a couple of other places.

Then, from the far recesses of my mind, I had this vague memory of reading about Mac OS X Snow Leopard's ability to convert text to iTunes spoken audio. See, I knew I had content because I knew I had Zondervan's Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religions and the Occult in Accordance. The question was how to convert it to audio.

First I found the article in Accordance. After highlighting all the text, I right-clicked on it. Nothing in the contextual menu. Accordance has been able to "read" text verbally for a long time. Most Mac applications can, but that wasn't what I was after. I wanted to make an automatic recording. Then, I remembered—it was part of Mac OS X's Services menu. But looking there, I saw nothing related to converting speech to text. However, I did see Services Preferences. Clicking that, I got this dialogue box:

Noticing the fourth option in the right pane above (it was technically under the "Text" section), "Add to iTunes as a Spoken Track," all I had to do was check the box.

Going back to Accordance with my text selected, I went to the Services menu and chose that option. A little gear showed up in my menu bar and began turning. Then iTunes came to the front and displayed a message that it was converting the text into audio. Then, it was through. Of course, I had no idea where it was. I finally found it under Music with the title "Text to Speech." I looked at the length. I had an a 1 hour and 17 minute audio track! I changed the name to "Jehovah's Witnesses."

How long did it take to create it? I went back and created it again, this time using the timer on my iPhone to keep track of how long the process took. It took approximately two minutes! To gain some perspective, I copied the text of the article from Accordance to my clipboard and then pasted it into Word. That produced a 30 page, single-spaced document (with a space between each paragraph).

So think about this—a thirty page document converts to an hour and 17 minute audio track, and it only took two minutes to create!

Of course, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, Yeah, but you have to listen to that mechanized computer voice. You're right, but so what? I've got my speech voice in Mac OS X set to "Alex," and while professional audiobook readers have nothing to worry about, the voice itself has very much improved over the years. Plus, I've spent countless hours of my life listening to people drone on in academic settings using lesser-sounding voices (that's meant as humor).

Regardless, the possibilities here are endless. This opens up whole new doors. In Accordance alone, I have more material than I could probably ever read in my life anyway: books, theological journals, reference works, Bibles and more. Further, the ability to convert any text to an iTunes audio track works with any text on my computer, regardless of the source. So, if it's an article from the internet, PDF, word processing document—they can all be converted to audio tracks which can be transferred to my iPhone.

What great technology! I also assume that with time, the speech synthesis quality will improve, too. In the meantime, Alex will have to do.

Regarding the New FTC Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials

New regulations go into affect on December 1, 2009, that affect all advertisers as well as any blogger, such as myself, who has ever accepted a product for review.

From the statement released by the FTC on October 8, 2009:

bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service.

Failure to do so may result in a fine of $11,000. See also the following documents:

• Text of the Federal Register Notice


• Text of the Revised Endorsement and Testimonial Guides

For what it's worth, I believe these guidelines are a good idea. Further, I want my readers to know up front that I have always given notice when I have reviewed a book sent to me by a publisher. In my mind, this is the right and ethical thing to do. I've always tried to be as explicit as possible about this.

In fact, in my recent review of the NET Bible, although I had personally bought the 2nd Beta edition, the First Edition, the Greek-English Diglot, and at least three electronic editions, I still wanted to point out that an employee of Bible.org (but not Bible.org itself) had personally sent me a copy of the NET Reader's Edition.

I'm probably not even the best reviewer for publishers because as I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, I've got a number of items I've been very slow to get around to actually reviewing. In fact, I have so much stacked up I feel a bit guilty about it, but I'm determined to fulfill my end of the deal. These items will start to appear here soon.

I don't need guidelines from the FTC to keep me honest, but I think I'll even go a step further. From now on, I'll also make a statement about books, Bibles, software or any other products reviewed here, when I've purchased them with my own funds, just so there's no question as to whether or not I've been totally forthcoming.

I was trying to figure out the best way to do this or find the right wording, when I discovered a website for this purpose, http://cmp.ly/. This site offers six different statements that can be added to blog posts, and from what I can tell, this will suit my purposes just fine.

In there interest of full disclosure, here are a few other things you ought to know:

• While I admit getting free stuff is nice, I've usually been pretty honest about the things I didn't care for. Receiving a free item for review hasn't stopped me from being pretty hard on some publishers in the past. Regular readers here will know that. I'm also under the impression from publishers that they want me to be honest and will accept any disapproval, disagreement, or constructive criticism.


• If you see a link to a product on Amazon.com, you can assume that I've used an Amazon Associate link. But I'm not getting rich on this. Last month's cut of purchases made from my Amazon links was a whopping $13. That's a bit below average, but even that is not going to equal the cost of running two websites. And you won't ever see me placing a Paypal donation button on my site (but that's not a jab at those who do). But if I can get a little bit of love through Amazon now and then, that's enough for me.


• You see those banners to the right for Café Press, Biblical Illustrator and Accordance? Well, the Café Press link takes you to my creations on that site, but even having sold a few items, I've yet to make a dime because their monthly rates are so high. And no one is paying me to put the Biblical Illustrator or Accordance links there either. Biblical Illustrator has never paid me anything; I just like their publication. And although I have done some contract work for Oak Tree Software in the past (leading training seminars and helping out at the ETS/SBL booths), I got paid for that work only. They don't pay me to put their banner ad up and I don't make a commission if you buy from them—even if you purchase after clicking the banner. And the only reason I've ever done contract work for them is because I personally use their software and without reservation endorse their products. If I didn't, you wouldn't see the banner there. I have other Bible software on my Mac, but you don't see banners for it, do you?

So, again, I think the guidelines are a great idea, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to essentially change anything I've not already been doing all along. What about you? Are you a blogger, and if so how do you plan on implementing the new regulations on your site?

Original Sin

In my philosophy class tonight, I will cover the thought of Augustine (among other subjects).

So Long, MS Works! You Were Great in ’88

MS Works 2.0 for DOS screenshot (borrowed from the Wikipedia)

You know, before I was a Mac guy, I was a Windows guy. And before I was a Windows guy, I was a GeoWorks Ensemble guy. And before that, I was just a plain old DOS guy. And what was the first word processor I ever used to write a college paper? It was Works 1.0 for DOS. I used it my junior year in college in 1988.

So, I read a post on ZDNet last week about the demise of Microsoft Works (see "Goodbye, Works!"). Evidently, Microsoft is discontinuing it in favor of a stripped down, ad-laden version of Office. The opening paragraph of the ZDNet article especially caught my attention:

How many of you have received files from students (or even teachers’ home computers) and been unable to open them because they’re in Works format? Sure, there’s a converter utility, but it’s one more thing to install on the computers you manage and doesn’t help if you’re using a Mac, Linux, or Google Apps. Of course, since it’s pre-installed on most home PCs, many of our students don’t think about the file format issue.

As I've begun to accept more papers electronically, the issue above occurs all too frequently. Quite often students pay no attention to what software they use to write their papers. When asked, they often don't know whether they're using Works or Office. They're not thinking about it; they simply use whatever came with their computer. Word 2007 for Windows will read Works files, but Word 2008 for the Mac will not because there hasn't been a current version of Works on the Mac platform since the mid-nineties.

Now, if I want to go out of my way, I can convert a Works file on my Mac in one of two ways. I can fire up Windows Vista in Parallels where I do have a copy of Office 2007 installed. Or I can launch MacLinkPlus. But most of the time, I email the student back and ask that he or she export the file to Word format or at least RTF. I also encourage them to buy Office. As cheap as our students can get a full copy of MS Office, I really see no reason to go through an entire college degree using Works.

But it was great or me--back in the day. I thought Works 1.0 for DOS was amazing. I sat down with the tutorial and went through every lesson. It had a word processor, spreadsheet, database, and a communications program (the last of which I don't think I ever used). I mainly used the word processor, eventually upgrading Works to v. 2.0. But my stepfather, who was a banker, told me that for quite a while he ran the whole bank in a Works database. Imagine that.

When I began work on my M.Div in 1991, the Works word processor wouldn't cut it for me because it couldn't create footnotes (I believe current versions of Works will). I switched to WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS, and spent another week or two, going through every lesson in the tutorial. But around this same time, I was also using GeoWorks Ensemble. It had a great word processor, but again no footnotes. Nevertheless, I saw the value of a graphical user interface, and so I eventually made my way to Windows, using MS Word, and then in 1998 I switched to the Mac.

Anyway, I still have some of those files from Works for DOS. I believe I've converted most of them to Word by this point. And there's the rub. At the end of the ZDNet post, the writer commented, "Works is dead. Long live generally accessible file formats."

Accessing files from twenty years ago is possible, but it's a pain. In twenty years, I don't want it to be difficult to access the files I create now. Word processing is one of my major uses for a computer. I have multiple word processors on my MacBook Pro. I have Word 2008 for the Mac, Word 2007 for Windows, WordPerfect 2002 for Windows, Apple's iWork Pages '09, Mellel 2.7, and even an old copy of AppleWorks 6. In addition to these programs I have installed, I keep up with Nota Bene for Windows by subscribing to their email list. I am also a member of the WordPerfect for Mac email list even though Corel hasn't released a version for the Mac since 1997.

And with all that, what word processing software do I use 90% of the time? Microsoft Word 2008. In the end I'm a pragmatist. I know that for better or worse, Word is the standard and I'll be able to read my files two decades from now. I simply have no doubt whatsoever about this. I've learned this lesson the hard way because I have to jump through hoops to open old Works or WordPerfect files. And I cannot open the GeoWorks files at all right now (although I'm looking to change that).

Everyone likes to throw stones at Microsoft. I've always said I'm not anti-Microsoft; I'm just anti-Windows (even though I also have Windows installed on my Mac in Parallels anyway). I'd love to switch to something like Pages for the bulk of my work, but I'm a bit reluctant. Apple ditched AppleWorks and before that MacWrite. Who's to say that one day, they won't ditch Pages?

But I'm not such a pragmatist across the board. I have switched completely over to Keynote for teaching instead of PowerPoint because it is so much better. For the first year or two I used it, I would save a backup copy of my file in PowerPoint format just in case. However, I've stopped doing that and even delete these PowerPoint versions of my files now when I come across them. I believe that regardless of what happens with Pages (and Numbers), Keynote will remain because it's garnered quite a following. And hey, it's what Steve Jobs uses, so I would think that guarantees its staying power. I wouldn't be surprised if there's not eventually a Windows version of Keynote. I think those of you who are Windows users would really like it.

As for Works? I haven't used it since 1989 or ’90. It brings back fond memories of my early days on the computer and my first academic work. I hung on to the floppy discs after I stopped using it--just in case other things didn't work out and I needed to reinstall it. But after almost two decades, I think I can safely say that won't happen (I still have those WordPerfect 5.1 discs, too).

I guess, it's sad to see Works go only from a nostalgic viewpoint. But who needs yet another file format? In fact, I'm surprised it even stayed around this long. And as long as I can open my files without hassle, I'll be happy.