Search This Lamp

 
Comments Policy
 

1. Be courteous.
2. Don't make it personal.
3. Keep it Clean.
4. Don't be a troll.

See more about the comments policy here.  

Note to Spammers: All comments on this blog are moderated. This means that when you post comments linking to your imitation designer handbags, you are wasting your time because I will not approve them. Moreover, I will report you, and your IP address will be banned from all Squarespace sites.

Recent Comments 

   

    
Powered by Squarespace
THIS LAMP RECOMMENDS
« Libronix/Mac vs. Accordance, Part 1.1: Speed Search Revisited | Main | Accordance vs. "PC Bible Software Ported to the Mac" »
Friday
Jul312009

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

This entry was originally posted on July 31, 2009, at the original This Lamp website and has been relocated here.

Logos just released version 1.2 of its Libronix Digital Library System for the Macintosh. Included in the update is a feature called “Speed Search,” which is already on the Windows version.

In the video below, I pit the new Libronix Speed Search against its original Bible search as well as an equivalent search in Accordance.



Click here for a high-def version of the video.

And before you say otherwise, yes, “mind-bogglingly” is a word!




See also
Libronix/Mac vs. Accordance, Part 1.1: Speed Search Revisited
Libronix/Mac vs. Accordance, Part 2: Printing

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (1)

The comments below have been copied from the original location for this post. Please continue any further discussion here.

BA
wow, it's amazing the excuses that are being used to defend Logos for Mac in these comments it is "mind-boggling" that someone would say speed isn't an issue speed(performance) is ALWAYS an issue in regards to computers, it doesn't matter if it is Bible software or not Accordance clearly wins on performance and it appears that maybe even Logos realizes it it is comparisons like this that give us all better products in the long run (as long as the company cares), nice job Rick AMDG
August 18, 2009, 3:33:50 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Joe Weaks
Just now aware of this post. The discussion was not as interesting as I'd thought it would be. The fact that Logos:Mac was adversely affected by a 3rd party app in a way that Accordance was not is STILL relevant regarding the stability/power of the Logos implementation. But also, the speed search is a dynamic search serving a different purpose to me than "regular" searching, and really can't be compared. True, the html rendering implementation stinks, though.
August 6, 2009, 5:04:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply

R. Mansfield
The revised speed search is now posted: http://homepage.mac.com/rmansfield/thislamp/files/20090803_libronix_vs_Accordance_1.1
August 4, 2009, 10:40:42 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Joe Miller
Paul, I have used the Logos speed search almost every single day for a LOT of years in Windows and now I use it regularly (every other day at least) on the Mac. I have NEVER ONCE been slowed down waiting for the results page to propagate the context of my query. So again, while the test here may have some technical interest, on a practical level for a daily user of Logos speed search, I have never been frustrated or delayed in doing a search.... EVER!
August 4, 2009, 3:58:12 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Paul
Hey guys for those of you who keep saying that the speed of the search doesn't matter because no one can read that fast aren't you missing the point a bit? While it may not be best practice, I'm sure most of us use Bible software in a somewhat lazy way sometimes, that is e.g. I know such and such a word is mentioned in Philippians, but I can't be bothered to give it too much thought, so what do I do...I stick the word into something akin to Speed Search...if we do that, well speed will be important..."come on, come on, Phillippians you stupid computer!!!." Granted this is a misuse, but it is reality for many is it not? BTW I use neither Accordance or Logos, no I'm not grinding any axes...I'm still on venerable Online Bible for Mac...and for the record... a search for David across the whole Bible brings up instantaneous results as does every other search! Not great for the original languages though! P
August 3, 2009, 11:05:01 AM EDT – Like – Reply

CD-Host
One of the reasons Bibleworks can do searches faster is that it isn't Unicode. Just throwing my $.02 in here, but I doubt it. Start with the basic fact that the entire bible is a little over 4m characters long. That is a tiny, tiny little file in data processing terms. Using the most naive methods possible I can't see how a search on a modern CPU should take more than 1/20th of a second. For something like a bible program (hopefully) you are going to be organizing your information as verses with indexes on words. A search on "David" would be a search on the index. It is true that primitive operations on words are way slower in UTF-8 Unicode than ASCII or ISO8859-1 (byte encoding). But why would a search on David be doing primitive operations on words? If Rick had done a search like: give me all verses with a bible character whose name has an "___" in and is between 8 and 11 letters long within 3 verses of a verse with over 100 letters in it on a cyrillic/kanji bible sure he would run into those issues. But why in an English language only bible. UTF-8 is going to be all fixed width for an English language bible.
August 2, 2009, 8:42:13 AM EDT – Like – Reply

R. Mansfield
Not that it matters, but I still don't see the Mac version of the Original Languages library on their website. The Windows version is shown, but not the Mac. Again, doesn't matter one way or another. I asked for it and found out they had it. My hunch is that it may not be promoted for the Mac yet because some features such as the syntactical search is not yet available on the Mac.
August 2, 2009, 8:28:19 AM EDT – Like – Reply

CD-Host
Rick -- Just figured I'd comment that given Apple's switch to LVVM and the fact that Accordance is Mac only I'd expect Accordance to be much much faster on the say 3 years down the road on the newer Macs out then. This is probably not the right forum to go into details but the multi processor strategies of Apple and Microsoft are very different, going cross platform (when not using a high performance engine like you would for a game) is likely to get harder this decade. I still haven't picked one or the other, what I really would like is to pick up an older copy on ebay for $50. Incidentally the original languages pack is all over the website now. I just looked at the comparison based on your video and I'd still want the Gold, for things like NIGTC. I'd also would really like an Anchor module, which is Logos but for $4000 which is way way more than what it would cost me to buy the books themselves. And that doesn't even include the complete set of supporting materials.
August 2, 2009, 8:16:37 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Joe Miller
Yes, but he was not questinging the purpose or value of having the feature (as suggeted on the link), just that the difference in speed was not significant in his use. Regarding my "tone".... First let me say that we simply have a difference of opinion on the content of the link... not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Second, I would ask you to afford me some of that Christian charity you speak of and not read my comment with the worst imagined "tone".. (I even threw in a smile and an LOL... maybe some little pink hearts would help you feel the love? --that is a joke BTW) Seriously though, try reading my comment as if we were two guys sitting together over a cold drink and sharing some differing opinions on Bible software.... Did I employ sarcasm? Yes, but sarcasm does need not be interpreted in a negative light. Anyway, maybe in that context you would be more charitable in your subjective interpretation of my "tone"? I hope so brother.
August 1, 2009, 11:21:38 PM EDT – Like – Reply

R. Mansfield
Joe, if you look at Donovan's points 1 & 2 above, you'll see that he discussed the overall relevance of speed as have some others not just here, but also in the Logos forums. I did not start the discussion at the Accordance forums, but since it touched on this issue, I thought it might be helpful to provide a link. On a personal note, I really don't find your sarcasm (and accusatory tone) all that helpful to the discussion, let alone charitable from one Christian to another.Edited By Siteowner
August 1, 2009, 7:24:14 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Joe Miller
LOL, I like how your link changed the topic entirely to make it seem that some here questioned the validity of doing speed searches at all.... cute trick
August 1, 2009, 7:10:55 PM EDT – Like – Reply

R. Mansfield
What difference does speed make anyway? See this take on the subject: http://www.accordancebible.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3327&hl=
August 1, 2009, 6:39:10 PM EDT – Like – Reply

R. Mansfield
Donovan, thank you for your comments. I'd read them on the Logos forums, but I'm glad you put them here, too, for folks to see who might not visit there. I also appreciate the spirit of your post as I believe it allows for better discussion than some of the other commenters. Let me make a few responses to your very well stated posts. 1. As I mentioned somewhere above, Libronix usually starts in fewer bounces on my Mac as well. I tried it just now and it started in three. When I ran the comparison, I had no idea how many times it was going to bounce. I ran one take and did not try to do anything that would make it perform more slowly. The key factor in any of this is that Accordance was launched under the same conditions. My next comparison will have nothing to do with speed. I was planning to already have both programs running, but perhaps I'll launch them to demonstrate that Libronix can indeed launch faster. Hopefully that time it will. Although a variety of factors affect such things, to the end user, it often seems pretty random. 2. I agree with you that speed is not everything. Numbers of resources are nice, but another factor not mentioned here as well is interface. Using both programs, I find the interface for Accordance to be much more fine tuned. It takes time to get used to either interface, but I would suggest that Accordance is better thought out for workflow--at least in my experience. I'll put out some comparisons along these lines in the future, too. But I promise you this, I'll couch any value judgments with a statement that it's my opinion. Obviously, I cannot say chocolate is better than vanilla and expect this to be received by everyone equally. And one word about numbers of resources. In the end, I'm not certain how much this matter. Often it comes down to who offers the resources a user needs. And if the same resources are offered, it might have to do with how well they are implemented into a software platform and how easy they are to use with other modules. Further, although I do think that at the bottom line Logos has more modules than Accordance, it is also well known that they count them very differently. For instance, in the Theological Journal Library, Logos counts every single volume. So in looking at Bibliotheca Sacra in the My Library windows (sorted by title) in Libronix, you'll see 74 volumes listed. But looking at the equivalent in Accordance, you only see ONE title listed even though they have the same amount of content. Another example is Comfort & Barret's Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts. Logos will list every manuscript in My Library whereas Accordance will list one module that contains all the manuscripts. So, yes, Logos has more resources, but the difference in number may not be as broad as it initially seems. 3. All I can say here, is why then have a "Bible Speed Search" at all? Speed is not the most crucial factor, granted, but I feel you play it down a bit too much. Working for hours in software, especially one that requires dozens, maybe even hundreds of searches at times--a process which will often include an initial search, followed by a fine-tuning of the same search--will definitely be benefitted by faster searches. This is obviously an issue to Logos users or Bob Pritchett wouldn't be promising a faster search in v. 4. 4. You have a point, no doubt. But this kind of comparison is also helpful for those trying to decide what software to buy now. I can't reasonably suggest that someone wait for v. 8 of Libronix for the Mac. This is how the two platforms fare right now. Granted the Windows version is a more mature and feature rich product. And that's why I suggest to longtime Logos users who are moving to the Mac that they run Logos in Parallels or Fusion. Otherwise, I believe they will be frustrated moving to the Mac version. As for a v. 1 to v. 1 comparison, you're not the only person who has suggested this. I may have to track down a version 1 copy of Accordance and then pit it against v. 1 of Libronix for the Mac. It should be an interesting comparison. Thanks again for your comments, Donovan. I look forward to hearing from you again soon.
August 1, 2009, 6:30:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Donovan Palmer
A few points. 1. My Logos for Mac 1.2 launches in two bounces. I have the same spec machine and yours is considerably slower. My searches were also much quicker than his and I had other things running in the background! It made me wonder if this Mac was having problems. 2. Bible software is not just about speed, but the tools and resources. What me and other Mac users (as well as Windows users I know) are fussed about, is the types of materials we can buy for Logos. I am totally stoked about the fact that the NICOT/NICNT (not to mention this week's news of the TOTC and TONT) are coming to Libronix. I could also rant on about language resources, reference books, etc. I spend at least an hour a day on Logos, usually more and rarely do I think it needs to work quicker. It would be nice, but it is not the main issue. 3. Even if it was about speed, how many of us can read search results that fast? When I do a search, I start reading and it makes no difference to me that off the bottom of the screen it is still writing out the results! 4. Can a good case be made on a product that has been out for less than 12 months at 1.x and compare it to a product that is in version 8.x? All of us admit that this is version 1.x, but we are extremely patient especially knowing that the Logos platform is going through a major rewrite (both Windows and Mac). If this video is to prove that Logos for Mac is in its infancy, then it is bang on the money. How about comparing 1.x of Logos and Accordance together to see how they ranked in the first year. To me this would be apples to apples. (pardon the pun) All this said, I do think that comparisons are good for the development of both products. For starters, every package invariably has its strengths, so this enables users to pick what best fits their needs. Additionally, I hope the Logos developers watch this video not so much on speed, but on the mature aspects of Accordance's features. I like the toolbars and I think the workspace/tabs of Accordance is a very good concept. Of course, if the main component of Logos for Windows v.4 and the next generation of Mac is as fast as Bob Pritchett (Logos CEO) claims it will be, I certainly won't complain about the speed!
August 1, 2009, 5:04:51 PM EDT – Like – Reply

R. Mansfield
Presumably, but it was imperceptible.
August 1, 2009, 1:22:00 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Joe Miller
"same conditions" So was the speed of Accordance also slowed down by your recording software, or did the software only impact the Logos software?
August 1, 2009, 1:00:08 AM EDT – Like – Reply

R. Mansfield
Joe, sure thing. What's important to keep in mind is that in the comparison, Accordance was subjected to the same conditions as Libronix. If this were not the case, such a disparity would be a serious problem, but that's not the case. Accordance was not just faster, but faster 100 fold. if you spend hours using software such as these two programs, there can be a cumulative affect in which someone's work is affected. Regardless, there will be other comparisons, and the others won't have to do with speed necessarily.
July 31, 2009, 11:03:24 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Joe Miller
Yes, thanks for pointing that out. In my last response, I was referring specifically to your comment that the recording software slowed down the Logos software... that part is not in the video itself and therefore it seems to me that the video no longer stands on its own as accurate. You posted the video on YouTube. Many people will see it on YouTube and not read the comments section of this post, therefore, the video should, IMHO, be valid without your later qualifications. Certainly you are respectful to the Logos folks and many of us have concerns that the Mac version come into parity with the Windows version. However, it would seem that in your haste to post a video decrying the "speed" in "Speed Search", you produced a video that is inaccurate (which of course is why you needed to make clarifications in the comments sections on flaw in your speed test). Your speed comparison, for me, does not have any real world meaning. The sample does not limit my ability to study, quickly access the information I need, and work at a high level. It may, to some, have a technical value to compare such miniscule differences, but I simply would suggest from my daily experience, the speed comparison has no meaning. Thanks for the opportunity to share my thoughts.
July 31, 2009, 9:41:26 PM EDT – Like – Reply

R. Mansfield
No, Joe. What I'm saying is that the issues and questions you raised, others had already raised and I had responded to them already.
July 31, 2009, 9:18:06 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Joe Miller
Ah, so the video is not sufficient and only valid within the clarifications you provide in the comments.
July 31, 2009, 8:17:44 PM EDT – Like – Reply

R. Mansfield
Well, I realize that, brother, but my point was that most of your questions and concerns were addressed in the comments.
July 31, 2009, 6:42:37 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Joe Miller
No I did not read the comments to your video... I am commenting on the video, not the comments to the video.
July 31, 2009, 6:18:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply

R. Mansfield
Joe, did you take the time to read any of my responses in the comment section?
July 31, 2009, 5:43:12 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Joe Miller
I think your experiment is flawed and your conclusion erroneous. My Logos on Macbook pro opened more than twice as fast as your "trial", so I think you have a problem with your system. The Speed Search is slower in propagating the verse list with the details, but if you are really searching the entire Bible for more than 1,000 references, why in the world does it matter how fast it gets to the bottom of the list.. do you really read that fast? Your conclusion that the Logos speed search is just not useful, is foolish. Do you actually use Logos, or just make that conclusion based on one simplistic test? I use the program for my sermon preparation, I used it in Seminary (windows version back then) and now for my Doctoral studies. I have never had any problems using it for advanced research or study and the new Speed Search makes things even better. So if people are looking for a silly and superficial review based on a questionalbel speed test, then the video is great. If they are looking for real-life users who have used the program in Windows (now Mac) for more than 15 years, then you know my opinion... Logos is superior in overall resources and search capacity.
July 31, 2009, 5:22:48 PM EDT – Like – Reply

R. Mansfield
There's a lot to respond to here. Mike, You speak of a tradeoff because Libronix uses Unicode fonts internally, but I'm not sure what the tradeoff would be. I don't think Unicode fonts play any real role here, but even if that were true, I still don't know what difference it would make. A tradeoff means that something is gained while something is lost. So, by your suggestion, users of Libronix benefit from the use of Unicode fonts but give up speed. And by your theory, Accordance, which doesn't use Unicode gains speed, but gives up...what exactly? Tech bussword compliance? Accordance can import Unicode text (which helps when converting modules from other programs into Accordance user tools) and it can also export Unicode as seen here: Det 81 καὶ μὴν τῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑποθέσεων ἄκρως εἴωθε διαμεμνῆσθαι, τὰ ἀκόλουθα καὶ ὁμολογούμενα τοῖς προτέροις δικαιῶν ἐφαρμόττειν· Internal use of Unicode doesn't really have an impact on the Accordance user except perhaps in the time saved switching between international keyboard sets. Really, though, I am actually not so sure how much Unicode has to do with it. MacSword, for instance, uses Unicode, but after an initial one-time indexing for a module, the results of a search like I did in the video are almost instantaneous. So I really don't think that's the issue. My guess has always been what Bob Pritchett confirmed in these comments--that an HTML rendering engine slows things down. What's frustrating is that the software is dramatically slower on the Mac side. _________________________________________________________________________________ David, No, I'm not saying that "My Bible program can beat your Bible program up." First of all, they're BOTH my Bible programs. I've invested significant amounts of money in both platforms, although certainly more in Accordance than Libronix. Yes, I use Accordance as my primary software, but I also use Libronix. While it would be nice to have all electronic texts in one platform, that's never going to be a reality for many reasons including contract deals made with publishers. When I have a choice in platforms, I pick Accordance, but that doesn't mean that I'm anti-Logos. I've never been convinced that for one company to succeed the other has to fail. What is frustrating is the sub-par performance and feature set of the Mac version of Libronix. And the irony here is that while the faster, more powerful, more feature-rich version of Libronix is free (the Windows version), Mac users were actually asked to PAY for a slower, less-powerful, and feature lacking application. And we did it! I'm one of them. Now, I chose to purchase one of the packages so my software engine came with it, but lots of folks had to fork up $50+ to pay for a lesser equivalent. Seriously...that makes no sense. What really strikes me even more odd though--from hearing the defenders of Libronix/Mac in my comparison--is how far Logos users have been forced to lower the bar of their expectations. Whose going to search for a word with a thousand hits? I can't read that fast anyway! At least it's Unicode! Talk about mind-boggling! Perhaps people who don't use both programs forget how software should respond. I don't expect or ask Libronix users to switch to Accordance. I realize that many of us will use both platforms. But for the person who has switched from Windows to the Mac and has a very large library of Libronix texts, I cannot in good judgment recommend the Mac version of the software. It's passable as an e-reader, but lacking in too many places elsewhere. For the switcher, I can only recommend running the Windows version of Libronix in either Parallels or Fusion. And let's be honest, maintaining a copy of Windows--even in virtualization--defeats much of the purpose that many of us had when we switched to the Mac in the first place. _________________________________________________________________________________ Bob, Thanks for stopping by and offering your response. In regard to your last questions, first, I really did try to offer a fair comparison. I didn't "monkey" with anything to make Accordance look better. I started from a cold boot. After letting the system go through all startup processes, I launched both Libronix and Accordance, and then closed them both before starting the screen capture. Undoubtedly, iShowU affected the startup time. Libronix gives me a mixed number of "bounces." The lowest number I've ever received is two (this morning), but it usually averages around eight. The highest I've observed is about 24 yesterday evening. Regardless, Accordance started up in one bounce in the video even with iShowU running. That's actually pretty slow; it usually starts up merely by my mental command (that's a joke). I'm very pleased to hear that future versions of Libronix, on both Windows and Mac, will not be dependent upon HTML rendering. I really do believe this is the software's greatest weakness in terms of performance, and a significant one at that. I do have other comparisons planned. And there are some features of Libronix that I do like--believe it or not. And I'll gladly demonstrate that, just as I mentioned in the video that I really do like the fact that the software began searching as I typed in the speed search. I would not always want that to happen--especially when setting up more complex searches--but it's very nice for simple searches. I'll be honest that one of my greatest concerns is that the Mac version of Libronix will always play second fiddle to the Windows version and play continual catch-up in terms of development and feature parity. I've seen this happen too many times when Windows-based companies move into the Mac market. But I hope that I will be surprised. For what it's worth, I want to tell you that I appreciate your candor, transparency and the spirit of your response posted here. My dealings with employees at your company have always been positive. Further, I'm a long-time customer. I used your software back in the days when it was distributed on floppies in the early nineties. I've also had Libronix running for quite a while on my Mac--first in VirtualPC, then in Parallels, and now with the Mac version. I've purchased Libronix modules within the last month. I am also a charter subscriber to your company's Bible Study Magazine and have even had a review published in an issue earlier this year (the NLT Study Bible review which I believe was i the March/April issue). So I hope that affords me the right to engage in these kinds of comparisons with Accordance (which admittedly is my primary software of this sort) as well as offer up constructive criticism and even the occasional complaint. Thanks again.
July 31, 2009, 3:29:13 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Bob Pritchett
Ouch! We're going to have to work on that. Every product is a pile of compromises. Some products are almost entirely about searching, and assume that a text search of a single resource is the primary way people will interact with the material. So they're optimized for that. Logos product is designed with the assumption that using a large library of resources is the primary interaction. So we put the Passage Guide front and center, not single book searching. (You're going to do a side-by-side comparison of our Guides to the guides in other products, too, right?) In order to give the Passage Guide and other tools more flexibility in display, we used HTML for the interface for all our reports. On Windows it's IE, on Mac it's WebKit. The search is pretty fast -- the whole search is done as soon as the first result appears on the screen. The delay comes from A) loading the preview text and B) adding HTML to the web page that's hosted in IE or WebKit. HTML is a complicated format to parse, and HTML renderers are designed to take a whole page and process it all at once. They aren't as efficient when you're inserting new HTML over and over, which we're doing as we throw the previews in one at at time. On Windows, where IE has been designed to be a reusable component for a long time, the same speed search fills the screen in less than a second. But our port of this HTML based display architecture to the Mac clearly doesn't play to the Mac's strengths. I'm not making excuses; I'm just providing an explanation. The fault is still ours -- we chose to use HTML, we chose to port the architecture of the Windows app to the Mac, we released the product, etc. The feedback from most users has been great, though, and we consider Logos for Mac to be a success -- because most (not all) of the people using it are doing so to take advantage of the nearly 10,000 titles available for it and to use the automated research guides. The users who are most concerned with repeated searches of a smaller number of books will surely find other products to be more useful. The good news is that we're throwing away this architecture, which we first designed (for Windows) in 1998. It was cool and innovative then, and saved an enormous amount of work, allowing us to do more interesting things. But we have definitely gone beyond its usefulness. The next version of Logos -- on both Windows and Mac -- is being built from the ground up with a new, modern codebase. There's no HTML, and we're using platform specific display technologies to remove the bottlenecks. Comparison videos like this are great, and help developers in particular see what areas need the most attention. I just hope you'll come and revisit them with the future release, too! -- Bob (with Logos) (PS Logos for Mac launches in 1.5 bounces in our testing here; had both apps been previously run, and did you test after a cold boot, trying each app as the first and second one run? Initial runs of many apps load shared system code into memory, and following execution of the same and even different apps can be faster as a result.)
July 31, 2009, 1:24:00 PM EDT – Like – Reply

David
So what you are really saying is "My Bible program can beat your Bible program up." There are some features that are currently stronger or appear that way with Accordance and some features that are currently stronger or appear that way with Logos. Besides I am willing to bet the search programs are not the same data sets...different tagging systems and the like. And, for what it's worth Accordance opens with 1 bounce on my MacBook (not pro) and Logos opens with two jumps and speed search loads on top. Weird...
July 31, 2009, 1:12:57 PM EDT – Like – Reply

Mike Aubrey
You kept saying that "its really surprising how slow this is." But its actually not surprising. One of the reasons Bibleworks can do searches faster is that it isn't Unicode. I've heard that directly from the makers. And I'm willing to bet that much of Accordance's speed is the same issue. So its not a surprise. Its a trade off.
July 31, 2009, 11:46:57 AM EDT – Like – Reply

R. Mansfield
Todd, Are you sure no one is going to search for a word that occurs thousands of times? What if someone's wanting to get a "quick" overview of a word spread across the entire Bible? Or more realistically, I often run through dozens of different searches using Bible software. Often I search for something that is too broad and I need to fine tune it. But I might not realize it or think about how broad it is until I run the search. Then I can go back and narrow my search. Such trial and error is very realistic but is frustrating using the Libronix Mac software because it is so slow. If you've ever worked all day on a sermon or a project, the inability to see such results quickly can be exceedingly bothersome. Or take a search like I did for "David." What if you don't want to necessarily read the verses sequentially, but jump back and forth between books or the Testaments? The Libronix system can't even list all the results using the speed search. In such a case, it would be best to do a regular search, go have a snack and then come back Ultimately, I tried to create as simple of a search as possible. A simple search is the starting point for use of any software like this. Look, I'm a paying Logos customer, just as I assume you are. I have no idea why the software is so slow--I'm no programmer. But calling something like this a "speed" search is a bit much. Finally, just from a technological perspective, all that time Libronix is trying to churn out results it's wasting CPU cycles. Open Activity Monitor and run these two searches. It's hard even to get a reading of Accordance because it is so quick. With Libronix, you can clearly see the drain on system resources. Heaven forbid that you've got other significant tasks going on in the background. I've got a top end machine; I feel for the person using one of the lower-end Macs. I'll make a few other comparisons in the future that will look at other capabilities. _________________________________________________________________________ Accordance User, Yes, you can do this one of two ways. (1) Go to File: Save Session (2) In Preferences: General set your "Startup" settings to "Last session." I use both of these at times. It was the second option above that brought up my previous session in the video.
July 31, 2009, 11:27:31 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Accordance user
Can't you save your workspace in Accordance & pull it up later?
July 31, 2009, 10:51:31 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Todd
What's the point of this? No one is going to search for a word that occurs a thousand times. Search for a more complex string and you'll find the speed search is fine.
July 31, 2009, 10:45:04 AM EDT – Like – Reply

R. Mansfield
For the sake of fairness, I want to point out that the recording software caused the Speed Search to run slower than it normally should have. It took approximately 80 seconds to display in my video. However, running the same test without recording it yielded the same results in only 50 seconds. Shorter, but there are three things to keep in mind: (1) It's still a ridiculously long amount of time to wait for results. I don't know of ANY Bible software that takes as long--especially for something with a misnomer like "Speed Search." (2) The software is incapable of actually displaying all the hits regardless of how much time it's given. (3) Accordance shows the same results instantaneously--no waiting at all.
July 31, 2009, 7:07:49 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Richard Hendricks
WordSearch 8 returned the results in less than a second. This is an embarrassing for Libronix.
July 31, 2009, 2:49:09 AM EDT – Like – Reply

Nick Norelli
Wow! That is mind-bogglingly slow! I just ran the same search in the NASB in Libronix on Windows and it was pretty slow but not nearly as slow as in your video. The same search in BibleWorks 8 returned the results in 0.36 secs.
July 31, 2009, 2:03:03 AM EDT – Like – Reply
Social Networking by Echo

June 7, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterR. Mansfield

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>