p.s. You ask "What's it to you if I ask for a feature that you yourself don't use?"
I teach the Bible and the biblical languages. I have to deal with it when my students use outdated and misleading resources. Sometimes it's better to have less information rather than misleading information.
I really wonder what it is about a 19th-century bible dictionary that's so attractive when there are less outdated mid-20th-century resources that are now very, very cheap as well.
When Smith's dictionary came out, Akkadian was barely deciphered. Ugarit hadn't been discovered, and neither had the Dead Sea Scrolls. These are things (to name just a few) that radically transformed our understanding of the cultural, historical and linguistic contexts of the Bible.
I consider it borderline irresponsible to interpret the Bible without the knowledge that these and other new scholarly advances have added. And I respect laypeople enough to think that they deserve the benefit of the best scholarship.