Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: BibleWorks for Mac

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11

    Wink

    I would just like to echo the sentiments of Nick Laurence and Ben Spackman above.

    I use Accordance on my Mac and BW (8 for the moment but plan to upgrade to 9 very soon--almost have enough money saved) with Fusion and it is plenty fast, and in fact I prefer the layout for search results (Verse List) in BW over Accordance. Like Nick, I have only purchased Accordance and certain modules to complement BW and would like to see a Mac version with a greater range of modules. I also would be willing to pay a little more for a Mac version of BW, because honestly, I only emulate Windows in Fusion for BW.

    That aside, I also watch tech trends carefully and Mike is wise to be cautious. As much as I prefer OS X and various Mac-only programs over Windows for general production, there is a trend toward tablets (and unfortunately for programmers), specifically toward the ARM tablets. We will see if MS's Surface changes any of that; however, it is worth noting that Apple has notified resellers to increase space for displaying the iPad because it currently comprises "55% of dollar share and 61% of unit share among sales at [Apple] resellers but only [represents] 15% of display space." If the iPad mini which is rumored for a September introduction hits the right price point, MS may struggle to gain any significant share of the market.

    Also, Mike, I think I read somewhere else that you had new features planned for BW on Win 8--why? Is it possible only because of the new OS architecture? You apparently really appreciate the operating system and I am going to play with the RTM, but I find Win 8 jarring when it switches from the (formerly known-as) Metro UI to the Desktop space. Even with the replacement of the Start button, not ALL Win 7 Start Button functionality is being restored. Perhaps I will look into Crossover....

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MBushell View Post
    Donald,

    We appreciate the input and take it seriously. The decision about whether or not to port to Mac is on the table and being considered. It is not a small undertaking. BibleWorks has more than a million lines of code and we have a small staff. We want to see how a few things pan out before taking such a large step. We want to see how Windows 8 is received and if it reverses the tide of people moving to Macs. We have been working with Windows 8 for a while and I personally love it, both on the desktop and the touch enabled pads. The only thing I would change for desktop use is the missing Start button, but there is a freeware open source option that puts it back. So we are happy campers.

    We also want to see what impact increased competition has on us. We know it will hurt. We just don't know how much. And thirdly we want to give the emulator option a bit more time. We have paid the Crossover people to address most of the functionality problems with BibleWorks and those changes should be available very soon. We are committed to making this work and we will support other options for people who require more than 99% functionality. When the new Crossover release is available please let us know what you think.

    We appreciate everyone's patience. These are hard times for all of us economically and there are huge changes afoot in the computer software industry. The number of things in flux is bewildering. The best we can do is to pray for wisdom as we decide which things to do and which to pass by.

    God bless,
    Mike
    Mike,

    Thanks for your response. It's good to know that there is a specific contract with Crossover. As I said previously, I haven't seen any changes since buying Crossover in March, so I was beginning to wonder if they were not for the eschaton. Is Crossover working with actual BW users? I often come across small problems that would especially catch the eye of someone who's used to the program and has some knowledge of Biblical languages.

    It's interesting to read the replies from some of the others on this thread. I've been using BW with Parallels on XP. As long as I was using BW7, I was pretty much fully satisfied. It's been much more frustrating using BW9; that may be because the heavier demands on memory make for much slower results (I have installed and use all the ms images--which I'm very fond of--but that means BW9 takes up practically 14G of space). It could well be that installing Windows7 with more memory would clear things up... But that means money and hassle, buying a new hard drive, repartitioning it, reinstalling Windows and the programs I use with it, etc., etc., which brings me back to my original thought: I would happily pay $50 to $75 (let's even say $100) for a native Mac version of BW.

    Thanks again for your work and your desire to make your business ethics reflect Biblical obedience.

    Donald Cobb
    Aix-en-Provence, France

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    839

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JAMiller View Post
    I would just like to echo the sentiments of Nick Laurence and Ben Spackman above.

    I use Accordance on my Mac and BW (8 for the moment but plan to upgrade to 9 very soon--almost have enough money saved) with Fusion and it is plenty fast, and in fact I prefer the layout for search results (Verse List) in BW over Accordance. Like Nick, I have only purchased Accordance and certain modules to complement BW and would like to see a Mac version with a greater range of modules. I also would be willing to pay a little more for a Mac version of BW, because honestly, I only emulate Windows in Fusion for BW.

    That aside, I also watch tech trends carefully and Mike is wise to be cautious. As much as I prefer OS X and various Mac-only programs over Windows for general production, there is a trend toward tablets (and unfortunately for programmers), specifically toward the ARM tablets. We will see if MS's Surface changes any of that; however, it is worth noting that Apple has notified resellers to increase space for displaying the iPad because it currently comprises "55% of dollar share and 61% of unit share among sales at [Apple] resellers but only [represents] 15% of display space." If the iPad mini which is rumored for a September introduction hits the right price point, MS may struggle to gain any significant share of the market.

    Also, Mike, I think I read somewhere else that you had new features planned for BW on Win 8--why? Is it possible only because of the new OS architecture? You apparently really appreciate the operating system and I am going to play with the RTM, but I find Win 8 jarring when it switches from the (formerly known-as) Metro UI to the Desktop space. Even with the replacement of the Start button, not ALL Win 7 Start Button functionality is being restored. Perhaps I will look into Crossover....
    I am a little suspicious of the ARM tablets and I actually hope they fail miserable. They are a direct mimic of the iPad, including the limitation of each app being full screen and requiring that all apps be purchased from Microsoft. I hope the industry does not go that way. We probably won't buy or support ARM, though that decision has not been made yet. The intel pads are another story entirely and I cannot wait to get my hands on the intel Microsoft Surface. I could be wrong but I think that is where the future is. It has none of the limitations of the ARM version of Windows 8. You can run anything that you can run on a desktop. And BibleWorks runs well in an intel pad. I find it amusing that Windows 8 on ARM is still called windows, because there are no windows. There is just one window (with a very limited desktop option). The way to go is full windows on a pad.

    Don't sell Windows 8 short. Microsoft is not doing a good marketing job. And they have implemented some annoying features - which fortunately can be dispensed with. There is an open source free app called "Classic Windows" which puts the Start Button back and you can get rid of the logon screen and have the system boot directly to the desktop. So it can be set up to look and feel just like Windows 7. But it boots faster, has a much cleaner interface and a lot of enhancements to the desktop. I don't like Metro on a desktop either, but it can be easily dispensed with AND Metro on a small intel pad computer is really cool. After I have gotten used to it I think Microsoft was right to try to cover the pad and the traditional desktop with one interface. In the long run that will be easier for everyone because most power users (and I think most BW users are in that category) will have both a desktop and a pad.

    With regard to Apple, we have to think very carefully before porting. We don't want to waste the Lord's resources. Virtual technology is progressing very rapidly and running Windows apps on a Mac is getting better and better and easier and easier.

    Mike

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    839

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Donald Cobb View Post
    Mike,

    Thanks for your response. It's good to know that there is a specific contract with Crossover. As I said previously, I haven't seen any changes since buying Crossover in March, so I was beginning to wonder if they were not for the eschaton. Is Crossover working with actual BW users? I often come across small problems that would especially catch the eye of someone who's used to the program and has some knowledge of Biblical languages.

    It's interesting to read the replies from some of the others on this thread. I've been using BW with Parallels on XP. As long as I was using BW7, I was pretty much fully satisfied. It's been much more frustrating using BW9; that may be because the heavier demands on memory make for much slower results (I have installed and use all the ms images--which I'm very fond of--but that means BW9 takes up practically 14G of space). It could well be that installing Windows7 with more memory would clear things up... But that means money and hassle, buying a new hard drive, repartitioning it, reinstalling Windows and the programs I use with it, etc., etc., which brings me back to my original thought: I would happily pay $50 to $75 (let's even say $100) for a native Mac version of BW.

    Thanks again for your work and your desire to make your business ethics reflect Biblical obedience.

    Donald Cobb
    Aix-en-Provence, France
    Crossover isn't actually working directly with BW users. What happens is that we identify a list of incompatibilities and submit it to them. They come back with a cost estimate for each one and we pay for the ones we think are most important. Eventually we would like to have full compatibility under Crossover. But it does cost money and we have lots of things to juggle. When you get the new release let us know what problems you encounter and we will add them to the list for the next iteration. The main outstanding problem right now is support for double byte languages like Chinese and Japanese. That will not be an easy fix for them.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MBushell View Post
    Crossover isn't actually working directly with BW users. What happens is that we identify a list of incompatibilities and submit it to them. They come back with a cost estimate for each one and we pay for the ones we think are most important. Eventually we would like to have full compatibility under Crossover. But it does cost money and we have lots of things to juggle. When you get the new release let us know what problems you encounter and we will add them to the list for the next iteration. The main outstanding problem right now is support for double byte languages like Chinese and Japanese. That will not be an easy fix for them.
    Will definitely do so. Is it worthwhile submitting current problems to whomever? (And if so, to whom?)

    Donald Cobb
    Aix-en-Provence

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MBushell View Post
    I am a little suspicious of the ARM tablets and I actually hope they fail miserable. They are a direct mimic of the iPad, including the limitation of each app being full screen and requiring that all apps be purchased from Microsoft. I hope the industry does not go that way. We probably won't buy or support ARM, though that decision has not been made yet. The intel pads are another story entirely and I cannot wait to get my hands on the intel Microsoft Surface. I could be wrong but I think that is where the future is. It has none of the limitations of the ARM version of Windows 8. You can run anything that you can run on a desktop. And BibleWorks runs well in an intel pad. I find it amusing that Windows 8 on ARM is still called windows, because there are no windows. There is just one window (with a very limited desktop option). The way to go is full windows on a pad.

    Don't sell Windows 8 short. Microsoft is not doing a good marketing job. And they have implemented some annoying features - which fortunately can be dispensed with. There is an open source free app called "Classic Windows" which puts the Start Button back and you can get rid of the logon screen and have the system boot directly to the desktop. So it can be set up to look and feel just like Windows 7. But it boots faster, has a much cleaner interface and a lot of enhancements to the desktop. I don't like Metro on a desktop either, but it can be easily dispensed with AND Metro on a small intel pad computer is really cool. After I have gotten used to it I think Microsoft was right to try to cover the pad and the traditional desktop with one interface. In the long run that will be easier for everyone because most power users (and I think most BW users are in that category) will have both a desktop and a pad.

    With regard to Apple, we have to think very carefully before porting. We don't want to waste the Lord's resources. Virtual technology is progressing very rapidly and running Windows apps on a Mac is getting better and better and easier and easier.

    Mike

    No arguments from me on the limitations of the ARM tablets. I will say that the average, entry-level consumer would probably be more attracted to this model due to it being stripped down & easy to use though. I personally prefer the intel pad. So it all depends on the goals of the company I guess. Increase access to the program or stick with a smaller, more advanced user-base.

    However, the new Windows Phone 8 OS has gotten my attention, particularly given the ecosystem Microsoft is building (XBOX & its services, Windows 8, Windows Phone 8, etc.) and the "unification across all platforms" model they are trying to build. Given that they said the code for developers for WP8 would be similar to the code for Windows 8, has Bibleworks considered developing an app for the platform? A stripped-down Bibleworks that would run on a smartphone and give the customer easy access at church & on the go? I would personally find this very helpful, and since it's Windows I can't imagine it would be that difficult since you have been working with the platform for so long. It would also expose more customers to Bibleworks and would be a good business decision. I don't even know that Logos has a Windows Phone app yet, so there's definitely a need. Please consider this, even though you're not an ARM fan, there is a need, and I personally believe WP8 will get more of a following and gain market share for those who don't like Android & haven't bought into the Apple craze (I count myself among this lot)

  7. #17

    Default

    Just pointing you to another post I just made on installing and customizing BW9 HERE. There is a link there to some specific information about installing BW8/9 on a Mac using CrossOver.
    Mark G. Vitalis Hoffman
    Professor of Biblical Studies
    Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg
    ltsg.edu - CrossMarks.com
    Biblical Studies and Technological Tools

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1

    Default Crossover with Mountain Lion

    Greetings,

    Thank you BW for your diligence to provide excellence and a product that is useful for so many pastors, teachers and students of the Word. I completely understand the economics of producing a Mac version of BW and have no problem with your decision to stay on the Windows platform as there are alternatives for Mac users.

    That being said, as a Mac user, I had been using an older BW version with Crossover without any problems. That is, until I upgraded to Apple's Mountain Lion OS. Since that time, I have not been able to utilize my BW program. I have resisted using a virtual software or partitioning the hard drive b/c it exposes your computer to all the same problems that plague Windows based computers, i.e. viruses, updates, etc. It is one of the main reasons I purchased a Macbook. Crossover was an elegant solution that wrapped the BW windows program in a Mac wrapper. Are there any plans to debug the BW-Crossover program so it is compatible with Mountain Lion?

    If anyone has any other solutions, I am open to hearing them.

    Thanks!

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    206

    Default

    Heinz, from what I read, Apple released an update that broke CrossOver last month, but it has since been fixed:

    http://www.codeweavers.com/support/f...=27;msg=131580

    Note, however, that our new Mac Public Preview release doesn't use CrossOver. It uses CodeWeaver technology, but CrossOver is not installed or required.

    Hope that helps!
    Michael

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    839

    Default BW on a Mac

    Quote Originally Posted by Heinz View Post
    Greetings,

    Thank you BW for your diligence to provide excellence and a product that is useful for so many pastors, teachers and students of the Word. I completely understand the economics of producing a Mac version of BW and have no problem with your decision to stay on the Windows platform as there are alternatives for Mac users.

    That being said, as a Mac user, I had been using an older BW version with Crossover without any problems. That is, until I upgraded to Apple's Mountain Lion OS. Since that time, I have not been able to utilize my BW program. I have resisted using a virtual software or partitioning the hard drive b/c it exposes your computer to all the same problems that plague Windows based computers, i.e. viruses, updates, etc. It is one of the main reasons I purchased a Macbook. Crossover was an elegant solution that wrapped the BW windows program in a Mac wrapper. Are there any plans to debug the BW-Crossover program so it is compatible with Mountain Lion?

    If anyone has any other solutions, I am open to hearing them.

    Thanks!
    Just today we released a pre-release version of BbleWorks 9 that runs on a Mac. It installs like any other Mac app and does not require Windows or any emulator package. We contracted with CodeWeavers to fix a lot of the outstanding Crossover problems specific to BibleWorks and to package their libraries with BibleWorks in a standalone native application. This is a native Mac app that uses their libraries to provide an interface to Mac OS. So it runs the same executable that runs on PCs. This has advantages and disadvantages. It saves us a lot of work and allows us to provide new tools for our users without having to reinvent the wheel in a very volatile market full of new operating systems and platforms. For people in an academic setting it has the advantage of students on a Mac and PC using the same interface, which in turn makes collaboration and classroom instruction a lot easier.

    What has changed is that we now support Mac installations officially. Before it was just a favor done for people who wanted to switch to a Mac but just couldn't live without their BibleWorks. BibleWorks now works on Macs via several different mechanisms, including emulators, environments like Crossover and now through a native, library supported, native port. The emulators are pretty much 100% problem free. The native soulution which was just released in prerelease form handles 95% of all BibleWorks functionality. We will gather reports from this release and send another set of problems to CodeWeavers . Over time it will get better and better. It does require a Rev 3 set of BibleWorks 9 disks though.

    Mike
    Last edited by MBushell; 10-03-2012 at 08:40 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •