Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 170

Thread: What would you like to see in Bibleworks 11?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    776

    Default

    Thanks, Jim. It'll probably come in handy some day.
    David Rensberger
    Atlanta, Georgia

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Wert View Post
    1. You can navigate between tabs, so long as you remember their names. Thus, if you have a tab 12, "t 12" on the command line will bring it up. If my memory serves me, this feature came in response to an Adelphos request some years ago.
    2. If you insist on visible commands, you can right-click in the header of the browse window and select "Open Popup CL". You have to click in the Popup Command Line before you enter your command -- escape doesn't get you there. (In fact, escape will take you from the Popup Command Line to the invisible command line.)

    I'm not trying to convert you to using BW in Search Windowless mode, just having fun exploring some of the possibilities. The only window/pane you can't get rid of is the Browse one.

    --Jim
    Hmm, can't seem to get the tab navigation to work on my machine (i.e., t 12). On the subject of key shortcuts, I know one can navigate between tabs via "ctl + enter", going from left to right. But is there any way of going in reverse direction? I've never been able to find a command that does this.

    Don Cobb
    Aix-en-Provence, France

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Donald Cobb View Post
    Hmm, can't seem to get the tab navigation to work on my machine (i.e., t 12). On the subject of key shortcuts, I know one can navigate between tabs via "ctl + enter", going from left to right. But is there any way of going in reverse direction? I've never been able to find a command that does this.
    You have to actually type the name of the tab, or the tab number if you haven't named it. So, for example, if you've named a tab "mysearch", you would type on the command line:

    t mysearch

    or if you haven't named a tab, then you would type on the command line:

    t 3

    in order to go to the third tab.

    It should work.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    776

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Donald Cobb View Post
    Hmm, can't seem to get the tab navigation to work on my machine (i.e., t 12). On the subject of key shortcuts, I know one can navigate between tabs via "ctl + enter", going from left to right. But is there any way of going in reverse direction? I've never been able to find a command that does this.
    I find that Ctrl+Tab moves left to right among the tabs, and Ctrl+Shift+Tab moves right to left.
    David Rensberger
    Atlanta, Georgia

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default Apple vs. Windows?

    I think the difference between Donald Cobb's and DavidR's navigation keys is the difference between the Apple and Windows operating systems.

    I don't have access to Apple, so I don't know how closely the Apple version mimics the Windows one, but if Command Line shortcuts work for Apple, the "t <tab name>" should work to move between search tabs. Sorry if my previous comment did not make it clear that the "12" was a tab name.

    --Jim

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Wert View Post
    I think the difference between Donald Cobb's and DavidR's navigation keys is the difference between the Apple and Windows operating systems.

    I don't have access to Apple, so I don't know how closely the Apple version mimics the Windows one, but if Command Line shortcuts work for Apple, the "t <tab name>" should work to move between search tabs. Sorry if my previous comment did not make it clear that the "12" was a tab name.

    --Jim
    Hello Scott, David and Jim,

    Many thanks for your comments! Both Scott's and David's suggestions work perfectly, so I'm a happy camper! Actually Jim, FWIW, I have BW10 installed both on my old (i.e., 2009) Macbook Pro with Parallels, and with the "native" Mac version on my desktop. I mostly use the laptop, so it's usually the Windows version that's open.

    Regards to all,

    Don
    Last edited by Donald Cobb; 11-07-2015 at 12:49 PM. Reason: spelling improvements

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MBushell View Post
    There is a bit of confusion on this score. The BW9/10 Mac version IS a native Mac application. It does not run on an emulator. It uses a compatibility library to enable it to interface with the Mac OS, but then the PC version does exactly the same thing. It just uses a different library. The Mac version is no less a native version than the PC version. The difference is that the versions running on the Mac and the PC are functionally the same (have the same code base) and since it was designed originally with the PC platform in mind it still has the flavor of a PC in some places, though this is less so for BW10 than BW9 and it will be even less so as development continues. This has advantages and disadvantages. It reduces the amount of development effort for us (though we pay a significant amount of money to the developer of the compatibility library for ongoing development). That helps keep costs down for us AND the end user. Another advantage for the end user is that in an academic environment teachers can work with students on both platforms and have an identical user interface to deal with. We realize that in the short term this has disadvantages as well (like a few minor features that don't yet work on the Mac version) but that will change over time. And another advantage is that this approach encourages technology that may well open up other platforms for us (like Linux and maybe Android). Well, that's my two cents worth. The bomb is there. It is just ticking a little more slowly than some people might like.
    Mike
    Hi Mike,

    Thanks for taking the time to clarify that for me. I no longer feel like a second class citizen on my Macs.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    188

    Default Real Original Strong's Definitions

    I know that I'll likely be placed in a social pillory and flogged for even bringing this up, but I'd like real Strong's definitions tied to the Bible versions that are keyed to a Strong's. I deal with people that just use a Strong's and I need to open other Bible software to get them definitions. I also have to recommend to these students other Bible software when they only want to go into the original languages as deep as a Strong's and they want real Strong's definitions.

    The Strong's, being in the public domain, has been tossed into the wood chipper and"tweaked" into it's present state. The original definitions would be the best.

    Ok, I said it. I can personally flip over rocks in the gnarly and deep Hebrew lexicons with the best of them, but a lot of people cannot and a real Strong's would probably go a long way into opening a door into original language study for folks that need a bridge to get there. Having that bridge available just might get them to be able to appreciate the other fine resources that BW has to offer.

    Oh, and I personally think that James Strong did a fantastic job and that it is very much still a viable work despite the opinions of those that breathe the rarified air. I was surprised when I purchased BW4 that it had no Strong's and have kept up my BW to version 10. Perhaps version 11 will have one.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MWMiles View Post
    I know that I'll likely be placed in a social pillory and flogged for even bringing this up, but I'd like real Strong's definitions tied to the Bible versions that are keyed to a Strong's. I deal with people that just use a Strong's and I need to open other Bible software to get them definitions. I also have to recommend to these students other Bible software when they only want to go into the original languages as deep as a Strong's and they want real Strong's definitions.

    The Strong's, being in the public domain, has been tossed into the wood chipper and"tweaked" into it's present state. The original definitions would be the best.

    Ok, I said it. I can personally flip over rocks in the gnarly and deep Hebrew lexicons with the best of them, but a lot of people cannot and a real Strong's would probably go a long way into opening a door into original language study for folks that need a bridge to get there. Having that bridge available just might get them to be able to appreciate the other fine resources that BW has to offer.

    Oh, and I personally think that James Strong did a fantastic job and that it is very much still a viable work despite the opinions of those that breathe the rarified air. I was surprised when I purchased BW4 that it had no Strong's and have kept up my BW to version 10. Perhaps version 11 will have one.
    I suppose that I could try making a User Lexicon and see if the various Strong's references that come up often in study could not be shared with others.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    188

    Default A way to make user resources on a Mac

    The current method of using html help to create user resources is not really too Mac friendly. Perhaps an alternative methodology for creating such resources could be included in BibleWorks 11.

Posting Permissions

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