Thursday, May 31, 2012

A Clarification from Logos on Their Catechism Software

Thanks to Alex from Logos for answering these questions:

I'm sure at this point many of you have seen Timothy's post about the Catechism Collection at the Logos Catholic site, but if you haven't seen it and were concerned about cost, this is our attempt to produce an affordable, but still functional, collection.  Check it out and check out our blog video detailing how to optimize your experience with said Collection.

In regards to the question from John: the hyper text capability works with every resource you own. Thus if you only own the Catechism, internal cross references will work, but the footnotes will have nowhere from which to draw the original text.  The key thing to note is this means you can buy each resource as you are able and they will link to each other as they are added to your library (however, you will end up paying significantly more for the individual texts). The Catechism Collection is certainly worth the $50 (Individually, the contained resources are worth $130+)In regards to a question from Mike: the public domain text files cannot truly compare to the tagged versions that we produce. Additionally, the time and effort spent creating the Logos versions and tagging them so they interact with other texts and work in our software, support notes, word tools, etc. cannot be achieved for free. While it seems difficult to justify at first, once you experience it, it makes a lot more sense. If you simply want to read a free text document or pdf, free is great. If you want the features and connectivity of Logos. The tools and tagging are unparalleled and well worth the initially shocking price point.

Please don't hesitate to contact me directly.

Alex Renn
Catholic Marketing Specialist
Logos Bible Software


losabio said...

I recently discovered Logos when Tim posted the Q&A with Andrew Jones. When I saw the CCC collection announced a few days later, it seemed like the perfect gateway to start using the software. I am having the best time using the software and exploring the CCC collection. I had looked up individual paragraph numbers within the CCC as I looked up cross references from the ICSB:NT, but the ability to jump from topic to topic, following the threads back and forth from the Scriptures to the CCC is just incredible. As soon as I am able to, I plan to upgrade to one of the larger packages. I am intrigued by all the original language search capabilities in the larger collections, and my introduction to the software via the CCC collection has been just great. The Android app and are terrific as well, and actually offer a few additional books compared to the full version on the computer. I stil do my morning Scriptural study using a regular Bible, but afterwards I'll check out the morning devotional on the Android app and maybe do some additional exploration. I have been using the full version of the software in the evenings, sometimes just for 5-10 mins or so, and maybe just to look up a particular passage which might have entered my thoughts during the day. Not only can I quickly locate the original passage, but then I can see where the passage might be referenced by the CCC, etc. It's really fun. All the cool highlighting tools are available in the CCC collection, so even if you were to merely use the D-R and RSVCE from the CCC collection, you'd still have a cool pair of digital Bibles for exploration and study, etc. Sorry if I come across like a shill, but I am merely a very excited new user of the software.

Anonymous said...

Hello Alex,

Thank you for the clarification. I love the concept and the fact that it's so user friendly. I actually have most of the collection's documents already on my iPad. But I would never bother using them in conjunction with the CCC because it would be to unwieldy and time consuming.

The beauty of the way Logos has formatted it, is that I'm sure I would be using the document links all the time.

I do have one more question. What about quotes from the Church Fathers, are they included?

Thanks for the information.