OS Systems & Accordance Versions; what is compatible with what?

[Enoch]

It seems that Accordance kind of crossed a Rubicon recently by having modules that only work with the latest Accordance version. For a long time it seemed to make no difference which Accorance Version one had so far as using modules was concerned.  Now it is noted that the Brill Dictionaries require 13.  Also, I have gotten error messages using Greek text NA28, like it demands version 13, though I have been using it with 12 for quite some time.  I hope this is not to be the case in the future with Accordance, forcing users to "upgrade." 

So as of now, which modules require 13? Anything besides Brill dictionaries?

And what about OS?  Which OSes (OSim?) are required by Accordance for which Accordance versions?  It seems in the fog of my memory that I saw something posted about a problem with Catalina and some version of Accordance.  I have been holding on to Yosemite because my wonderful MS ergonomic keyboard has many very nice special functions/buttons that do not work after Yosemite, like a rocker arm to enlarge or reduce size of screen, & a language selection button which toggles between English or Greek or Hebrew (1 & the last keyboard used).

I just bought a computer that has Mojave in it.  Is there any advantage of having a newer OS?  (I have had a couple of old Macbooks with Snow Leopard around for some time!) 

[Unix]

@Enoch This is Unix. I do remember clearly from one previous a bit similar discussion that I participated in, which took place quite some time ago, though, that there was resistance both by those who are just users and not on OakTree's payroll, as well as from at least one Accordance programmer, to the notion of requiring a newer version of Accordance than 10.4 (the last major iteration of Accordance 10, a version with A LOT of bugs that makes it crash which I know from beside from the forums and elsewhere on the internet, from when I used to use that version myself and from users I've met IRL such as in Churches, congresses). It is an extremely old and unsupported version, yet most (counting merely numbers, not quality or necessity of those) modules only require that or 9.6.

 

To answer Your specific question, there aren't all that many modules (YET, but there will be several more, which might perhaps happen much later than this ongoing Year) that require various iterations of Accordance 13. Off the top of my head: Targums Wordmap, the new Timeline (i.e. the Expanded Edition, I have it, haven't installed), what You already mentioned, recently released in lexicon form, https://accordancebible.com/product/andersen-forbes-syntax-database/). (Of those I'm neither wanting nor needing the lattermost.) About Windows OS version, I haven't checked, of course since how would I even notice? But very many software, there among likely also Accordance, require version Anniversary Edition (which is by now very old and dated, even insecure). I've been using Windows 10 1909 on the AMD A9 laptop on which I have Accordance installed, and that laptop refuses to upgrade Windows beyond that version. That computer is also reasonably worn, and I haven't bothered putting an SSD in it instead of the spinning disk. It doesn't really at all anymore function in the way of a laptop, but like a desktop (there are issues with it irreparable), so definitely no-one needs to keep that in mind; I'm going to scrap that computer.
It is a common problem that Windows doesn't update to an even somewhat recent version; on the other hand, an even more common problem is that Windows DOES upgrade but then makes the whole computer extremely slow - that issue is of course much more common with computers very dated CPU:s.

Sorry for not going to help out with particular Mac versions.

I would not think problems and issues or hindrances to either want to or being able to upgrade OS version to a pretty recent one affects MANY, though in those cases it does, it's more often than not because of weighty reasons. But to perpetually stick on unsupported OS:s has no foundation in reasonability, whether for the development of Accordance nor its users. Rather, if requiring a recent OS iteration makes for more advanced development and modules particularly hidden under the hood but with great benefits in development or visually and functionally tangibly for users, it is the definite and imminent way to go right now! Backwards legacy compatibility is THE MAIN issue - it's an issue, not a solution whether just for a time or Years, this ANY developer worth his salt (find the close-up photo of one of the frames to hold a coffin or something with funerals, featuring unicycles), know for certain.

BUT I'm now getting to what I want: I actually want OakTree to shift to developing new ones or upgrading extent modules in some ways, to require fairly new versions of Accordance! This is not what I previously said, previously I said Accordance should shift to requiring version 11 for newly developed modules. So I want some even more recent version of Accordance, or Accordance 11, to start to be required pretty often now!

I wouldn't say it wouldn't at all say it would be a pointless effort on OakTree's behalf (pun intended), but related to this discussion is another post (which I've written and suggested), which would satisfy us both; please all have a look and comment me on there too!: Develop a point-update to v12, beyond support, to support new book formats

[Guest]

We never randomly or arbitrarily release content that requires only newer versions of Accordance. And we certainly never do this to force upgrades. 

 

In the case of the recent Brill dictionaries, we had to actually modify the software to accommodate the text. This is not a common practice but only when absolutely necessary. And it's always a free update for owners of the current version. But it's not something we can go back and do to versions 12, 11, 10, etc. because too much of the program has been updated, and we're building on top of that. 

 

There are very economical ways to get v. 13. Free even.

[Unix]

This comment doesn't comment R.Mansfield but comments on the discussion as a whole, especially in the way of the opening post and as a follow-up to what I had at an earlier time suggested and clarification to what I said in this present discussion.
I have never been referring to highly advanced books/modules/databases that had already been developed for some iteration of version 13 of Accordance. Clearness has been a priority previously as well, but as people have differing opinions, they make interpretations of what has been said. (Nowadays, I check my grammar and writing style with Grammarly Extension in Firefox Nightly. As my comment is now in its final form, Grammarly gives the automatic feedback of I this being 'Sounds inspiriational' and quality points 94 out of 100, as well as about this moment - what's in the attached comment.) So only after I state my suggestion multiple times does it come through as crystal clear, necessitating several clarifications even though I had formed my suggestion already.
Clarification about what I meant as the suggestion henceforth: Such modules that will have only some minor reason to be modules requiring version 13 are what 12.4 would need to be developed for - for users who prefer or can only have version 12 (that they've paid for or retrograde to through Customer Service if they own the license for a newer than that version).
As R. Mansfield replied, it was not in reply to me but to @Enoch - he said that through a direct message to me. It was evident and foreseen that Brill's lexicons required a significant overhaul of the Accordance software, as well as Targums Wordmap, the Andersen-Forbes, and the long development of the New Timeline. In other words, none of those was a surprise (to anyone really) that they require version 13.

Another clarification to what I'm suggesting IS that such more ordinary non-database-like, non-lexicon FUTURE modules, would become usable with a version 12.4 (which doesn't exist but which I have already been suggesting for a longish time). Such is a MUCH better way (than to keep for several Years more defending the "right" of users who run (often highly insecure as well as non-upgradable) legacy systems to not need to pay for an upgrade to version 14, 15, and so on) around this from now on, tackling the avoiding of having/maintaining further backwards legacy compatibility; than to keep developing MODULES to require only Accordance 10.4 (or in many cases to develop to require only 11.x).