Which free Bible software?

Every now and then, in the course of work, I’ll check up on a Bible verse or passage. Usually I’ll click the Biblegateway bookmark and use their very usable website. But what if my Internet connection is down, as has happened a couple of times?

I downloaded and installed some freeware from the web to try out. Eventually, I’ve kept these two on my work PC:

The SWORD Project

This was the best of the software I tried that also has free dictionaries and commentaries. You visit the Crosswire website and download modules, either Bible texts or helps. The popular ESV translation is available; I also installed the Chinese Union Version. The KJV text is marked with Strong’s numbers and parsing. You can get JFB and Matthew Henry’s (concise) commentaries.

You can select your own fonts and colour schemes, which helps readability and aesthetics.

BerBible

This seemed the best of the Bible-only programs. Besides the ubiquitous KJV, you get the ESV, NASB and NKJV. That’s really a generous selection of modern mainstream translations!

The interface is simple but functional. The left-hand navigation is quite quick to use: simply scroll to click the book, then chapter, you want to view. There are 4 font options, and 6 web-browser-like size settings; not as customizable, but it works. You can change the background colour.

I’ve found these two to be both free and functional, and am happy to recommend them.

Canon S90 or Panasonic LX3

I’ve been eyeing the Canon Powershot S90 and it’s finally out in stores. Retails for about 690SGD. Ouch! With that sort of price, I’m tempted to buy the Panasonic Lumix LX3 – again. I owned the LX3, but sold it to buy my current camera, a Nikon D90. Now, I’m beginning to consider having a compact camera, in addition to the SLR. Which, if any, will it be?

The LX3 is a great street photographer’s camera, with a wide 24mm-equivalent starting point for its zoom. The maximum aperture is f/2 at that point, and only reduces to f/2.8 at the longest end, which is (a little unfortunately) a 60mm equivalent. Personally I’d prefer a 28-105mm-equivalent range, but I don’t know if Panasonic could do a constant f/2.8 maximum aperture for that range in a compact size?

The S90 is somewhat similar: it has that 28-105mm range, except that the maximum aperture goes from a macho f/2 to a rather nondescript f/4.9 at the long end.

Both these cameras have something that I’d like to have in one; unfortunately, each probably has some things I like and some I don’t like as much.

LX3

• Large maximum aperture throughout zoom range (f/2 at widest, f/2.8 at longest end – impressive)
• Hotshoe (though I bet I’d seldom use it, being able to use bounced flash is way better than being limited to a direct blast)
• High ISOs sharp and detailed but ’scratchy’ looking and over-sharpened at default (for the LX3 that I owned, I reduced sharpening)
• Useful simultaneous processing of JPEGs: you can shoot in colour AND black-and-white for each shot (and add a raw file too if you want!)
• Poor image preview: when using the record histogram, I found that the review histogram was different! That defeats the purpose of the record-mode histogram! I’m not sure if the updated firmware (2.1) resolves that.
• Bulkier, not exactly pocketable, and not possible to screw on a protective filter (I wouldn’t use the lens cap – too fiddly!)

S90

• Smoother, more compact size and form, with inbuilt lens cover. Definitely easier to draw, use and store.
• High ISO sample shots seen online have a more pleasant film-like grain, similar to images from my D90; they seem soft, though, and I wonder if post-capture sharpening can do much before it also brings out the noise
• Better zoom range for my shooting (I often use a 75-105mm equivalent on my SLR), and you can set up the click-stopped control ring to step between traditional focal lengths: 28, 35, 50 etc. (equivalents). Nice touch, Canon.
• Slightly smaller maximum aperture when zoomed in, however. From online reports, the S90 approximately matches the LX3 in maximum aperture from 28-35mm equivalents, after which it trails the LX3. At 60mm equivalent the S90 starts at f/3.5, slightly behind the LX3’s f/2.8. Not a deal-breaker, but it depends how you shoot and how dim your lighting is. If you shoot at the classic 28 and 35mm settings, the cameras are equally ‘fast’ aperture-wise.
• Some have found the rear control dial to be too loose resulting in accidental settings changes (but the LX3’s top mode dial is also too easily turned); this might be a deal-breaker for me if it’s as bad as the ones on the SX1 and SX10 IS

The jury’s still out… These are two photographer-friendly designs (albeit with their imperfections) with class-leading high-ISO image quality. Right now I’m slightly biased towards the S90 for its longer zoom range and being a camera my family could also pick up and use. But the LX3 has great image quality and ‘power-user’ features.

Updated 3 Nov 09

Setting up Word 2007

(deep baritone): So, it has come to this…

My lighthearted offer to share some tips with my colleagues on using Word 2003 has taken a sobering turn: the office is going to make the transition to Microsoft Office 2007, and yours truly will be the guide to the great unknown…

Now it’s serious – it’s my job to make the move as painless as possible; to minimize loss of productivity or compatibility; despite my personal opinion that it may not be worthwhile installing Office 2007 even though we’ve already purchased the licenses. (My preference would be to stick with Office 2003 and see what Office 2010 offers.)

I’ve begun mapping out a strategy:

• Focus on Word 2007 and use that to give brief overviews of PowerPoint and Excel
• Cover the important tasks and ways to accomplish them, mainly through keyboard shortcuts and customizing the Quick Access Toolbar rather than the loopy Ribbon
• Teach ‘pro’ moves such as using styles, sections and output to PDF for distribution

The Office 2007 PDF output option is a great addition (but hardly novel), although I’ve been making PDFs since before that, using software such as Doro (which even allows you to edit fields and add encryption). I haven’t figured out why MS Office sometimes creates slimmer PDFs, sometimes bulkier, from a given document, compared to Doro; but for now I don’t have a favourite yet.

I’ve been using Word 2007 for a month now, at least, and I realized that, because of the way the Ribbon works (or doesn’t work), the quickest way to work in Word is probably by keyboard command, when you’re typing. Certain other commands could be kept from appearing and disappearing with the tabs that house them, by putting them on the Quick Access Toolbar. It’s not too hard to set up your own shortcuts and add useful buttons in the Customize section.

The Ribbon is touted as the major feature in Office 2007, but I find it irritating how the tabs change on their own, and it also takes too much screen space. You can hide the Ribbon by double-clicking it, but that essentially brings us back to the menu system again! Overall, there’s still too much clicking to do what I need to do; and I think it may be worse for slower learners.

What I do like about Word 2007 is the previews you get when formatting font sizes, styles, etc., although the options can sometimes block the item you want to preview. I also like the styles that make it easy to produce pretty slick-looking documents with little fuss. Not all of the Style Sets look nice, but some do.

I probably haven’t time to do a more thorough Word 2007 review, so this will probably have to do for one.

Update on 31 Oct 09

It’s been some months since the training I conducted, and since I first started using Word 2007. Looking back, here are some thoughts about it compared to the old version (which is a fading memory).

Style sets, fonts: one of the biggest improvements is cosmetic; I see slicker documents produced by my colleagues and me. It’s much easier to apply headings with visual previews. Good job, Microsoft. However, I find myself choosing the same few style sets because the others are too stolid, too American or whatever. The one I like best is probably Modern. Could we please have more spiffy styles please?

Better font defaults: also, thanks to Microsoft for ditching Times New Roman 12pt. I much prefer the new Calibri which is fresher and has more identity than Arial. The default 1.15 line spacing and 10pt para spacing are also good defaults for better legibility (though we probably would do okay with 1.1 and 6pts). Another welcome cosmetic improvement to documents.

Ribbon or menu: to me, the Ribbon is simply a more visual menu laid out horizontally. I’m okay with the concept, but don’t like a couple of things, such as how the active tab changes on its own, and how I have to aim for such a tiny spot to activate the detailed dialog boxes such as for paragraph and page layout formatting.

Overall, I think Word 2007 is a good version, though for our purposes at the church office it’s not clearly a must-have upgrade from Word 2003.

Page files and commit charge

Now I know why it’s so hard to be a geek And why some people just prefer Macs. (Though I’m still sticking with Windows – for now…)

Q: When is a page file not a page file?
A: When it’s a commit charge.

Okay, that was not funny. And I didn’t think it was funny either. Funny though that it’s true. When you hit the time-honoured Ctrl-Alt-Del combination in Windows XP, you bring up the Task Manager, which shows real-time graphics of what are labelled Page File Usage (on the Performance tab). On further research, however, you will discover that, despite its name, the graphics are actually showing you the commit charge, which is duplicated and correctly labelled below.

To see actual paging file usage, you need to use Microsoft Management Console, a separate program, and create a paging file counter. This would be more fun if I didn’t have other work to do. The MMC display should be quite different from Task Manager’s readout.

The reason I’ve been doing all this is that I’ve been considering RAM and page file settings on three XP machines, and until today I was under the misconception that Task Manager does tell you about paging file usage.

I can’t come to a clear conclusion for the first machine, a laptop, because it’s not with me now; however, since its RAM has been upgraded, it should be okay.

For the second, my own laptop, I guess I’ll have to go back and keep watching the MMC counter, though I doubt I’ll need a large paging file as it’s got 2GB RAM. I recorded a commit charge peak of 900+MB the other day, so maybe I’ll try to recreate that with MMC running.

For the third, which is the PC I’m typing this on, I finally understand why MMC and Task Manager don’t seem to agree! This machine has given me the most grief because of it’s sluggish ‘performance’. I recorded commit charge peaks on a couple of days that exceeded the 512MB RAM amount, paired with poor responsiveness (no surprise). Today I decided to ‘borrow’ an extra gig of RAM from a nearby unused machine, and though I’m still running the original smaller paging file size, MMC reports a max 12% paging file usage – and the system is humming along fine so far.

Advice: try setting up MMC to monitor your actual PF usage, and set your paging file size accordingly.

Compact fluorescents and climate change

Today is Earth Day 2009. Today, I learned more about compact fluorescent lamps/lights, or CFLs.

I learned that using CFLs for short periods (e.g. a few brief visits to the loo) is not good for them, especially if they are the instant-start type. Each time they are started (seems a little like they are ’shocked’ into action), it apparently shortens their lifespan a bit; frequent switching on and off is claimed to reduce their lifespan close to that of incandescent bulbs. Production of CFLs should be more environmentally costly than producing simpler incandescent bulbs, and is definitely more costly financially. This is a bummer because I’ve installed CFLs around the whole home, including the toilets. The options are:

• leave the lights on if you’re returning soon, and don’t switch off the lights till some minutes later even if you’re not (but then you could forget – or at least I could!)
• try to make your way around in the dark if making a quick trip to an otherwise unused room (don’t trip!)
• change to incandescent bulbs for short-use areas/lamps

I also learned that while CFLs contain mercury, it isn’t emitted unless you break the glass tube. In Singapore I don’t think the mercury content is stated on the packaging, but this is something to be aware of. Go to a website such as e2singapore for cleanup procedures in the event of a breakage.

The greater environmental hazard is in disposal of used bulbs. If dumped in a landfill, the mercury (about 5mg each bulb) can get into the ground or groundwater. If incinerated, the mercury may be released into the air – though in Singapore incinerators are equipped with pollution control systems that deal with metals in garbage.

Conclusion? For lighting fixtures that are used for long periods (e.g. offices, at mealtimes), CFLs are certainly good. For lights that get used in short spurts, you need care and consideration in selecting and using bulb types. Finally, disposal needs to be done responsibly.