Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
127 of 131 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent overall encylopedia with emphasis on multimedia, September 21, 2003
Encarta is the top seller in the electronic encyclopedia market. It incorporates more multimedia bells and whistles than any of the others, and probably has the slickest interface and navigation. It has many graphics and streaming video presentations, and another interesting feature is the "virtual tours," which allow you to explore ancient cities such as Babylon as they might have been in their heydey. It has more pictures, photos, and illustrations, as a percentage of total content, than any other major encyclopedia.All this extra graphic content comes at a cost, which is that the average Encarta article isn't as long or detailed as the other sets. However, this doesn't mean they're short; I compared the "Bird" article with those in several of the others, and in Encarta it's 20 pages long, but the World Book's is 40 pages, and the Britannica's amazingly was 112 pages. However, the Encyclopedia Americana's was also 20 pages long. I also checked the biographies for several important people, such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, which I assumed would be among the longest and most detailed in the encyclopedia. Washington's was 37 pages, Thomas Jefferson's was 29, John Adams was 15, but Ben Franklin's was only 6, oddly enough. Depending on the age and education and other considerations, one might be better for your needs than another, so I thought I'd offer brief comparisons below, based on my own research. I include the Columbia one for comparison although I don't know if a CD version exists. The print version of Collier's is likely dead at this point, as a result of its acquisition by Microsoft. Encarta--35,000 articles, with 3500 extra articles added from Microsoft's acquisition of Collier's, giving it a more academic quality in the recent edition. 8,000 photos/illustrations (14,000 in deluxe), 115 videos/animations (150 in deluxe), and 2,000 sound clips (2,300 in deluxe). Has the most advanced search capabilities. Searches include all boolean operators plus NEAR (for within 8 words). Can also limit a search by category (Life Science, Geography, Performing Arts, etc.) A unique feature of Encarta is that Microsoft has gone to great lengths to make it attractive to those interested in African and black studies. There is a special Africa Library of Black America, with over 160 articles on black literature, ranging from slave narratives to poetry to non-fiction to novels written by eminent black authors. The Africana articles and the Africa Library entries even appear on the main Articles drop-down menu for easy access--the only specific literature category with such prominence. In addition, the Encarta World Atlas allows you to show African countries by tribe and language, so you can see which tribes and languages occur where geographically. There are hundreds of articles on African tribes and ethnic groups, discussing their history, culture, language, and art, in addition to the usual articles on the countries themselves. Despite the negative comments from a couple of reviewers about the "carousel interface," I found it quite good, and you don't have to use that access method if you don't want to since there are others. Britannica--contains most articles, at 65,000. Also the most technical. Very good science and international content. Science is 40% of total material. However, it's very technical. No matter what Britannica says, it is not appropriate for anyone under 12th grade and probably first year of college. Most of the technical articles are written as though they're intended for practicing professionals in a field who are looking for a quick review of an area. The article on Bird is 112 pages long, and the one on Western Philosophy is 199 pages. However, if you want the ultimate in scholarly substance this is the one for you. Librarians prefer the World Book to the Britannica since it's easier to use. World Book--the best selling encyclopedia in it's print version. 17,000 entries, 28,000 illustrations (over 80% in color--largest number of any set). Consistently rated the best overall set by librarians. A unique feature is that articles are written at the level of the expected reader. The CATS article will be at an easier level than PHYSICS. Encyclopedia Americana--contains 45,000 articles and 24,000 illustrations, which is close to that of the Britannica, but only 15% are in color--the lowest percentage of any adult set. In contrast to the Britannica, entries are more specific and shorter, rather than longer with broader coverage. Librarians say they prefer it to the Britannica. Grolier's Multimedia Encyclopedia--Unfortunately, I don't have an article figure, but there are 10,000 pictures, 1,200 maps, 200 video and animation clips, and 15 hours of sound. CD version includes the complete text of all 21 volumes of Grolier's Academic American encyclopedia. The multimedia version also includes additional articles written especially for this edition. Has powerful search capabilities. You can search the usual way, by title or topic, but you can also search by portion of a word, word proximity, and in what Grolier's calls Complex Mode, you can specify the search by media type--text, picture, map, table, factbox, audio, and video, and by 10 major categories--such as science, technology, geography, and history. COLUMBIA ENCYCLOPEDIA--50,000 entries averaging about 200 words in length. Mainly text based, only has 500 illustrations. The most heavily slanted toward biography, with 45% of the entries being biographical. For example, it contains every name from King James Version of the Bible. The lack of an index is made up for by extensive cross-references within articles. Hope my little comparison review helps. Happy encyclopedia buying and reading!
|
|
|
18 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Don't buy for the dictionary..., February 21, 2004
First off, my primary reason for buying this product was the dictionary tool, so my review isn't exactly complete. I've been using the dictionary and thesaurus tools in Reference Suite 2001 extensively since it's introduction - and it is, bar none, the best on the market. You can launch it with Windows at startup and have it run in the taskbar, because it uses little to no resources, and then it's always on demand in a flash. When the interface is open, your cursor is already where it needs to be and you can begin typing instantly. It's also quite smart, in regards to finding matches to a mistyped or misspelled word. If the program doesn't find a direct match to your input, it will display a list of words which it thinks are close, and 9 times out of time your word will be listed. The same great attributes do not hold true for the dictionary and thesaurus tools in Reference Library 2004, however. While the interface does look much the same, that's about the only similarity. 2004 is a resource hog, for one. It's also not very intelligent. If you type a word in wrong, or are simply searching for the spelling of a word, you might as well dig out your paperback, because the paperback is going to be quicker to thumb through. Once one hits enter in 2004, if the program doesn't find an exact match, it automatically displays the first word that matches the first series of characters, beginning from left to right, as oppose to a list of words with simililarities. The real killer for me is in how slow it is to use. For instance, when you open or restore the program to the desktop, you have to navigate to the input box each and every time before you can begin typing. Therefore, if you're doing a lot of writing, and need to switch back and forth between programs, such as a word processor, these 2004 tools are a considerable hinrance, as one has to incessantly leave the keyboard to maneuver the mouse. I bought 2004 thinking it was going to be a simple update, and perhaps even an upgrade, but instead received a semi-useless downgrade...
|
|
|
9 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Encarta 2004 versus Britannica 2004, May 29, 2004
I have bought both Encarta and Britannica for years (EB in printed edition too: 32 volumes, 32.000 sheets). This is my opinion in brief: Encarta is excellent in all aspects, but Britannica's authoritative text (sometimes outdated) makes interesting to buy both.
TEXT: Britannica is a superb encyclopedia in text (not in visual aid) since 1768 (you know: an article by Einstein and so on...). Text in electronic version differs from printed encyclopedia (very large articles have been shortened). Britannica claims that it has more items than Encarta, but this is a joke: articles like "Mexico" are only one (with a lot of subdivisions) in Encarta, while in Britannica subdivisions are unconnected, and you must "jump" from one subdivision to another, which is slow and very annoying, especially if you want to copy it in "WORD". Very often, the text is not updated.
In the other hand, Encarta's text is not bad at all. Most articles have the name of their contributors (professions, works...): They are not John Doe. You can find large fragments of literary works, literature guides, a lot of sidebars and thousands of quotations. "Encarta Africana" is included. The Pop-Up (double clicking a word) Dictionary and Thesaurus has sound for correct pronunciation (by the way, it can read aloud, with a robotic and ugly voice, a whole article). The "Translation Dictionaries" to Spanish, French, German and Italian must be improved, because they are minimal. It gives you a lot of "Internet links", even if you are not connected. With Britannica you must be "on-line" and it searches in an EB Web page.
In theory you can update Britannica over the Internet free for a year quarterly (4 times), but this does not work: You can not find new files. Encarta can be updated free EVERY WEEK with new articles and additions or corrections to the old ones (till October 2004). With Encarta updating really works. Technically, is amazing to see the changes in old items.
ATLAS Britannica has not a real atlas; only a worlds map whose maximum detail is the States of USA. Statistics are very poor. Encarta's Atlas is like another encyclopedia, with a great detail (1 cm/ 4 km all over the world) and 20 types of atlas presentations (statistical ones can be counted by dozens). If you look a geographical article (city, river...) you can see in a corner where it is placed and, with only a click, open the atlas. In articles of cities, if you are on-line, you can see in another corner the weather of this place in that moment. If it is a USA place, you can read the latest news.
MULTIMEDIA: They say that "serious" or "adult" readers do not care about "pictures"; that multimedia is only for kids. I do not agree, because I think that, sometimes, "A picture is worth a thousand words". Works of art, anatomy, historical maps, diagrams ... Encarta devastates Britannica with a lot of photos, paintings, drawings, charts & tables, animations, interactivities, videos, music and sounds, pictures, 2-D and 3-D virtual tours, 360-degrees views, timeline, games... It is not only the quantity and quality. It is the easy access you have to all the multimedia, and that text and multimedia are fully integrated. Britannica is not really multimedia. It has photos and videos, but they make the program slow and sluggish. They should edit an alternative version with only text, as they did with the first edition in 1995. It worked fast and easy in old computers.
INTERFACE AND PERFORMANCE: This is the worst side of Britannica. With Encarta you only have to type a word or the beginning of a word to see all the articles and multimedia that contain it. If Encarta does not find anything, it gives you automatically alternative spellings. Even if you write the name of a small village lost in any country, you see it in the atlas. If you need to copy text or pictures, the integration with Microsoft WORD is perfect. It has additional ways to find content, including subject or multimedia browsing, "related articles" and the standard A-Z method. The "Research Organizer" is very helpful too. Encarta's TEXT FONT is very clear (Britannica's...) and you can choose 3 sizes.
Navigating with Britannica is different. 2004 edition is better than 2003 one, but still it is disappointing. I will only give you an example: if you do not know the exact and correct spelling of a name or word, it does not help you with similar spellings (unless you open a window and fight with it). As I said before, the program's performance speed is very slow and sluggish, and it must be dramatically improved. To go "back and forward" you do not find any icon and you need to open a "menu".... One "pro" for Britannica: they say it works with Macintosh.
I repeat my modest piece of advice: Encarta is excellent in all aspects, but Britannica's authoritative text (sometimes outdated) make interesting to buy both.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
