Forum Posts Feed
Swift To Do List at Bits du Jour today
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Alexander Deliyannis
Nov 23, 2011 at 07:41 PM
http://www.bitsdujour.com/software/swift-to-do-list-7-new/
The name discretely implies what the program does. A couple of features of interest from here http://www.dextronet.com/swift-to-do-list-software/features
- Organise tasks in a tree
- Create tasks via email messages drag-and-drop
- Add notes to tasks
- Powerful support for recurring tasks (I recall that a member of this forum has a particular interest for this)
Posted by Mitchell Kastner
Nov 24, 2011 at 03:06 AM
Cannot all of this be done in UR with a little customization. I mean underneath their are all still databases and UR is about the most relational of the lot IMH experience
Alexander Deliyannis wrote:
>http://www.bitsdujour.com/software/swift-to-do-list-7-new/
>
>The name
>discretely implies what the program does. A couple of features of interest from here
>http://www.dextronet.com/swift-to-do-list-software/features
>
>- Organise
>tasks in a tree
>
>- Create tasks via email messages drag-and-drop
>
>- Add notes to
>tasks
>
>- Powerful support for recurring tasks (I recall that a member of this forum
>has a particular interest for this)
>
>
Posted by Alexander Deliyannis
Nov 25, 2011 at 12:13 AM
Quite possibly. But in such a case, what excuse would we find for CRIMPing?
Seriously though, the logic of specialised applications is that what they are specialised in is easier to do, and they might be able to do things that more generic applications can’t—at least not with a very fine degree of control. An example are recurring tasks.
It is surely up to each user to pick their preferred route.
To clarify, I have not purchased the software, nor extensively tried it out. My professional need is for collaborative, web-aware solutions.
That said, I have personally found that it facilitates my workflow to have separate applications for may major activities; so, for example, I keep my Checkvist task list open in a dedicated stand-alone browser application window (made with Prism). So, if I did use a local application for tasks, it would most likely be a dedicated app, while UltraRecall would be used for organising my project data.
Posted by jimspoon
Nov 25, 2011 at 08:25 AM
Alexander Deliyannis wrote:
>That said, I have
>personally found that it facilitates my workflow to have separate applications for
>may major activities; so, for example, I keep my Checkvist task list open in a
>dedicated stand-alone browser application window (made with Prism). So, if I did use
>a local application for tasks, it would most likely be a dedicated app, while
>UltraRecall would be used for organising my project data.
Alexander, I’m going off-topic here, but do you prefer using Prism for webapps over Chrome? I tried it, and can’t remember why, but I wasn’t satisfied and returned to Chrome for webapps. It seems strange to me that Firefox doesn’t support “application shortcuts” the way Chrome does. I don’t know about IE, Opera, or Safari, but I don’t think they do either.
Posted by Alexander Deliyannis
Nov 25, 2011 at 05:01 PM
I don’t have a strong opinion on the subject. I use Firefox as my main browser, so it made sense to use it for web apps as well. I expect that with Firefox running, fewer additional components are loaded into memory in order to run a web app.
Another sideline: I find Chrome heavy on resources. I have the (bad) habit of keeping many tabs open. Chrome will open a processor thread for every tab, so the processor footprint may become huge.
Re application shortcuts: in Firefox I can simply drag the icon left of the address in the address bar, to the desktop, and a shortcut to the said URL will be created there. Is this what you refer to?
jimspoon wrote:
>Alexander, I’m going off-topic here, but do you
>prefer using Prism for webapps over Chrome? I tried it, and can’t remember why, but I
>wasn’t satisfied and returned to Chrome for webapps. It seems strange to me that
>Firefox doesn’t support “application shortcuts” the way Chrome does. I don’t know
>about IE, Opera, or Safari, but I don’t think they do either.