WhizFolders vs Scrivener for Windows

Posted by Dr Andus
Dec 7, 2011 at 04:07 PM

Jon Polish wrote:
>Thank you all for your opinions.
> >I have looked extensively at both programs and have
>been surprised at how similar they are. Almost every feature in one exists in the
>other. Even the vaunted Scriven (combined documents) exists in WhizFolders. I am
>very surprised.

Thanks for doing this. I also didn’t realise until now how similar they were. I’ve been a fan of WF for a long time, but when Scrivener came along, it didn’t even register that they are that similar. Having said that, I’m sticking with Scrivener for my academic writing because although the features are similar, Scrivener still seems to me to be more conducive for writing (and WF better for outlining and as a database of text (but not image!) snippets). The reasons:
1) less clicks to achieve the same (e.g. scrivenings view);
2) Scrivener is better at withdrawing into the background, while you write (both with or without the Full Screen feature, which WF doesn’t have and which again takes only once click), while WF is loud and feature-rich, which I find distracts me from the writing process;
3) Adding images and other files seems to slow down the whole of WF, while in Scrivener it only slows down the given document its embedded in. This was a big enough reason that I stopped capturing even the smallest of charts in WF;
4) The corkboard is a big plus because it does something to your brain when you use it. Basically it allows you to imagine and understand the text in a different material form, as chunks, index cards etc. It’s hard to explain the actual effect but I find it very useful for overall structuring of a document or an argument.

On the other hand WF Deluxe can do hoisting, so that’s another plus for WF.

But you’ve rekindled my interest in WF (though not for the writing-up task), so thanks for that.