Forum Posts Feed
UltraRecall v4 update worth it?
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Jan Rifkinson
Aug 19, 2009 at 07:53 PM
Some time ago Kinook announced the cessation of further development of URp except for bugs & compatibility issues. When I commented on this on their fourm, they fudged the statement but never came clean on the issue realizing that the announcement was probably bad for business.
However, good for their word, they did fix bugs & updated for compatibility issues. Then they announced v4.
After looking at the ‘improvements’, I make v4 out to be something less than a major upgrade by any measure. However, it did allow the developers the cover to charge for the ‘upgrade’. I wouldn’t deny any independent programmer more $$ to help them along but I generally object to charging for a make believe upgrade just to generate funds. That’s what I judge v4 to be. Most, if not all, the improvements requested by users over the time I was using the program & was active on their forum (before being thrown off) were basically bypassed or ignored.
However, having said that, UR was a fine, stable, mature program before v4. If I were still using the program I’d probably upgrade to help support the effort & hope for future development despite Kinook’s announcement that development on the product was ceasing. I might even have gone for the upgrade even though I don’t use the program @ this time just to support their efforts but after the sleezy way they handled their development announcements, I’ve chosen not to.
This is in stark contrast w Tom Davis’ efforts w Zoot & Pierre’s efforts w InfoQube. I’ve supported these & many other such programs financially & in forums over the years just to be supportive. But the folks @ UltraRecall are a different stripe.
I think you made a good decision
Just my .02
—
Jan Rifkinson
Ridgefield CT USA
Posted by Gorski
Aug 20, 2009 at 01:43 AM
Somebody is wrong on the Internet, and I must correct them!
Jan, with all due respect, that’s not fair.
You write:
> Some time ago Kinook announced the cessation of further development of URp except for bugs & compatibility issues. When I commented on this on their fourm, they fudged the statement but never came clean on the issue realizing that the announcement was probably bad for business.
A more charitable reading would be that they changed their minds. Excuse, don?t accuse, as a wise mother (not mine) might say. And no, I don?t want to rehash your exchanges with them back then.
You write:
> I wouldn?t deny any independent programmer more $$ to help them along but I generally object to charging for a make believe upgrade just to generate funds. That?s what I judge v4 to be. Most, if not all, the improvements requested by users over the time I was using the program & was active on their forum (before being thrown off) were basically bypassed or ignored.
They made an improvement I requested, which is to automatically import things copied to the clipboard. Many requested for search results to be highlighted. They did that. Many requested HTML export, so you can create a clickable document tree you can put on the Web. They did that. I?ll wager other improvements were also the result of user requests. To say that ?Most, if not all? requests users made weren?t acted on is false.
You write:
> I might even have gone for the upgrade even though I don?t use the program @ this time just to support their efforts but after the sleezy way they handled their development announcements, I?ve chosen not to. This is in stark contrast w Tom Davis? efforts w Zoot & Pierre?s efforts w InfoQube. I?ve supported these & many other such programs financially & in forums over the years just to be supportive. But the folks @ UltraRecall are a different stripe.
The UltraRecall people have been forthcoming in more experience, certainly more so than one of your examples. I like and I have used Zoot for years and Tom Davis is responsive if you write him, but he shares almost nothing useful about Zoot?s progress. UltraRecall publishes a roadmap and lo and behold, actually follows it reasonably closely. Where?s the official Zoot roadmap? (Yes, I know recently he?s outlined some promised features in emails on the forum, but he hasn?t posted a roadmap on the Web site) Davis has been talking about improvements of Zoot for years and has yet to deliver in a significant way. The transition to 32-bit Zoot took forever, almost literally. Even when it finally happened, only a few new features were added. More recently, he said a beta for Zoot 6 could be in January. Didn?t happen. Then he said maybe July 15. Hasn?t happened. Now, apparently, it?s imminent. I hope so. When UltraRecall releases an updated version, they tell you what bugs were fixed. I don?t recall Davis ever telling us. I like Zoot and I believe Davis is a good guy, but to say that somehow the UltraRecall people are sleazy in comparison is ridiculous.
I like UltraRecall. It?s a well-made, richly featured, reliable program ? much, much better than most products in this category.
That?s my nickel, and unlike your two cents, it?s not wooden.
Posted by Gorski
Aug 20, 2009 at 01:45 AM
Hah, I almost never write in Word but did tonight, so naturally the encoding is screwed up in my post. Apologies.
Posted by Jan Rifkinson
Aug 20, 2009 at 01:58 PM
@ Mark
> That?s my nickel, and unlike your two cents, it?s not wooden.
Mark, I hope you’re right & I’m wrong because, as I said, I think URp is a fine program & I’m generally very supportive of independent programmers. I just hope you are not being naive as I have been many times over. And, no, I won’t characterize your post as I think that would be rude. At least here—on this forum—we can ask questions, offer our comments & our opinions w/o being censored.
—
Jan Rifkinson
Ridgefield CT USA
Posted by Ian Goldsmid
Aug 20, 2009 at 11:36 PM
I went away from UR up to a few months ago - I have been a user since Version 1. I’ve tried every other product of its kind imaginable - and nothing beats UR for data integrity/safety, the ability to store and display anything internall, the ability to mark up items according to a rich tagging/attribute scheme ... and on and on. Yes, the developers are a bit frosty - in other words they are tech heads not marketers - but if you can forgive them for that thaey are straight shooters and trustable.
When these new features come out (http://www.kinook.com/Forum/showthread.php?s=61dbdc7fe6279563938b1ef901859cd5&threadid=3204):
# Enhanced calendar pane
# Keywords pane / tagging improvements
# Ability to hide completed items in tree
# Add columns to Data Explorer pane
# Custom sorting in tree
# Syntax highlighting in text editor
# Revamp the help file / web site / demos
Which I bet will be quite soon - I can’t imagine any other personal information integration tool coming close.
I am extremely please with UR.
I occassionally use Mind Manager when I need to “think spacially”
I am trying the new Zoot 6 - but it looks like its months or more away from being prime time.
I use Evernote for Note sharing over the internet.
I’ve tried to like Personal Brain - I am trying 5.5 beta. But to me it is still merely a link capturing tool with a fancy display. I can’t really do any serious work with it. Its like a toy or something.
Connectedtext is intriguing, but not user friendly, really for people who are comfortable working with lots of technical commands and scripts… If Eduardo could make it more non tech user friendly, it could be really interesting - especially as it is a really powerful information organizer with a built in visual navigator…
Cheers, Ian