I've revisited MyInfo & think it is an interesting program that has made quantum jumps in development since the last time I trialed it.

IMO current version is quite talented & v4 -- w substantial list of new options -- is due out q2 of 2007. Current version seems pretty stable.

Tech support/developer comments/help is commendable. Ongoing development seems serious as company has been around for a while. IMO, it's definitely worth a look see if you are looking for this kind of data handler.

Unless something very weird happens I am seriously considering migration (don't know how yet) from ADM to MyInfo when v4 appears.

This has raised an interesting problem. Data handlers have two basic problems: getting the data in & getting the data out, i.e. once the user commits to one data gatherer, it is sometimes very difficult to migrate to another program. Very frustrating.

--
Jan Rifkinson
Ridgefield, CT USA

Jan,

What features of MyInfo particularly attract your interest? I found the ability to import .HEAD files interesting, but could never find much of a use for it. In other respects I found WhizFolders a more attractive proposition, though I ended up buying neither - maybe because I use Zoot so much. Where or how does MyInfo feature in your workflow?

Derek

I use MyInfo to complement Zoot. We all know Zoot's limitations, and MyInfo handles those tasks that Zoot can't fairly well. Here are some of the features of MI that I especially appreciate:

1. Drag any document into the tree and it creates an info item and stores the document in its own database. This is useful for me, because I receive a lot of price quotes as PDF attachments to e-mail. Rather than worry about where to save them, I can just drag them into MI and drop them under the project heading with other information about the project.

2. Multiple databases open at the same time and accessible through tabs.

3. Cross-database searches.

4. Completely customizable columns that accept various types of metadata.

5. Tagging of info items with keywords, for an additional layer of categorization.

6. Pretty good OLE integration.

7. Continual improvements -- the developers do not rest on their laurels.

These charateristics are not unique, but they are implemented in a nice, clean interface that doesn't get in the way of work.

For me, MI is the PIM I use for project management and for collecting that data that Zoot isn't good at.

Steve Z.


Derek Cornish wrote:

MyInfo feature in your workflow?

Steve, that's a pretty good overview of MI's features. Last week I wrote that I amusing MI and WhizFolders. I am liking both, but if MI allowed multiple open windows I would give up WhizFolders.

MI, in addition to multiple open windows lacks a hoisting ability, and the ability to have more than one set of columns for a specific file. ADM has both these features. The value of hoisting is self-evident. The value of being able to use more than one set of columns is that if, within the same outline, you have info requiring different types of metadata, you can do it. Otherwise you have to seperate the info into different files which, from a functional perspective may not make sense.

MI's plans for version 4 look good, except I saw no reference to hoisting or multiple windows.

The continuing frustration for some of us is the question marks around ADM. In terms of features and concepts it is quite advanced; but until there is a really solid and market-ready version 4 I am not confident about the program's future.

Daly

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

I use MyInfo to complement Zoot. We all know Zoot's limitations, and MyInfo handles
those tasks that Zoot can't fairly well. Here are some of the features of MI that I
especially appreciate:

1. Drag any document into the tree and it creates an info
item and stores the document in its own database. This is useful for me, because I
receive a lot of price quotes as PDF attachments to e-mail. Rather than worry about
where to save them, I can just drag them into MI and drop them under the project heading
with other information about the project.

2. Multiple databases open at the same
time and accessible through tabs.

3. Cross-database searches.

4. Completely
customizable columns that accept various types of metadata.

5. Tagging of info
items with keywords, for an additional layer of categorization.

6. Pretty good OLE
integration.

7. Continual improvements -- the developers do not rest on their
laurels.

These charateristics are not unique, but they are implemented in a nice,
clean interface that doesn't get in the way of work.

For me, MI is the PIM I use for
project management and for collecting that data that Zoot isn't good at.

Steve
Z.


Derek Cornish wrote:
>MyInfo feature in your workflow?

Daly,

Regarding the lack of hoisting in MI, I agree that that would be a great feature. In some ways, however, MI mitigates that issue with its multiple open databases, and cross-database searches. What I mean is that hoisting is important in a large database when you want to focus on a single topic. In MI you can just create a database for that topic, but still have instant access to it through its tab and can find information within that topic through a cross-database search. I'm not saying this is ideal, just that it is less important to have hoisting in MI as it would be in a program that didn't allow for cross database searches.

Steve Z.

Derek Cornish wrote:

What features of MyInfo particularly attract your interest? [snip]I use Zoot so much. [/snip]

Hi Derek. Nothing wrong w your question, but I can't answer it the way you've asked it but let me reply this way:

I *love* the way zoot handles text data & yet it is a 16bit program in an advanced 32bit world. It is a tribute to Tom Davis that it still has such a following. To me, it's like the Ecco aficionados. Both these programs were (& in some ways are) still ahead of the curve. If I could combine these two I would have my ideal program.

So being dissatisfied by both, I -- like many people on this forum -- have been on a quest for the holy grail.

I think Steve Z answered the specific questions about the functions/design that I find useful. Having stated that, however, I think MI v4 will offer huge improvements to the current version & hopefully it will go on from there.

Currently I use ADM on a daily basis because it has more of the characteristics that I want/need such as multiple views of the same data, easy importing of data, multiple columns, etc. However, ADM can't even search across dbases. Graphics & web captures are not handled well & there are a bunch of other pretty basic things that are missing but -- as Daly concurs -- it is very advanced in other ways so I've stuck w it.

However, IMO its future is clouded by a variety of rather 'strange' circumstances so I no longer have faith in the product.. It would be better if I'm proven wrong & I'm hoping I am but it's a feeling that doesn't leave me. And although it is easy to get data into ADM, it's *not* so easy to get it out so it's useful in another data program.

As a consequence I would *very* much like to switch *out* of ADM & start over again in some other program, even if I have to give up a few things. Of all the programs I've played with, tested, blah, blah, I think MI will eventually enjoy the broad range of features permitting data manipulation/gathering/organizing not currently available in any other package that I've seen.

As for workflow, MI v3 is not in my workflow. I'm waiting for v4 due out Q2 '07. There's a road map & list of features that are planned for v4. At that point I'm going to try like hell to switch over.

One other thing to consider when reading my response. Unlike some of you, I want to find *one* program that does it all. I hate the idea of putting one kind of data in one program & another kind of data in another program. .I know some of you do this but I can't keep track of what I've put where.

Early alzheimers or something......

--
Jan Rifkinson
Ridgefield, CT USA

Steve -

Thanks. that was very helpful. It's so easy to dismiss software after an all-too-short evaluation. MyInfo, for example, has a 30-day limit. I prefer the 30-non-sequential-day type of trial as it means one can come back to a program after having had to to be busy on something else.

I can see how useful MyInfo could be for certain tasks that Zoot can't handle. For me, I think that maybe my requirements are simpler than those of many on the forum. For example, I don't do project management, or need much in the way of PIM-type features, or places to store pdf and other files. I file-link them to Zoot in the main, though this does not facilitate sequential browsing. For special projects I tend to use Web Research, because it's good for internet stuff, and its files can be linked to Zoot items, as well as being browsable (and categorizable) within WR itself. My recent shift - modest compared with Graham's - back to plain-text has also had an effect. Once I had decided to accept Zoot as it is, keeping to plain test for as long as possible in the writing parts of a project seemed the easiest route to take.

We'll see, though, as I have IdeaMason 3.0 - just in case :-).

Derek

Hi Jan,

So being dissatisfied by both, I—like many people on this forum—have been on a quest for the holy grail.

Me, too, but I keep on coming back to Zoot and - as I mentioned to Steve - I'm even trying to work more closely with it by keeping where possible to plain text. I find it quite liberating actually, and it's easier for me than for some because my requirements are fairly modest - notes and ideas organizer (Zoot), brainstorming and outlining (Brainstorm and PocketThinker - or Grandview), and initial drafting (EditPad Lite). At the end, of course, I have to use MS-Word, and there are also one or two other programs I use regularly, like Biblioscape, Web Research, and NetSnippets. Usually, though, most of my work is done with Zoot, PocketThinker (these days), and EditPad.

All I am looking for in Zoot 32-bit, really, is the ability to store longer text-notes, to have more virtual folders available, and to allow file folder sync with subdirectories as well as directories (this would make NetSnippets more useful). This would improve its value as a "command-centre" with links to other programs. RTF is not a priority for me, but I know it is for others.

Unlike some of you, I want to find *one* program that does it all. I hate the idea of putting one kind of data in one program & another kind of data in another program. .I know some of you do this but I can’t keep track of what I’ve put where.

I agree to some extent. For example, the question of where to put the fruits of internet searches is a perennial problem. Partly through laziness, and partly for special projects, I may have some of this material in Zoot, in NetSnippets, in Web Research, and in Windows folders. But for different tasks I like to use different programs. It's rather like the "hoist" feature in good outliners: it can help to keep one focused on the task in hand.

But, if IdeaMason keeps developing the way it is currently, maybe I'll change my mind.

Derek

Derek Cornish wrote:

[snip] It's rather like the "hoist" feature in good outliners: it can help to keep
one focused on the task in hand.

But, if IdeaMason keeps developing the way it is
currently, maybe I'll change my mind.

Derek, Don't know Idea Mason (I'll look @ it) but ADM currently has hoisting features, both in meta data & in topics. Unfortunately, despite its advanced development, there's no communication to speak of with the developer, Eric Sommer so I can't vouch for ADM's future altho I currently use it every day.

--
Jan Rifkinson
Ridgefield, CT USA