Glen,

Are you saying that Citavi allows you to copy its raw field code to the clipboard, as Endnote does? Because Mendeley and Zotero does not copy its citation field to clipboard; it copies only the text representation of the citation and therefore when you merge the Scrivener docs into one Word doc Mendeley and Zotero cannot keep track of citations to the same reference.

Whereas in their add-ins to Word, they both copy the citation field; hence it would be nice to have them added in to Scrivener.

Glen Coulthard wrote:

Re: Citavi + Scrivener

I am using this combination now (although still early in my
learning curve). Seems to work similar to EndNote, in that:

1) I have both programs
open and running on a dual monitor system,
2) search for and copy the reference from
Citavi to the Clipboard (using full program or smaller "Publication Assistant"
window),
3) paste the citation marker in Scrivener; e.g., {Yin 2003 #393}
4)
compile from Scrivener to RTF,
5) use the Publication formatter in Citavi to produce
a formatted (i.e., APA, MLA, Chicago style) Word DOCX file from the Scrivener RTF,
complete with bibliography.

Yes, it sounds as though there are lots of steps, but it
is really quite fast and easy.

Hope that helps,
Glen

Pavi,

That's good to hear. Almost all of the free articles I downloaded were from pure socialist or near-socialist countries which annoyed me because I knew that our government ponied up big time to fund research, the written products of which are published in journals which are not free.

JBfrom wrote:

Ultra Recall is not going to work for multiple gigs of data. If for no other reason than
the Windows file size limit.

Does Smereka face the same problem? Sounds like it would.

Seems you are drawing conclusions with inaccurate information, a few snips are below to support my point. Of note, I am not suggesting that approaching these limits is practical. But with lots of memory and current top-end hardware, perhaps it would be. Or maybe you should be using Amazon RDS.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Relational_Database_Service

Both UltraRecall and Smereka use Sqlite as a database.
http://sqlite.org/limits.html
a maximum SQLite database size of about 140 terabytes.

UltraRecall FAQ
http://kinook.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=709
The physical size limit is 2 terabytes
We've successfully tested (and several users report using) databases upwards of 5GB

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ntfs
the maximum NTFS file size is 16 TB minus 64 kB or 17,592,185,978,880 bytes.

I ran into the file size limit because some of my storage devices were still on FAT32.

It's interesting to know that it might be possible to pull it off.

However, given the slowness of my previous experience with sql databases, I'd want to hear reports of users successfully operating databases much larger than 5gb. For example, one of my ebooks folders is 60gb.

I'm not a techie, so I'm not sure how Amazon RDS would be useful for me, beyond supplying a powerful backend.

JBfrom wrote:

However, given
the slowness of my previous experience with sql databases, I'd want to hear reports of
users successfully operating databases much larger than 5gb. For example, one of my
ebooks folders is 60gb.

I will point to Richard's answer here http://www.outlinersoftware.com/messages/viewm/11337 to describe my own approach for such material too. I really cannot imagine why one should want to keep a collection of PDFs within a single huge database file. The file itself would become fragmented and slow, it would be a nightmare to backup regularly, and would invite corruption in the event of the first problematic system shutdown.

Re slowness, the client-server architecture inherent in SQL databases may indeed be slower than directly accessing a huge text file, but I'm not sure how the two are comparable in terms of content flexibility. Or am I missing something?

In any case, you may want to take this discussion to the said topic http://www.outlinersoftware.com/topics/viewt/3047 as more relevant.

Alex is absolutely correct! I've seen corruption in one item ruin an entire file.

Alexander Deliyannis wrote:

JBfrom wrote:
>However, given
>the slowness of my previous experience with sql
databases, I'd want to hear reports of
>users successfully operating databases
much larger than 5gb. For example, one of my
>ebooks folders is 60gb.

I will point to
Richard's answer here http://www.outlinersoftware.com/messages/viewm/11337
to describe my own approach for such material too. I really cannot imagine why one
should want to keep a collection of PDFs within a single huge database file. The file
itself would become fragmented and slow, it would be a nightmare to backup regularly,
and would invite corruption in the event of the first problematic system
shutdown.

Re slowness, the client-server architecture inherent in SQL databases
may indeed be slower than directly accessing a huge text file, but I'm not sure how the
two are comparable in terms of content flexibility. Or am I missing something?

In
any case, you may want to take this discussion to the said topic
http://www.outlinersoftware.com/topics/viewt/3047 as more relevant.

Hi.

For those interested in Writing Outliner: Edwin just published a blog post informing that he is going to completely rewrite WO. This is necessary because WO can be instable and slow - as Edwin writes in his refreshingly outright post.

Franz

Here is the URL to Edwin's blog:

http://writingoutliner.com/writing-software/blog/about-to-fundamentally-revamp-writing-outliner/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New+plan+to+improve+the+stability++performance+of+Writing+Outliner&utm_content=New+plan+to+improve+the+stability++performance+of+Writing+Outliner+CID_4a99daf5650a675224aacae82f94742d&utm_source=Campaign+Monitor+Newsletter&utm_term=my+blog+post+here

Franz Grieser wrote:

Hi.

For those interested in Writing Outliner: Edwin just published a blog post
informing that he is going to completely rewrite WO. This is necessary because WO can
be instable and slow - as Edwin writes in his refreshingly outright post.

Franz

Franz Grieser wrote:

WO can
be instable and slow - as Edwin writes in his refreshingly outright post.

I am indeed very impressed by Edwin's forthrightness and dignity, especially given the fact that he is a lone developer, probably dependent upon the sales of his programs for his living. Yet he is willing to provide this v2.0 of his software for free to current customers.

Even more impressive is his clientelle's positive response.

@Franz,
Thanks for the heads-up. I'd like to clarify that the new version will not be a complete rewrite of Writing Outliner, mainly the following two parts will be changed:

1 - The way Writing Outliner interacts with MS Word. I believe that the new approach will fix the majority of the current problems.
2 - The storage of documents. The new storage will be just ordinary folders in your computer, instead of Sqlite databases.

Hope it helps.

@Alexander,
Thanks for the kind words :)

Hi.

Edwin just released a fix to the potential data loss bug.

Franz