Swift To Do List at Bits du Jour today
Started by Alexander Deliyannis
on 11/23/2011
Alexander Deliyannis
11/23/2011 7:41 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)
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)
Mitchell Kastner
11/24/2011 3:06 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:
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)
Alexander Deliyannis
11/25/2011 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.
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.
jimspoon
11/25/2011 8:25 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.
Alexander Deliyannis
11/25/2011 5:01 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:
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.
Alexander Deliyannis
11/27/2011 2:45 pm
P.S. Incidentally, I'm quite enamoured with the clean and efficient mobile interfaces of web tools such as Google+. I wondered whether it would be possible to have that kind of interface on my desktop. Normally, it shouldn't, as desktop browsers will identify themselves as such and the website will redirect them to the full version of the tool.
But there is a solution, which is to use a desktop browser customised for testing mobile applications. It can be done with Firefox with the help of a couple of add-ins, but the simplest solution I found is this http://www.opera.com/developer/tools/mobile/ (I believe that the normal Opera should also be installed in your PC for the mobile simulator to work)
But there is a solution, which is to use a desktop browser customised for testing mobile applications. It can be done with Firefox with the help of a couple of add-ins, but the simplest solution I found is this http://www.opera.com/developer/tools/mobile/ (I believe that the normal Opera should also be installed in your PC for the mobile simulator to work)