Can someone please weigh in on these two choices? I know both programs well enough to be confused about which would be more suitable for non-fiction, academic writing projects. I use (and like) Ultra Recall and find that many of the features in WhizFolders exist in UR. What do you suggest and why?

Jon

Jon,

I'm more familiar with Scrivener than with Whizfolders, although I have a license for both and have used both, so I hope my thoughts will prove helpful.

I would choose Scrivener over Whizfolders in a heart beat. I can't think of anything Whizfolders can do that Scrivener can't, but I can think of a lot that Scrivener can do that Whizfolders can't. Namely:

Scrivener has a cork board view, which is handy for brainstorming and planning your work.

Scrivener has an outliner view, not super powerful, but not bad.

Scrivener has the scrivenings view, which allows you all or selected documents in your project in one single, flowing window. This is a very fine feature for writers, because it allows you to judge how your material flows. (Whizfolders has a similar feature, but it feels much more cumbersome to me.)

Scrivener allows you to attach synopses to your documents.

Scrivener allows you to attach various pieces of meta data to your entries (in Whizfolders you can attach keywords, but I believe that's all).

Beyond this, I find Scrivener so much more user friendly. Whizfolders has two different editing modes. The interface feels cluttered in Whizfolders. I've always wanted to like Whizfolders, having bought a license seven or eight years ago, but even before Scrivener came along I had abandoned it because it never felt very intuitive.

Steve Z.

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

friendly. Whizfolders has two different editing modes. The interface feels
cluttered in Whizfolders. I've always wanted to like Whizfolders, having bought a
license seven or eight years ago, but even before Scrivener came along I had abandoned
it because it never felt very intuitive.

Steve Z.

Thank you for your thoughts. I read your posts and reviews and respect your opinion. I too have licenses for both programs. WhizFolders interface has changed somewhat with the latest version, and appears less cluttered to me. Even so, the tool bars can be customized and made as simple as you like.

Jon

That's nice of you to say, Jon.

I should have mentioned at least one advantage Whizfolders has over Scrivener (for Windows), is a longer history, and a developer who have demonstrated their commitment to continually improving their program. I'm confident in the Scrivener crew, but they haven't proven themselves to the extent that the Whizfolders people have.

SZ

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

Jon,
I would
choose Scrivener over Whizfolders in a heart beat. I can't think of anything
Whizfolders can do that Scrivener can't, but I can think of a lot that Scrivener can do
that Whizfolders can't.

I've always wanted to like Whizfolders, having bought a

license seven or eight years ago, but even before Scrivener came along I had abandoned
it because it never felt very intuitive.

I had a similar experience to Steve. I had high hopes for Whizfolders 5 years ago, when I bought my licence (I haven't upgraded to the latest version, so my comments relate to the previous one). I wanted to use it as a central wiki and database for my academic writing. I never really made much use of the wiki features (ability to link items), although I did end up using it as a kind of a hierarchical database of my reading notes. I liked using the "Watch clipboard" feature, which allowed me to capture quotes from PDF articles by hitting control+C.

However, since Scrivener for Windows arrived, I hardly ever turn Whizfolders on. It still stores my old notes but I do all my academic writing now in Scrivener, for the reasons Steve mentioned. I'm not quite sure what I'll be using Whizfolders for next. Somehow I feel that its development did not move with the times and it is becoming gradually less relevant.

And there is also the issue of cost/benefit. Given the price of the de lux version of Whizfolders (or at least what I paid for it), I wasn't compelled to keep getting it upgraded. The new licensing regime doesn't quite work for me. On the other hand Scrivener just seemed like excellent value for money.

Dr Andus wrote:

And there is also the issue of cost/benefit. Given the price of the de lux version of
Whizfolders (or at least what I paid for it), I wasn't compelled to keep getting it
upgraded. The new licensing regime doesn't quite work for me. On the other hand
Scrivener just seemed like excellent value for money.

As I said earlier, I have a license for both programs. This includes the current version of WhizFolders. Like you, I had not upgraded for about five years, but when I learned that the upgrade was $24.00, it seemed like a fair deal.

Scrivener is very compelling, and I appreciate your input. WhizFolders has some features (OLE for one) that are useful to me, but I already use UR extensively, so WhizFolders may prove redundant. Still, the editor in WF is quite good and the ability to have multiple documents open at once is beneficial. I am really enamored with Scrivener's Snapshot feature. Did you know that WhizFolders has a similar feature named "View Changed Notes Archive?" Also, the most maddening quirk for me, the way WF started and terminated, has been changed.

I admit to still being undecided, but leaning toward Scrivener.

Jon

Hi Jon,

I recently posted about using UltraRecall as an outliner via embedded word files in one of the recent "Scrivener" threads. There are a few things to configure, but it works very well, and then all your research is handy as well (ie. webpages, files, links, email, etc).

I will update my notes and post the details of the setup. However, I am finding it hard to use a separate dedicated writing environment since UR does work very well, and thus I can avoid fragmentation across different applications.

Best, /Pavi

Jon Polish wrote:

Dr Andus wrote:
>And there is also the issue of cost/benefit. Given the price of the
de lux version of
>Whizfolders (or at least what I paid for it), I wasn't compelled to
keep getting it
>upgraded. The new licensing regime doesn't quite work for me. On the
other hand
>Scrivener just seemed like excellent value for money.

As I said
earlier, I have a license for both programs. This includes the current version of
WhizFolders. Like you, I had not upgraded for about five years, but when I learned that
the upgrade was $24.00, it seemed like a fair deal.

I haven't looked at WhizFolders for a while. Looking at the latest version today I see some nice enhancements. The ability to have different icons for notes is useful, as well as being attractive.

I also like the fact that there can be multiple open windows for topics. It amazes me how many software developers have dragged their feet on providing such a useful feature for anyone whose writing involves being able to scan other documents for information.

The WF developer, as I have observed over the years, has consistently supported the product, and taken pride in it. He obviously has a clear sense of what note takers and writers need, up to, but not including the specific needs of academic writers who have to track references.

Daly

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.

Now the interfaces are a different matter. Scrivener is far more pleasing and WF too cluttered. But that can be changed as well. The kicker is that on my system, WF program files consume about 19.6 MB. Scrivener takes up 184 MB. Not that it matters any more, but it is interesting.

WF can be run as a portable application. Scrivener can too, but the company seems to discourage it.

WF lacks Scrivener's cork board, but topics can be moved around easily enough.

Import/Export are comparable with WF having the edge.

The ability to edit multiple topics in separate windows is a big plus in WF's favor.

Scivener is visually much nicer.

Both don't handle citations as well as they should.

Both have auditing features (Snapshot in Scivener; Changed Note Archive in WF). Scrivener's is manual and WF is automatic. However, WF's archive gets purged at undefined intervals. Apparently these settings are not user adjustable, so I can't rely on this feature in WF.

Aaaaarrrrrgggghhhhh. Both have their appeal. Still undecided.

Jon

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.

Jon Polish wrote:

The ability to edit multiple topics in separate
windows is a big plus in WF's favor.

Scrivener on the other hand has some nifty split-screen views which allow for some sophisticated editing and writing set-ups.

Dr Andus wrote:

Jon Polish wrote:
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.

I am aware of the slowdown that you are warned about in WF's documentation, but have not experienced it enough to be concerned. I did encounter slow-downs to the extent that I thought WF was frozen, but that was with earlier versions (and because this was a while ago, less powerful hardware).

I agree about the cork board. It is a great feature.

Hoisting is needed in Scrivener. WF has improved its implementation so that you can now hoist sub level topics. The fact that you can view your entire outline and edit individual sections in-line or externally with the WF editor is very nice too.

Jon

Scrivener for Windows has what is *almost* a hoist. Select a sub folder or sub note, choose outline view and you will see just that note's sub notes in the outline view. The same works for the cork board.

The collections function is also a useful method of viewing subsets of your project.

Steve Z.

Thank you. I forgot about that.

Jon

Just an update on my experience with Scrivener.

1. I have gotten the RTF parsing issue reported in Scrivener's forums. It prevents the opening of your project. After repeated tries, my project finally opened with no apparent data loss. I do not know if I was lucky to have it open finally, but the potential to be locked out is worrisome. Yes, I know that the project is saved as easily accessible rtf and txt files, but you need to recreate your work flow in another program which can be time consuming.

2. Undo in Scrivener is very basic. It seems that it is limited to one level, and does not always work as expected.

3. I have experienced the loss of information in index cards. This seems sporadic, and has been reported on the forums. It does not appear to be linked to usre error. One type of data loss in the index cards is repeatable. Drag text from the document to the index card. Delete the highlighted text you dragged from its original location in the document. Go to another document in the binder. Return to the previous document and see that the text in the index card is no longer there.

I am sure the developers will get this sorted out, but it is disconcerting. I am transferring my project to WhizFolders for now.

Jon

I am recent new user for both Scrivener and WhizFolders.

I am finding that they both have their use in my toolbox. Won't go into the benefits of Scrivener because I think it is an exceptional application, particularly for the price.

Even after getting Scrivener, I find myself going to Whizfolders when I need more of a database/outline. For example, I review a lot of proposals for work, and find the 2 pane format easy to use for individual proposal comments. True, Scrivener could do this too but WF seems more straightforward for a large number of folders and a quick storage use.

I do wish that WF had a more attractive interface, and better interactivity in the menus. Also, although I recognize that RTF has its limitations, other apps (Rightnote, UltraRecall) can easily paste images and web content where sometimes WF is a little less helpful probably due its more formal implementation of RTF?

You can't ask for a more responsive developer if you have questions than Sanjay, WF's developer.


-- Luis