Forum Posts Feed
WhizFolders vs Scrivener for Windows
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Dr Andus
Nov 28, 2011 at 09:46 PM
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.
Posted by Jon Polish
Nov 29, 2011 at 01:26 PM
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
Posted by Pavi
Nov 29, 2011 at 07:42 PM
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.
Posted by Daly de Gagne
Nov 29, 2011 at 09:34 PM
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
Posted by Jon Polish
Dec 7, 2011 at 03:02 PM
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