After playing around with EccoPro a while I am asking myself these questions:
1. Why has no developer created an EccoPro clone so far?
2. Why was the development of EccoPro stopped in 1997?

I am personally very surprised how stable EccoPro 4.01 runs on my machine (WinXP SP2). And I am overwhelmed by the functionality of EccoPro.
Further, even a lot of developer are marekting their tools as 'EccoPro clones' etc. no one really delivers the same or similar functionality.

Dominik

I'll have to ask one of the team members I know. My guess is that once they were part of a larger corporation, the product didn't get as much attention.

So what features are you especially craving? There are a number of reasons I'm not cloning it, but I'm always trying to figure out the best bang for the buck when adding to Opal.

I absolutely agree with you. Ecco is one of a kind.

For what it's worth, SQLnotes is an Ecco replacement. There have been a couple of other vaporware attempts over the years (Cold Mountain neXpect, Chandler, etc.), but SQLnotes is 1) not vaporware, though beta, and 2) has a superset of the Ecco functionality, not a subset, except for some features which have been farmed off to Outlook integration. Chandler is basically never-ending vaporware and the data model is silly; they would have been better off with the Ecco model.

TinderBox on the Mac is also an Ecco replacement. It's in version 4.0 and has an enormous feature set, again a superset of Ecco, but the learning curve is steep and its approach is different. But all the goods, including a data model of comparable power combined with outlining are there. It's a good product if you think visually.

The things that make Ecco special are the simple data model combined with outlining everywhere. If you're willing to sacrifice the data model but want to keep powerful columnar outlining with filters, etc., there are several good choices on the Mac (TAO, OmniOutliner, etc.). The market for this kind of software on Windows seems to be moribund.

By the way, if you use Ecco mostly as a task management or GTD tool (for which it is excellent because of the ability to have custom views), the new Mac app OmniFocus is probably the best replacement.

Omni took the outlining stuff from OmniOutliner, combined it with a date engine (like Ecco, it has repeating dates, though the model is more flexible in that repetition can be based on either when a task is completed or when it was scheduled to be compled) and added calendar integration and filters. It's not quite as general purpose as Ecco in that there are two hardcoded custom views (native and by context), though you can open any number of windows with filtered "Perspectives" (their term). It's hierarchical, of course, having the OmniOutliner editor embedded. The current beta doesn't support custom columns, but obviously that functionality is in their outlining control and they just have to expose it. Again, it's pretty close to Ecco, but without the Ecco data model's full generality. Still, it's as good as or better than Ecco for GTD, being tilted in that direction. I wish it was a total Ecco clone, but if wishes were horses.... Anyway, Omni has a full development team, it's not a one man shop, which is reassuring. I use it myself, now, though I still keep Ecco around.

Development of Ecco was halted in 1997 when Microsoft decided to bundle Outlook with Office 97. Netmanage threw in the towel, realizing it was hopeless to compete. I wrote more about the business aspects of this decision in a post here:
http://www.compusol.org/ecco/eccocase.html

Btw, if you're new to Ecco, be sure to investigate the eccoext extension that's floating around. Some hackers found out how to get at the Ecco data directly and the extension adds a swath of interesting new features.

-- Chris


Dominik Holenstein wrote:

2. Why was the development of
EccoPro stopped in 1997?

David Dunham wrote:

I'll have to ask one of the team members I know. My guess is that once they were part of a
larger corporation, the product didn't get as much attention.

So what features are
you especially craving? There are a number of reasons I'm not cloning it, but I'm
always trying to figure out the best bang for the buck when adding to Opal.

Ecoo notepads are, as far as I can tell, unique. The combination of the free form outlining capabilities and the columns is something no one has replicated. The programs that have the columns in their notepad-like sections lack the outlining and the programs that have the outlining on their notepad-type sections don't have the columns and almost none of the ones that have either feature implemented correctly have the needed calendar/task views and the related functionality.

Of course, Ecco had its faults. I don't use the 1997 version because the email integration stinks and the data storage as embedded items in the notepads isn't efficient.

Tom S.

Most "outliners" are one of two kinds: 1) Composition tools or 2) free form databases. To become wildly successful, however, an outliner probably needs to appeal to both groups, writers and pack rats, and allow users who desire the luxury to perform both functions in a single program. Everyone who has pursued this goal, perhaps the Holy Grail of Outlining, have not only failed to capture pre-eminence but have failed utterly from the commercial standpoint. At least according to some users, the first failure was the most successful, when evaluated from an objective rather than commercial standard. This was Grand View. Ecco is in this line, starting with GrandView and progressing through Ecco and ending in ADM on the Windows side. It still goes strong on the Mac, where the persistence of the columnar-metadata based variant creates the impression that outlining is healthier on that platform.

I looked seriously at Ecco for the first time a couple of days ago. The reason it had to fail is immediately apparent. For a writers' tool, it provides a very capable single-pane outliner, with no means of export to anything but some obscure device. For a pack rat, there is no means of _import_. Ecco tried to stand alone, so to succeed, it needed to dominate the pim market. Thus its vulnerability to the Outlook release. Speculative, this, because I know nothing of the actual historical details. Yet, these inferences seem readable on the face of the application.

Why did all the Holy Grail attempts on Windows fail? One observation that I find striking is that they all seem to have been created in a programming frenzy. Their development proceeded very quickly and then failed to be sustainable. Ultra-rapid development is a way of gaining significant market prominence. We CRIMP artists tend also to be sensation seekers, reveling in the new feature or design. It works with me, for sure. Ultra-rapid development is a kind of marketing ploy, one well-suited to a Holy Grail pim.

There is to my knowledge only a single Holy Grail pim available today, but I would be surprised if a single reader could guess my referent. It has attracted less much less attention, probably because of the glacial pace of development. Maybe I'll let someone guess.

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

There is to my knowledge only a single Holy Grail pim available today, but I
would be surprised if a single reader could guess my referent. It has attracted less
much less attention, probably because of the glacial pace of development. Maybe I'll
let someone guess.

Nice challenge, Stephen. I don't recall you being very enthusiastic about this, but I might guess InfoSelect, which has almost every feature anyone could ask for, it's just that most of them are clumsily implemented. Am I close?

Steve Z.

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

>There is to my knowledge only a single Holy Grail pim available today, but I
would be surprised if a single reader could guess my referent. It has attracted less
much less attention, probably because of the glacial pace of development. Maybe I'll
let someone guess.

Ok, I'll bite if only for a laugh. Is it Chandler? :0

Actually, the more I think about these programs, the more I think that we have too many programs under one roof to easily identify a Holy Grail. I started with Ecco at the very beginning in 1993. I liked the program because it was like having an office assistant. It had a calendar; reminded me of appointments; kept a phone log; and, this did not even count all of the great and powerful project management features found in the notepad and columns. Now, along comes Lotus, Microsoft and Novell, and look where we are today with respect to PIMs. Even Palm, which hosted the fantastic DateBk now rates a backset to Outlook, or worse yet, cell phones. I know this is a very truncated (and obviously opinionated) timeline, but the calendar portion of program seems to almost have fallen off of many of the new generation "PIMs".

While the new breed of programs can handle much more complex forms of data (PDF files, web pages, etc...), many have trouble with a simple recurring appointment! This is fine if you do not need a calendar, but I do. So, what works for one set of needs, often completely misses another set. This is why I do not believe that we will easily see the Holy Grail in one program. I am guessing that the program that meets ALL of these needs will either be buggy, bloated, or worse yet, both. And, what works today will probably not meet our demands in another few years as our bandwidth, and needs, expand.

Now that I have concluded my sermon, I will come off of the box and let Stephen have the floor.

For a pack rat, there is no means of _import_.

Huh?

There's the Shooter, which directly imports text from other applications. I use it all the time.

Agree that ECCO is not the Holy Grail I wish it might be, but that's not surprising since development was abandoned nearly a decade ago.

I still find it a wonderful tool for historical research. My main database contains information on several hundred people and several thousand discrete events, cross-referenced with respect to location, time period, topic, theme, etc. Raw data includes transcribed newspaper articles, 19th century lighthouse keeper's logs, government documents from the National Archives, web clips... you name it. The combination of outline structure, filters, and virtual folder capability gives me tremendous power to collect, extract, and analyze information.

Later today, I will be writing a magazine article on a fairly obscure topic relating to a specific location. My first step will be to call up all the relevant incidents from my database. I know from experience that within a matter of seconds I'll have a couple dozen anecdotes I can use to flesh out the story,

Maybe if I'd started with ZOOT years ago, I'd find that program as valuable as I do ECCO, but by this point, I could never imagine giving up on my most important tool. All future equipment and OS upgrades will have to meet my, "Will ECCO run?" litmus test.

Bob

I suspect if we were to poll everyone on this forum, we'd get a lot of different answers as to what constitutes the Holy Grail of outliners. My definition is based on functionality. For me the Holy Grail would be software that allowed me to manage the entire process of writing anything from start to finish -- finish being the export to Word to put the fancy formatting touches on the manuscript. To do this, it would require the following functions:

1. Nimble outlining capability... preferably in a single pane.
2. Full-featured word processor so that actual composition would not be hindered by sluggish editing controls.
3. Easy capture of content from other sources.
4. Sophisticated data categorization to organize, and slicing and dicing of my information.
5. Powerful search to locate information quickly.

What is not included in my idea of the Holy Grail of outliners is contact or calendar management.

Two currently developed pieces of software come somewhat close to meeting my definition of the HG: ndexCards (is this the HG you're talking about, Stephen?) and IdeaMason. That neither of these programs thrills me is due to their clumsy interfaces. I like IdeaMason -- own a license for it -- but I find it clunky and slow, probably due to its use of the .NET Framework technology.

Which just goes to show that it isn't just what's under the hood that matters, it is also how the steering wheel feels in your hands and whether or not you can reach the pedals with you feet!

Steve Z.

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

There is to my knowledge only a single Holy Grail pim available today, but I
would be surprised if a single reader could guess my referent. It has attracted less
much less attention, probably because of the glacial pace of development. Maybe I'll
let someone guess.

Maybe: Achieve Planner? :-)

HGs: NoteMap (or possibly Brainstorm) under Windows, and Tinderbox (or OmniOutliner Pro or Opal) on the Mac.

(That is, the HGs of outliners as outliners, as opposed to HGs of outliners as components of task planners, data managers, project managers, mind maps, drafting or other tools where discussion if all are taken together is in danger of comparing apples with oranges.)

Development of Notemap sure is glacial, if not frozen solid.

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

I suspect if we were to poll everyone on this forum, we'd get a lot of different answers
as to what constitutes the Holy Grail of outliners. My definition is based on
functionality. For me the Holy Grail would be software that allowed me to manage the
entire process of writing anything from start to finish -- finish being the export to
Word to put the fancy formatting touches on the manuscript. To do this, it would
require the following functions:

1. Nimble outlining capability... preferably
in a single pane.
2. Full-featured word processor so that actual composition would
not be hindered by sluggish editing controls.
3. Easy capture of content from other
sources.
4. Sophisticated data categorization to organize, and slicing and dicing
of my information.
5. Powerful search to locate information quickly.

What is not
included in my idea of the Holy Grail of outliners is contact or calendar
management.

My definition of the HG of outliners is nearly identical to yours:

1. Simply be an outliner (w/word processing engine)...single pane, no contact management, no calendaring.
2. Intuitively create/recognize outline structure based on context (think indentation).
3. Ability to "fold" ("hide"/"collapse") context subtrees.
4. Ability to easily move/demote/promote subtrees.
5. Support "tagging/titles" of outline entries and optionally hide/display those tags.

The idea here is that an outline is the "skeleton" of a document and that once the meat is on the bones, the skeleton is still there, but no longer visible.

sracer wrote:

My definition
of the HG of outliners is nearly identical to yours:

1. Simply be an outliner (w/word
processing engine)...single pane, no contact management, no calendaring.
2.
Intuitively create/recognize outline structure based on context (think
indentation).
3. Ability to "fold" ("hide"/"collapse") context subtrees.
4.
Ability to easily move/demote/promote subtrees.
5. Support "tagging/titles" of
outline entries and optionally hide/display those tags.

The idea here is that an
outline is the "skeleton" of a document and that once the meat is on the bones, the
skeleton is still there, but no longer visible.

This sounds a bit like MyInfo.

Ken wrote:

sracer wrote:
>
>My definition
>of the HG of outliners is nearly identical to
yours:
>
>1. Simply be an outliner (w/word
>processing engine)...single pane, no
contact management, no calendaring.
>2.
>Intuitively create/recognize outline
structure based on context (think
>indentation).
>3. Ability to "fold"
("hide"/"collapse") context subtrees.
>4.
>Ability to easily
move/demote/promote subtrees.
>5. Support "tagging/titles" of
>outline
entries and optionally hide/display those tags.
>
>The idea here is that an

>outline is the "skeleton" of a document and that once the meat is on the bones, the

>skeleton is still there, but no longer visible.

This sounds a bit like MyInfo.

Except MyInfo is a two-pane outliner: it doesn't comply with rule 1.

Wes Perdue wrote:

Except MyInfo is a two-pane
outliner: it doesn't comply with rule 1.

Exactly. I already use KeyNote for data organizing and appears to hold its own against apps like MyInfo. I don't even know if it is fair to call a 2 or 3 pane application an outliner.

KeyNote does a great job of managing and organizing pieces of information in a tree-like structure. But there are some times when data is more of a network/web than a hierarchy. For those instances, I've been getting into WikidPad... an offline wiki. For example, I'm compiling stories from my childhood for my kids and it is great to have data automatically linked from various places. So it doesn't matter what path the reader takes, whenever they run across a reference to "Uncle Joe", clicking on that link will take them to the same information.

But for outlining in the traditional sense, I really think that single pane is it. I find that having more than a single pane visually and mentally breaks the document up too much.

But for outlining in the traditional sense, I really think that single pane
is it. I find that having more than a single pane visually and mentally
breaks the document up too much.

The "correct" answer was ndx Cards.

Holy Grail: 2. The object of prolonged endeavor. (American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition.)

A Holy Grail Outliner by my meaning is not a user's opinion about the ideal outliner but the outliners that have been products of a particular vision of an outlining Holy Grail. It is a noteworthy vision because it animated the most popular and competent outliners. This particular Holy Grail is the unification of information management and information manipulation. The thinking goes like this.

There's only so much you can do with an outliner; similarly with a database. But what if you could combine the two. But if you try to have a convenient information manager, you seem always to end up with a clunky outliner. Vice versa, too. But what if you could get a really great outliner somehow paired with an information manager? Some say GrandView succeeded.

A single pane outliner is in general sine qua non, but I make the exception for ADM. It beefed up the manipulative capabilities of the outlining pane so that it could serve as a single pane outliner, a writer's outliner, if you could manage to be satisfied with ADM's printed output.

As a poster pointed out, I erred in saying Ecco lacked import. As it now looks to me, Ecco succesfully appealed mostly to the pack rats. The absent feature was export.

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

>But for outlining in the traditional sense, I really think that single pane
>is it. I
find that having more than a single pane visually and mentally
>breaks the document
up too much.

The "correct" answer was ndx Cards.

Holy Grail: 2. The object of
prolonged endeavor. (American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition.)

A Holy
Grail Outliner by my meaning is not a user's opinion about the ideal outliner but the
outliners that have been products of a particular vision of an outlining Holy Grail.
It is a noteworthy vision because it animated the most popular and competent
outliners. This particular Holy Grail is the unification of information management
and information manipulation. The thinking goes like this.

There's only so much
you can do with an outliner; similarly with a database. But what if you could combine
the two. But if you try to have a convenient information manager, you seem always to end
up with a clunky outliner. Vice versa, too. But what if you could get a really great
outliner somehow paired with an information manager? Some say GrandView succeeded.

It seems to me that you have an expanded/different definition of "outline". (That isn't a bad thing, but we're obviously talking about two different animals here) I'm thinking of outline in a more traditional sense... the means to an end. There are plenty of info organizers that use a tree/outline metaphor to manage data.

But where are the true outliners? I haven't seen one since the old PC-DOS days. :(

sracer wrote:

The idea here is that an
outline is the "skeleton" of a document and that once the meat is on the bones, the
skeleton is still there, but no longer visible.

I agree completely with this assessment. This is what made GrandView unique in my experience. The content of each heading could be composed in a dedicated word processing window, then when you returned to the outline, you could turn the content off and on, so you could view your entire work either in its "skeletal" outline or in its entirety with the content visible, all in one flowing document. This kind of holistic approach is essential in clear writing, in my opinion.

I also agree with your comment that two- and three-pane PIMs are not strictly speaking outliners, but free-form databases that use an outline as a mechanism for organizing that information.

This is a great thread.

Steve Z.

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

The "correct" answer was ndx Cards.

Stephen,

I think you're right that ndxCards might be the closes thing to the Holy Grail -- that is, if you use your definition of what the HG of outliners is, as opposed to mine or sracer's. So why isn't it more popular? It can't just be that it has a glacial development process. ECCO hasn't been enhanced in years, but it still is more popular than ndxCards. As I mentioned, for me it is the interface. The note card windows feel constraining and limiting. Is there any other reason?

Steve z.

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>The "correct" answer was ndx Cards.

Stephen,

I
think you're right that ndxCards might be the closes thing to the Holy Grail -- that is,
if you use your definition of what the HG of outliners is, as opposed to mine or
sracer's. So why isn't it more popular? It can't just be that it has a glacial
development process. ECCO hasn't been enhanced in years, but it still is more popular
than ndxCards. As I mentioned, for me it is the interface. The note card windows feel
constraining and limiting. Is there any other reason?

Steve z.

For me (and I own a copy) it is as much a matter of design as anything else. The look is plain, and the colours are washed-out if not dreary (though true-ish to the chosen metaphor). Its website is similar. ECCO, by contrast, has its bright, business-like, legal-pad metaphor (and of course can also do clever things with columns, has calendar and contacts components and syncs with a Palm - oh, and it's free!).

A minor but additional point - I seem to rememember ndx is one of those programmes that lock parts of their forums away from the eyes of non-users, not the shrewdest marketing tactic in my view.

I try not to let such factors influence my choices - apart of course from price - but they do.

H

ndx Cards has a top tier outliner, but just barely. (For example, it lacks a hoist function or elaborate controls over partial folding of the tree.) It has a fairly good free form database, but far from the best. (Most importantly, in my opinion, it should make its key words hierarchical. By my standards, any way, this would at least put it at the bottom of the top tier as an information manager.)

So,, for commercial success, the information management function seems to be more important than the outlining function, and the information management function is not extremely strong. Second, some people (I am one of them) will not settle for a less-than-favorite (writers') outliner, no matter how great the integration. This may be more characteristic of the users searching mainly for an outliner in the strict sense.

The successful Holy Grail Outliner probably must be top-tier in both respects and perhaps must have attached the best outliner available.




Stephen Zeoli wrote:

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
>The "correct" answer was ndx Cards.

Stephen,

I
think you're right that ndxCards might be the closes thing to the Holy Grail -- that is,
if you use your definition of what the HG of outliners is, as opposed to mine or
sracer's. So why isn't it more popular? It can't just be that it has a glacial
development process. ECCO hasn't been enhanced in years, but it still is more popular
than ndxCards. As I mentioned, for me it is the interface. The note card windows feel
constraining and limiting. Is there any other reason?

Steve z.

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

ndx Cards has a top tier outliner, but just barely. (For example, it lacks a hoist
function or elaborate controls over partial folding of the tree.)

OK, what do people mean by folding (partial or otherwise)? I know of at least four ways to limit topic visibility (I'll use Opal's terminology because I know it):

1. Collapsing (hides subtopics)
2. Focusing (which most people call "hoisting", limits view to only topic and subtopics)
3. Shrinking (reduces how much of a topic is shown, to first line only in Opal)
4. Filtering (shows only qualified topics)

I _meant_ collapsing (the word had slipped my mind), although "folding" often (and perhaps in best usage) refers to yet a fifth way: by showing only the first line of an item.