While everyone else searches for the perfect pim, I search for the perfect mind mapper. I have two at present, apart from FreeMind. Visual-Mind wants to charge $100 for an upgrade to version 9 that from my point of view, does nothing more than correct some of the bugs in version 8. There are so many bugs in version 8, that this becomes a make or break decision, and I have pretty decided on break.

Visi-Map just barely and even questionably possesses all the features of a "modern outliner." It lacks true undo, although the effort to simulate it is laudable. It lacks multiple selection, although its "Copy Children" command accomplishes about 80% of what I need from multiple selection. My impression is that V-M suffers from having been the first to enter this market, and now having to update infrastructure adequate at the time.

Visi-Map and Visual-Mind share a feature that I demand from a mind mapper. I refuse to type "enter" twice or use the Insert key, when programs are available that let you just start typing. Perhaps this filter serves me mostly by reducing the complexity of decision, because it eliminates most of the contenders, such as MindManager and OpenMind. These may be the most full-featured or otherwise lavish mind mapping programs. Perhaps someone can make sense of their method of data entry, when Visi-Map showed a better way from the start (1998?)

One other program uses this fully modern method of data entry: Mind Genius, which I have belatedly decided is the best of the lot. What really sets it apart is but a single killer feature, appearing in how it implements its "Map Explorer." Clicking on an item in the Map Explorer immediately Hoists to the item, as does pressing f6. (No mind mapper but Nova Mind has customizable shortcut keys, an under-appreciated feature in NoteMap, several clip managers, and of course Word. I find NovaMind otherwise unusable, however.) Visi-Map has no Map Explorer, which is better design than Visual-Mind, in which the Map Explorer (as in most mind mappers) does nothing more than select the topic in the Map Explorer in the map itself.

Does this single feature warrant the price of MindGenius? Consider that Visi-Mind, with its limitations from a purist point of view, has at least one important feature no one else seems to, Hide (as applied to selected topics). Who will tell me what to do?

As far as I can tell, mind maps just present a graphical representation of an outline. In Inspiration, for example, one can create an outline and with a click or two convert it to a mind map or one can do the reverse. (Admittedly, Inspiration is clunky to use.)

The Brain goes further, in that one can have net-like connections which are more general than a strict hierarchy, allowing connections to more than just a parent or to children. This seems to me to be much more real-world.

I must admit, however, that not being very visually oriented, I have not used The Brain. I think that in (single-pane) outliners, the net-like link features in the Brain can be approximated with the use of clones and hyperlinks to other items in the outline.

-c

Hi,

Have you tried Personal Memory Manager ?
http://www.pmm.nl/

I haven't bought it yet but it looks very good to me.
Have a nice day,

Sebastien

While it's fairly expensive, you might look at the new version of MindManager, available at http://www.mindjet.com/us/ The new version lets you hoist the drawing or the outline with a function key press.

Mike

I am not going to answer specifically about the software, but, FWIW, I will throw out some thoughts for consideration. While we primarily use these tools for work, we seem to have an additional interest in these software packages, otherwise we would not be here looking for the next Holy Grail. So, like others who have hobbies (in this case one that crosses over with your occupation), you need to decide how much time and money you can afford to invest in learning and experimenting. I know there are many gear hounds out there who will buy and try almost anything and everything, just for the experience of it. So, it seems to me that a base level question for consideration is, "Do you want to invest the time and money for the experience?" Its a question that I always ask myself if I am not certain of a purchase. This way, if the product does not meet my expectations, I am a bit more prepared for the "write-off". Good luck!

Cassius wrote:

As far as I can tell, mind maps just present a graphical representation of an outline.
In Inspiration, for example, one can create an outline and with a click or two convert
it to a mind map or one can do the reverse. (Admittedly, Inspiration is clunky to
use.)

The Brain goes further, in that one can have net-like connections which are
more general than a strict hierarchy, allowing connections to more than just a parent
or to children. This seems to me to be much more real-world.

MindGenius allows what it calls "Mental Connections," which are non-hierarchical. I think they should be used sparingly.

I must admit, however,
that not being very visually oriented, I have not used The Brain. I think that in
(single-pane) outliners, the net-like link features in the Brain can be
approximated with the use of clones and hyperlinks to other items in the
outline.

-c

PMM lacks multiple undo, a critical feature for me.

I checked out the latest MindManager. Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see a true hoist. The mind mapping programs usually seem to have a feature called "cut to separate mind map." This stands in for hoist, but lacks the speed and preservation of both views.

I really don't like Mind Manager. It has that extra keypress to enter data. It has a lot of features, while lacking some I think are much more important (such as customizable shortcut keys). Plus, it has the most expensive add-ons I have ever seen. Anyone with CRIMP would be well-advised to eschew MindManager, because the add-on temptation would suck one dry.

I use a mind mapper as an outliner. I think an outliner should be both powerful and transparent, but MindManager lacks transparency. There are so many controls that they create a constant temptation to embellish at the expense of productive work.

Cassius wrote:

As far as I can tell, mind maps just present a graphical representation of an outline.

I completely agree with Cassius. The mind maps are nothing else than a tree that you see in all outliners. The only difference is, that the root item is in the middle. Once you realize this, you just work with your favorite outliner as a mind manager. I personally use UltraRecall, let's me host the root of the topic, and then a map is done with a simple inserts ... I use it when I prepare a presentation or think about a project ... no need for fancy stuff, it only slows down ... + the big advantage is that my notes and mind maps are in one place

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

Cassius wrote:
>As far as I can tell, mind maps just present a graphical
representation of an outline.
>In Inspiration, for example, one can create an
outline and with a click or two convert
>it to a mind map or one can do the reverse.
(Admittedly, Inspiration is clunky to
>use.)
>
>The Brain goes further, in that
one can have net-like connections which are
>more general than a strict hierarchy,
allowing connections to more than just a parent
>or to children. This seems to me to be
much more real-world.

MindGenius allows what it calls "Mental Connections,"
which are non-hierarchical. I think they should be used sparingly.
>
>I must admit,
however,
>that not being very visually oriented, I have not used The Brain. I think
that in
>(single-pane) outliners, the net-like link features in the Brain can be

>approximated with the use of clones and hyperlinks to other items in the

>outline.
>
>-c
>

Unfortunately, as far as I know, Mindgenius development is not happening. The best feature is its ability to add nested categories, and other useful properties to Topics, and then to create arbitrarily complex filters. But the fact that development has been at a standstill for 2 years or more completely puts me off. Does anyone know any different about their plans to design and build a Version 3?

For what it's worth, there is a class of software like mind mappers but which allow arbitrary non-hierarchical diagrams. This category of software is usually called concept mappers rather than mind mappers.

I've never understood the popularity of mind mappers either. A radial hierarchy is harder to read, especially after a recent edit that shifts everything around, than a linear outline, and they convey the same information. MindJet MindManager is absurdly expensive for what it offers.

-- Chris


Cassius wrote:

As far as I can tell, mind maps just present a graphical representation of an outline.
In Inspiration, for example, one can create an outline and with a click or two convert
it to a mind map or one can do the reverse. (Admittedly, Inspiration is clunky to
use.)

The advantage of the radial format il getting all the information on a single page. Mindmappers support short term memory and aid in the chunking process.

quant wrote:

Cassius wrote:
>As far as I can tell, mind maps just present a graphical
representation of an outline.

I completely agree with Cassius. The mind maps are
nothing else than a tree that you see in all outliners. The only difference is, that the
root item is in the middle. Once you realize this, you just work with your favorite
outliner as a mind manager. I personally use UltraRecall, let's me host the root of the
topic, and then a map is done with a simple inserts ... I use it when I prepare a
presentation or think about a project ... no need for fancy stuff, it only slows down
... + the big advantage is that my notes and mind maps are in one place

How do you know development has been at a standstill? I don't know. I assumed they just had a longer development cycle. Gael seems to have many corporate customers, and I think corporations tend to prefer development at Microsoft-pace. This is far from slow, but each release is a big event.

Anyway, I'm not even sure I care, as long as the product is otherwise supported, which it seems to be. I use a mindmapper in the manner of a pure outliner (albeit with the unfortunate two panes, which seems unavoidable with a mind mapper). To me an outliner is a collection of basic time-tested features (and of those innovations that really stand a chance of achieving parity with these classical stigmata of outlining). I am unperturbed by the lack of apparent development of BrainStorm, NoteMap, and MindGenius. (I don't think MS Word did much more with its outliner in Office 2007--maybe someone can say definitely.) I don't see outlining as a 'discipline' developing at a mad pace. (Information management technology is another matter, which is why the packrats are rightfully more concerned with life on the bleeding edge.) The only feature I would really like to see in MindGenius, at this moment, is customizable keyboard control. On the other hand, I find the pace of development of Visual Mind simply annoying, as I would the pace of Mind Manager, were I a user. I think it's bloat in the worst sense.

Stephen,

It sounds as if you have convinced yourself to invest the money in getting a license for MindGenius... Sounds like the wise thing to do since you rely heavily on mind mappers. Like others, I don't find mind mappers very useful... they quickly get too big and hard for me to absorb. But then, the same is true for me with outlines -- at least as they are used as organizational structures for PIMs. I do think that mind mappers can be useful in conveying information to others.

I have always thought that B-Liner was an interesting concept. It allows you to shift your map into different views, including one that mimics at traditional outline format. I wish the company were still developing B-Liner, because I think it had a lot of potential.

Steve Z.

Mindmanager 7: Press F4 for a true hoist/unhoist -- corresponds to "Show Branch Alone" one the View ribbon
Use brainstorm mode for single return addition of new entries.
xxx

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

I checked out the latest MindManager. Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see a true
hoist. The mind mapping programs usually seem to have a feature called "cut to
separate mind map." This stands in for hoist, but lacks the speed and preservation of
both views.

I really don't like Mind Manager. It has that extra keypress to enter
data. It has a lot of features, while lacking some I think are much more important (such
as customizable shortcut keys). Plus, it has the most expensive add-ons I have ever
seen. Anyone with CRIMP would be well-advised to eschew MindManager, because the
add-on temptation would suck one dry.

I use a mind mapper as an outliner. I think an
outliner should be both powerful and transparent, but MindManager lacks
transparency. There are so many controls that they create a constant temptation to
embellish at the expense of productive work.

Ian Goldsmid wrote:

Unfortunately, as far as I know, Mindgenius
development is not happening.

Googling around on the Internet, I find MindGenius in something of the position in Great Britain as Inspiration in the U.S. They have penetrated the British education market more deeply than I realized. Having established this niche, would it make any sense to stop development?

The specifications for version 2 don't look like any huge leap over version 1. It looks like MindGenius was born fairly mature, which also has consequennces for pace of development.

The best feature is its ability to add nested
categories, and other useful properties to Topics, and then to create arbitrarily
complex filters.

That's the most distinctive feature (but how do MindManager's capabilities compare?). Also probably the most sophisticated. I don't right off see how I would use it. For me, the implementation of the Map Explorer as a hoisting mechanism is the best feature.

Chris Thompson wrote:

I've never understood the popularity of
mind mappers either

Good. An opportunity to test a theory. The popular wisdom is that mind mappers are for people who "think visually." Not being entirely sure what that means, I'm not going to say it's entirely wrong. But if one aspect of "thinking visually" is having superior Spatio-Visual abilities, I think in that respect the adage is exactly wrong. My evidence is limited though. The hypothesis is that mindmappers and the like serve to support weak spatial abilities instead of further benefitting those strong in that area. A good indicator of spatial visualization is your sense of geographical direction--the ability not to get lost in transit. Another is the ability to visualize what something looks like rotated or otherwise spatially transformed.

Anyway, since you find mindmappers otiose, the prediction is that spatio-visual ability is an area of relative strength. In a sense, you reject mindmappers because you are visual enough without them. Right or wrong?

Cassius wrote:
>As far as I can tell, mind maps just present a graphical
representation of an outline.
>In Inspiration, for example, one can create an
outline and with a click or two convert
>it to a mind map or one can do the reverse.
(Admittedly, Inspiration is clunky to
>use.)
>

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

I use a mindmapper in the manner
of a pure outliner (albeit with the unfortunate two panes, which seems unavoidable
with a mind mapper).

I haven't really used it, but I thought Inspiration was a one-pane outliner and mind mapper?

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

Ian Goldsmid wrote:
>Unfortunately, as far as I know, Mindgenius
>development
is not happening.

Googling around on the Internet, I find MindGenius in something
of the position in Great Britain as Inspiration in the U.S. They have penetrated the
British education market more deeply than I realized. Having established this
niche, would it make any sense to stop development?

The specifications for version
2 don't look like any huge leap over version 1. It looks like MindGenius was born fairly
mature, which also has consequennces for pace of development.


>The best feature
is its ability to add nested
>categories, and other useful properties to Topics, and
then to create arbitrarily
>complex filters.

That's the most distinctive
feature (but how do MindManager's capabilities compare?). Also probably the most
sophisticated. I don't right off see how I would use it. For me, the implementation of
the Map Explorer as a hoisting mechanism is the best feature.

Stephen - Mind Manager V7 Pro has a decent power filter, much better than the previous V6 - but its still nowhere close to Mindgenius in building a sophisticated filter. There is hoisting now for Mind Manager 7, if you go to Mindjet.com/labs and install the free Map Explorer, it provides pretty much identical capability to the one in MindGenius.

One of the biggest drawbacks for me in Mind Manager, is that as the map gets even somewhat large, the ability to move around really slows down - kind of gets "sticky"., and I have a quite powerful PC, a core duo 6600, 2 gig ram, but MM still feels too sluggish when moving around the map.

I hope you are right that Mindgenius are just moving slowly rather than stopped. I appreciate your vote of confidence about it.That has resurrected my interest in it, so I'm giving it another shot. Mainly because I am thinking ahead to having a very large map, and with Mindgenius power filters, hoisting, and ability to create Category & Resource maps, this makes me feel confident I will be able to find the trees in the forest so to speak.

Ian

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

...

Good. An opportunity to test a theory. The popular wisdom is that mind
mappers are for people who "think visually." Not being entirely sure what that means,
I'm not going to say it's entirely wrong. But if one aspect of "thinking visually" is
having superior Spatio-Visual abilities, I think in that respect the adage is
exactly wrong. My evidence is limited though. The hypothesis is that mindmappers and
the like serve to support weak spatial abilities instead of further benefitting
those strong in that area. A good indicator of spatial visualization is your sense of
geographical direction--the ability not to get lost in transit. Another is the
ability to visualize what something looks like rotated or otherwise spatially
transformed.

Anyway, since you find mindmappers otiose, the prediction is that
spatio-visual ability is an area of relative strength. In a sense, you reject
mindmappers because you are visual enough without them. Right or wrong?

A sample of size 1 (me) suggests that the answer is WRONG.

1. As demonstrated by actual testing, my analytic abilities are strong; my visualization abilities are weak.

2. I have a reasonably good sense of direction, due to my analytic abilities, not visualization. [Although here in Northern Virginia, where the cows really did lay out the road structure, I can become disoriented.]

3. I scored well on a US Air Force Navigation test, because of my analytic ability to match topographic features, not because of my meager visualization abilities.

4. I have a strong antipathy toward mind mappers: Why should I use a tool that requires an ability, the lack of which I have in full measure?

-c

Cassius wrote:

If you don't mind disclosing, what tests indicate your visualization abilities are poor? I'm not convinced your self-assessment is correct, in that the use of analytic features in a spatially-based format requires spatio-visual ability. Some studies indicate that tests classically thought to represent analytic ability, such as figural analogies and matrices, load even more on spatio-visual ability than on "fluid 'g.'"

Your opinion expressed at point 4 was for a long time mine. Mind mapping is advertised as being for "visual thinkers," and I think mostly in words, at least consciously. What convinced me to give mind mapping a chance was a comment by legal writing authority Bryan Gardner (now editor of Black's Law Dictionary) that he for years avoided mind mapping (Gardner uses a different name for it that I don't recall). He now uses it in the early stages of planning, having found it improves the availability of insights.

A sample of size 1 (me) suggests that the
answer is WRONG.

1. As demonstrated by actual testing, my analytic abilities are
strong; my visualization abilities are weak.

2. I have a reasonably good sense of
direction, due to my analytic abilities, not visualization. [Although here in
Northern Virginia, where the cows really did lay out the road structure, I can become
disoriented.]

3. I scored well on a US Air Force Navigation test, because of my
analytic ability to match topographic features, not because of my meager
visualization abilities.

4. I have a strong antipathy toward mind mappers: Why
should I use a tool that requires an ability, the lack of which I have in full
measure?

-c

Concept mapper - the difference mainly consisting of labeled connectors in concept maps. From a practical standpoint, however, the more important difference might be the process for creating diagrams. In mind mappers you create nodes and the connectors take care of themselves. In Inspiration concept maps, you create both the node and connector manually.

Inspiration 8 International Edition, however, adds a mind mapping module that works mostly as expected to the already existing outline and concept map modules. Of course, as it turns out, the one feature it lacks is the one I most want. Inspiration has a Focus (or hoist) in outline and concept map but none in mind map, even though most of the functions are implemented across all three modules. I suspect the absence will be repaired in the next major version if not before. Inspiration has recently released a bug fix for version 8 International that corrects problems including some I had experienced previously.

I hold Inspiration in high regard, but I don't enjoy using it. I haven't completely figured out why. I don't think Inspiration gets the respect it deserves in non-education settings, and if the mind mapper had Focus, I would buy the product, despite my affective reservations.

As to why those reservations present, I think they may well be irrational. I detect in myself and others something of a prejudice against cross-platform products. (I don't mean ports but products that evolved from their early days to suit the demands of both Windows and Macintosh.) I'm not sure if this reservation reflects a reality that you cannot design with full effectiveness to suit two masters or cross-platform efforts simply offend the platform chauvinism of each platform's users.

David Dunham wrote:

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

>I use a mindmapper in the manner
>of a pure outliner
(albeit with the unfortunate two panes, which seems unavoidable
>with a mind
mapper).

I haven't really used it, but I thought Inspiration was a one-pane
outliner and mind mapper?

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

If you don't mind disclosing, what tests indicate your
visualization abilities are poor? I'm not convinced your self-assessment is
correct, in that the use of analytic features in a spatially-based format requires
spatio-visual ability. Some studies indicate that tests classically thought to
represent analytic ability, such as figural analogies and matrices, load even more
on spatio-visual ability than on "fluid 'g.'"

Well, since SD insists, in high school, I took a comprehensive IQ test. I scored rather well on all parts except visualization, where I scored "average" or worse.

What is "fluid 'g"?

Your opinion expressed at point 4 was
for a long time mine. Mind mapping is advertised as being for "visual thinkers," and I
think mostly in words, at least consciously. What convinced me to give mind mapping a
chance was a comment by legal writing authority Bryan Gardner (now editor of Black's
Law Dictionary) that he for years avoided mind mapping (Gardner uses a different name
for it that I don't recall). He now uses it in the early stages of planning, having found
it improves the availability of insights.

I doubt that mind mapping would help me as it has Mr. Gardner. Although I am retired now [for my health -- I could no longer tolerate the unethical behavior of my management], I often received praise or condemnation for my ability to see things others didn't. Praise when I pulled an important project out of the toilet, condemnation when management wanted it to stay in the toilet. I don't attribute this ability to visualization, but rather to an innate urge to keep thinking when most others stop and a willingness to challenge "the generally accepted". For example, in high school, I designed a slide rule scale that later went to the moon. It really was nothing special, but apparently no one thought it would be useful or that it could work--I thought further. (If you ever used a Pickett slide rule, it may have been on your rule...the Ln scale.) A former colleague once said, "You're thinking all the time, aren't you?" I finally realized that not everyone does, and now, being rather a "bum," I probably don't either.

Software, like Personal Brain or Inspiration, that permit the construction of non-heirarchal webs or nets might improve my insight, but 'till now I've only used such to create process diagrams (including feedback loops) for others to follow.

-c

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

In Inspiration concept maps, you create both the
node and connector manually.

Inspiration 8 International Edition, however, adds
a mind mapping module that works mostly as expected to the already existing outline
and concept map modules. Of course, as it turns out, the one feature it lacks is the one I
most want. Inspiration has a Focus (or hoist) in outline and concept map but none in
mind map, even though most of the functions are implemented across all three modules.
I suspect the absence will be repaired in the next major version if not before.
Inspiration has recently released a bug fix for version 8 International that
corrects problems including some I had experienced previously.

I hold
Inspiration in high regard, but I don't enjoy using it. I haven't completely figured
out why. I don't think Inspiration gets the respect it deserves in non-education
settings, and if the mind mapper had Focus, I would buy the product, despite my
affective reservations.

1. I recently spoke with Inspiration tech support. I think it may be more than a year or two before a new version is released. Right now the company is working on something else.

2. The international edition SD speaks of may have an extra module or template designed by a third party. However, Inspiration's regular edition diagram view starts with a central "main idea" upon which one can easily build a mind map.

3. SD may find Inspiration uncomfortable to use because, frankly, its outlining interface (and probably diagramming also) is "user-clunky,"
although one can get used to it. As was said some time ago, it probably is the best product for displaying exported GrandView outlines.

-c

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

PMM lacks multiple undo, a critical feature for me.

I took a look at this and watched the demo video. It looks like I could play with the features here almost endlessly. But I really wonder how much good the extra functionality would do me in practical terms in the end. Of course, that's just me.

Tom S.