Forum Posts Feed
A Lot of Buzz about ConnectedText, but what about Mac users?
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Nhaps
Nov 1, 2013 at 04:06 PM
There is no doubt that currently no software in the Mac platform can match all that is featured in CT 6. I have been influenced on this by the posts of Dr Andus, Manfred, and others.
But the question is Can Mac users like me get all the benefit that Windows users enjoy? For one, we would have to shell out a lot: 1) Windows 8, 2) Parallels 9, and 3) CT itself.
A problem I anticipate is the limitation of the number of floating windows under only one Parallels monitors. A second question is the reference managers I use (Sente), which I would have to abandon. Another is that I am in the middle of my dissertation, and most probably this migration to CT would hamper me, although I am having problems with my Scrivener-Omnioutliner-Sente-DevonThink workflow. What I like about DT is that I paste links of the desired pdf page, and documents, right in the comments and footnotes of Scrivener. I mainly rely on the search features in DT where I have close to 10k of pdfs.
There are many features that only CT6 can offer, from what I have seen. I would like to hear from users who had a similar mac workflow and took to plunge to add CT to their workflow. The strongest proponents of CT in this resourceful website are Windows users. So far I have no information on the perspective of Mac users on their CT experience.
Posted by Dr Andus
Nov 1, 2013 at 05:05 PM
Nhaps wrote:
>A second question is the
>reference managers I use (Sente), which I would have to abandon.
Why would you have to abandon your reference manager? While CT could be used as a database for references if you really wanted to, it does not have the usual citation import and “insert citation” tools, so you’d still need a dedicated reference manager for that.
I’ve seen people write Python scripts to integrate CT with Zotero for instance, but you’d still need Zotero to be able to collect the references from online citation databases and use “cite while you write” in a word processor, for instance.
Although now that you’ve brought that up, it would be nice if CT also had those features and I could ditch EndNote finally… ;)
P.S. As for the other questions, you could also ask the folks on the CT forum, maybe some of them use Macs.
Posted by PIMfan
Nov 1, 2013 at 05:09 PM
Nhaps wrote:
“There is no doubt that currently no software in the Mac platform can match all that is featured in CT 6.”
Interesting viewpoint I’m not sure I agree with. As a Windows-only user, I’ve always had a bit of Mac-app-envy regarding Tinderbox, which I would group with ConnectedText as Information/Knowledge Toolkits (IKT) of the highest order. Both provide users willing to tackle the learning curve with an incredible ability to mold the application into meeting whatever specific IKT need arise.
Of course, Tinderbox ($249, $98 version upgrade) costs considerably more than CT ($39.95, $18 version upgrade) and I would argue that the “bang for the buck” advantage CT has over Tinderbox may be one of it’s greatest differentiators. That and Eduardo Mauro’s direct interaction and responsiveness to the CT user community…..
d
Posted by Nhaps
Nov 1, 2013 at 05:29 PM
Glad for your reply. “Abandon” Sente was not the right expression. I’m wondering if CT Preferences can choose a reference manager of choice, so Control +Y can be used for automatic citing (this is probably a stretch). Yes, I am more interested in knowing whether python within CT could generate citation styles that can be used to format footnotes and bibliography in the future. Although I heard CT is not for final polishing, hence the different importing formats it can deploy. Thanks for the suggestions, I am posting the question on their forum.
Posted by moritz
Nov 1, 2013 at 05:30 PM
I have been buying Macs since 2006 with the primary reason of being able to run Tinderbox.
Yes, I believe it is that good.
New version (v6) is just around the corner, and the author and community (on eastgate.com/tinderbox) are very helpful and responsive, just like ConnectedText.
Tinderbox is more graphical vs. ConnectedText and follows a different paradigm, both tools have a learning curve before you unleash their full potential (I also keep a current license of CT, but use Tinderbox 90% vs. 10% CT).