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.

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.

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

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.

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).

You're right about Tinderbox, but the developer's expectation is just too high. He charges too much for a software that has a difficult learning curve. Double problem.

Very interesting... Makes me think TB as a premier conceptual software versus CT's swiss-knife capabilities (wiki, themes, outlines, sub-outlines, and mind mapping diagrams etc...) It would be very informative to have the opinion of specialists who use or have used Tinderbox and ConnectedText together.

Nhaps wrote:

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.

I think you'd need to define first what information management problem you need to solve exactly (what is the bottleneck in your process?), and then determine what the right tool for solving the problem is. Then the question of cost and learning curve is secondary, as it will solve your problem in the end and you will gain new skills.

Otherwise there is always the risk of becoming distracted with a tool (for distraction's sake). Yes, speaking from experience... :)

I am new to the website, so the moderator is taking more time to post my replies. Sorry if it does not appear in order.

My bottleneck is the lack of outline capability in Scrivener plus the lack of ease for wiki/link creation throughout the document. The outliner is geared for only first and second levels, including a synopsis. It does not go deep enough for paragraph levels, for example. Internal links work only for documents. For this reason Scrivener staff recommends splitting up your project into smaller documents, so one could use labels, keywords, etc...

But the lack of integration is still there because the outliner is enslaved to the binder, and these work only at the surface of the project. The Reference pane is helpful, but cannot be implemented into a useful sub outlines to structure the project. Now, even without trialing I can see CT addressing this:

http://connectedtext.com/forum/index.php/topic,2778.msg12462.html#msg12462

The concept of an outline "within" an outline is a killer feature, with the option to link part of a second outline to the project outline (or in its entirety for that matter) references, with

I'd like to know what you feel is lacking in your current work flow that you expect CT to improve. CT is an outstanding all-in-one application, but I don't think it is a better writing environment than Scrivener. It's not a better outliner than OmniOutliner. It's not a better reference manager than Sente. And it is not a better free form database than Devon Think.* You could probably eschew all those other programs and just use CT, but I'm not sure that will make you more productive, especially when you add in the learning curve. I'm just curious. Is there a specific issue you need to address, or are you just suffering from CRIMP?

I would agree with Moritz that Tinderbox would be worth taking a look at, again depending on what is absent from your current work flow. It is an outstanding outliner, and it plays nice with Scrivener. I know you can drag bibliographic references in from Bookends, but not sure it it works with Sente.

Anyway, that's just my two cents.

Steve Z.

*I understand CT may have some advantages over those other apps in certain respects, but I'm mean that they are generally better at the dedicated jobs they are designed to handle.

Nhaps wrote:

I'm
wondering if CT Preferences can choose a reference manager of choice, so
Control +Y can be used for automatic citing

I don't think so. You could paste in the citation code from your reference manager into a CT topic as you're writing, and then, once you've exported the CT text, have the codes recognised by your reference manager add-in in whatever word processor you're using, but it sounds like too much hassle to me.

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.

I presume it would be possible if you're really good at Python, but again it sounds like too much trouble, if you already have a perfectly functioning reference manager. I prefer to do the referencing and formatting of bibliographies in a word processor, as the very last step, not as part of the outlining and organising.

Although I heard CT is not for final
polishing.

That's right, you'd be better off using a word processor for that.

My bottleneck is the lack of outline capability in Scrivener plus the
lack of ease for wiki/link creation throughout the document.
The concept of an outline "within" an outline is a killer feature, with
the option to link part of a second outline to the project outline (or
in its entirety for that matter) references

I'm getting the impression that you're talking about outlining both as the earlier phase of organising and analysis of material, and the final phase of writing reports out of the organised material.

Personally I use CT for the former, but not for the latter. I'd say Scrivener is more geared towards the latter, than the former. But the two could be used in conjunction (organising tool + writing tool).

I'm sceptical about using a single tool for the entire academic research process from beginning to end, as there is always some specialised tool that is better at doing certain bits of the workflow than an "all-in-one" tool.

Perhaps you're fighting against Scrivener -- expecting it to be one bird when it's really another bird? There are many ways to work with Scrivener in an outliner-style hierarchy of texts -- two of them that might help you are the ability for texts to be children of texts in a nested manner, and "Scrivenings" mode. Section 6.4 of the Manual explains Scrivenings. There is a vibrant and very thoughtful community at the Scrivener forum who can help you sort through using Scrivener a way that meets your needs.

Nhaps wrote

My bottleneck is the lack of outline capability in Scrivener plus the lack of ease for wiki/link creation throughout the document. The outliner is geared for only first and second levels, including a synopsis. It does not go deep enough for paragraph levels, for example. Internal links work only for documents.
But the lack of integration is still there because the outliner is enslaved to the binder, and these work only at the surface of the project.

Thanks for clarifying things so well. Best!

Thanks very much, Steve Z. That is helpful

Dr Andus wrote:

I'm getting the impression that you're talking about outlining both as
the earlier phase of organising and analysis of material, and the final
phase of writing reports out of the organised material.

Personally I use CT for the former, but not for the latter. I'd say
Scrivener is more geared towards the latter, than the former. But the
two could be used in conjunction (organising tool + writing tool).

Actually, in light of the new floating windows of v. 6, CT might offer some advantages in certain areas even in the writing process over Scrivener, especially if used with two monitors. E.g. you could view the outline structure of a document you are writing in the Table of Contents (TOC) pane on the left. Now sections can be moved around within the TOC.

You could write in the middle pane, have the Outline pane on the right with an overall (master) outline for the entire book or thesis or whatever, with links to other documents or notes.

And then you can still view an unlimited no. of notes in floating windows positioned anywhere across the screen. Not to mention that the TOC and the Outliner can also be floating.

At the moment I use Outline 4D and Gingko for actual writing, and CT as the notes database, but I might test the above model to see how it compares to O4D's single-pane writing and Gingko's writing-in-columns experience...

if you are writing your dissertation, Sublime Text 2 does a better job than Scrivener. Some people have developed great tools for writing latex in Sublime Text. Sente works quite good with the Latex as it exports decent quality Bib file. Tinderbox, arcane app, is a pain for composition since it can integrate neither to the latex not to the MS word writing environment easily. Tinderbox is really not a practical application to get things done. It is just great for the curious tinkering; spending your time playing with its maps, agents and adornments. as its file organization system heavily relies on propriety metadata (attributes), when you migrate to another software, you will understand that all the time you spend organizing the notes in TB is a time you spent on vain. I wouldn't recommend TB for dissertation. You would better go for a more flexible application that can import different formats as image, rtf files, pdfs, export to different formats. TB can do none of them. Writing templates to make exports is a heck of a pain; you will spend your time tinkering with the agents than getting your dissertation done.

- you can try connected Text using CrossOver in Mac bzw. it works quite well.

DD Bw wrote:

if you are writing your dissertation, Sublime Text 2 does a better job
than Scrivener. Some people have developed great tools for writing latex
in Sublime Text. Sente works quite good with the Latex as it exports
decent quality Bib file. Tinderbox, arcane app, is a pain for
composition since it can integrate neither to the latex not to the MS
word writing environment easily. Tinderbox is really not a practical
application to get things done. It is just great for the curious
tinkering; spending your time playing with its maps, agents and
adornments. as its file organization system heavily relies on propriety
metadata (attributes), when you migrate to another software, you will
understand that all the time you spend organizing the notes in TB is a
time you spent on vain. I wouldn't recommend TB for dissertation. You
would better go for a more flexible application that can import
different formats as image, rtf files, pdfs, export to different
formats. TB can do none of them. Writing templates to make exports is a
heck of a pain; you will spend your time tinkering with the agents than
getting your dissertation done.

- you can try connected Text using CrossOver in Mac bzw. it works quite
well.

Thanks for your suggestion. The problem with Sublime is that it does not support right to left (RTL) languages like Hebrew, so I can't use it for my research. Tinderbox has its place, but I agree that its exporting formats are poor. I will keep an eye on the upcoming 6 version. CrossOver for CT is an option, will look into it.

Dr Andus wrote:

>I'm getting the impression that you're talking about outlining both as
>the earlier phase of organising and analysis of material, and the final
>phase of writing reports out of the organised material.
>
>Personally I use CT for the former, but not for the latter. I'd say
>Scrivener is more geared towards the latter, than the former. But the
>two could be used in conjunction (organising tool + writing tool).

Actually, in light of the new floating windows of v. 6, CT might offer
some advantages in certain areas even in the writing process over
Scrivener, especially if used with two monitors. E.g. you could view the
outline structure of a document you are writing in the Table of Contents
(TOC) pane on the left. Now sections can be moved around within the TOC.

You could write in the middle pane, have the Outline pane on the right
with an overall (master) outline for the entire book or thesis or
whatever, with links to other documents or notes.

And then you can still view an unlimited no. of notes in floating
windows positioned anywhere across the screen. Not to mention that the
TOC and the Outliner can also be floating.

At the moment I use Outline 4D and Gingko for actual writing, and CT as
the notes database, but I might test the above model to see how it
compares to O4D's single-pane writing and Gingko's writing-in-columns
experience...

Thanks for your suggestions. The problem here is that I work in the Mac platform only. And CT floating windows are restricted to my Virtual OS window, cannot drag out of it and add viewing windows in additional monitors. As for the outline, its for pre-writing, and then writing development.

DD Bw wrote:

you can try connected Text using CrossOver in Mac bzw. it works quite well.

Very interesting; thanks for this info. I will try it with Crossover Linux which I use. I hadn't even considered the possibility that such a complex Windows program would work on Crossover.

Have you tried it with CT v.6?

Is there any tip I should keep in mind?

Stephen Zeoli wrote:

I'd like to know what you feel is lacking in your current work flow that
you expect CT to improve. CT is an outstanding all-in-one application,
but I don't think it is a better writing environment than Scrivener.
It's not a better outliner than OmniOutliner. It's not a better
reference manager than Sente. And it is not a better free form database
than Devon Think.* You could probably eschew all those other programs
and just use CT, but I'm not sure that will make you more productive,
especially when you add in the learning curve. I'm just curious. Is
there a specific issue you need to address, or are you just suffering
from CRIMP?

Reassuring comment, an all-in-one package cannot supersede the academic workflow I now have in mac. The specific issue we need to address is that Tinderbox is the only software I now that provides tools for conceptualizing and organizing material from a database (DT for example) so that it can be used for writing (Scrivener). There is no time for the learning curve.

As for CRIMP, what I am complaining about is the lack of software in the category of Tinderbox, just the opposite of CRIMP.

Nhaps wrote:

And CT floating windows are restricted to my Virtual OS
window, cannot drag out of it and add viewing windows in additional
monitors. As for the outline, its for pre-writing, and then writing
development.

You could still use CT for your content analysis and outline development, and then do the actual writing in another software in your main monitor, while looking at CT (and using it as a notes database and outline) in the other monitor. As I said, this is how I use it still, despite the availability of the floating windows.

BTW, if you create an outline in CT with links to CT topics, and then you export that outline as a .mm (Freemind or Freeplane mind map), you can work with it in another mind map app, and when you click on a link, it opens the corresponding CT topic (e,g. in the other monitor). But I don't know if that would work as seamlessly in a Mac.

Of course, the learning curve might still be an issue. On the other hand, CT is the type of software for which the best way to learn it is to actually start using it to solve a real problem, so it's a catch-22 (or chicken or the egg?)...

It's easy to check on the CrossOver Web site whether Connected Text will run.

Alternatively, it may be worth considering VoodooPad: http://flyingmeat.com/voodoopad/ I carry no torch for it - I have never found a need for a wiki-based application - but it is an attempt to produce a desktop wiki on the Mac, has been developed over several years and is now in its fifth version.

I am using a trial of both CrossOver and CT6. Voodoopad not strong enough for my job. Thanks for your idea though

t’s easy to check on the CrossOver Web site whether Connected Text will run.
Alternatively, it may be worth considering VoodooPad: http://flyingmeat.com/voodoopad/ I carry no torch for it - I have never found a need for a wiki-based application - but it is an attempt to produce a desktop wiki on the Mac, has been developed over several years and is now in its fifth version.

I am using a trial of both CrossOver and CT6. Voodoopad not strong enough for my job. Thanks for your idea though

I am interested in how this works for you. Please keep us updated. Thank you.


Nhaps wrote:

I am using a trial of both CrossOver and CT6. Voodoopad not strong
enough for my job. Thanks for your idea though