Forum Posts Feed
MaxThink
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Franz Grieser
Nov 18, 2007 at 08:48 AM
>To take an example: wouldn’t it be
>useful to efficiently set up a handful of categories and efficiently assign all of a
>long list of topics to its proper bin? This is what Binsort does.
Stephen.
I know what Binsort does (I used Grandview ages ago). In fact, this is the only Maxthink feature I really miss in other outliners and OpenOffice.org. But that is not enough to make me put up with the inflexible interface of Maxthink (and: yes I know that you can resize the editing window, but I find it annoying that at every start the Maxthink window is back to its original miniature size).
The other really practical thing is the 55 questions list (in the Think.max file) that help me when compiling all the topics for a piece of work. But these questions are also on the website http://www.knightwriter.com/question.htm (see the links from Maxthink.org).
Franz
Posted by Stephen R. Diamond
Dec 7, 2007 at 10:04 PM
I have to comment on my only disagreement with Guido in this thread. Does the magical number 7 vitiate mindmaps. Answering this question points to where mindmapping is useful.
When you have arrived at superordinate categories, MaxThink seems to be the fastest software in implementing and organizing matter beneath them. What it doesn’t provide is the mechanism for arriving at those categories.
When you have a long list and are searching for organizing principles, limiting the display to 7 or so items is not productive. While you can only retain some seven items, you can group and regroup items in your list to form possible groupings. In a mindmapper you do this quickly, by saccadic eye movement, without having to scroll or reorganize. This is the stage where the mindmapper is useful.
Guido wrote:
>Above all, like in brainstorm, the
>user’s always focused on the parent and its childs ( keyword : magical 7, reason why
>mindmapping isn’t so useful at all ) without being confused by a list of sub-topics and
>sub-sub-topics.
Posted by Stephen Zeoli
Dec 12, 2007 at 08:11 PM
So, I just paid my $29 for a MaxThink license. I got an e-mail from Neil (probably automated) telling me how to get unlock codes for any computer I want to use it on. This was refreshing—a developer who didn’t require a new license for each computer. (I’m not saying that this is rare, but it isn’t as common as it should be.)
There are many weaknesses with MaxThink, as has been pointed out here. In its intentions, MaxThink is the most powerful outliner I’ve seen since GrandView. I wanted to support Neil’s vision, if not his execution of that vision. And, despite its faults, MaxThink is a very useful tool… one I’m glad to add to my array of apps. Yes, that is CRIMP talking.
Steve Z.
Posted by Stephen R. Diamond
Dec 13, 2007 at 09:55 PM
Never having used DOS, I am speaking here very provisionally. It seems to me that when a developer ported a DOS program to Windows, the developer must have reconceptualized the program for the new environment. Features might be replaced when they could not easily be implemented smoothly in a graphical user interface, in addition to adding the features that Windows affords. Someone who actually knows might comment on whether the first clause is true.
It seems to me—again, very conjectural—that Neil refused to take the above upgrade path. He thought he got it right the first time, and proceeded to implement the same features in Windows. Perhaps this direct translation approach explains the Java implementation (somehow). I don’t think Neil _likes_ Windows. Although it seems inherently unlikely, perhaps he thinks more of Vista, since he came out quickly with a Vista-compatible version.
An interesting question is whether DOS was actually more congenial to the development of powerful outliners than Windows. Even without knowing anything about DOS, I think I can “feel” the DOS logic in MaxThink. Grandview, MaxThink, and Brainstorm were all originally DOS products and the latter two retain to different degree remnants of their heritage. It may be that their origin in DOS is not only their weakness but their strength.
Stephen Zeoli wrote:
>So, I just paid my $29 for a MaxThink license. I got an e-mail from Neil (probably
>automated) telling me how to get unlock codes for any computer I want to use it on. This
>was refreshing—a developer who didn’t require a new license for each computer. (I’m
>not saying that this is rare, but it isn’t as common as it should be.)
>
>There are many
>weaknesses with MaxThink, as has been pointed out here. In its intentions, MaxThink
>is the most powerful outliner I’ve seen since GrandView. I wanted to support Neil’s
>vision, if not his execution of that vision. And, despite its faults, MaxThink is a
>very useful tool… one I’m glad to add to my array of apps. Yes, that is CRIMP
>talking.
>
>Steve Z.
Posted by Pierre Paul Landry
Dec 13, 2007 at 10:17 PM
>An interesting question is whether DOS was actually more congenial to the development of powerful outliners than Windows. Even without knowing anything about DOS, I think I can “feel” the DOS logic in MaxThink. Grandview, MaxThink, and Brainstorm were all originally DOS products and the latter two retain to different degree remnants of their heritage. It may be that their origin in DOS is not only their weakness but their strength.
But Ecco was a great ouliner and a Windows app…
I would tend to think that it has more to do with MS presence, Internet and “free” software:
1- The Outliner/PIM market was much more dynamic and creative when MS Office did not include (free) Outlook.
2- Software prices have dropped due to good quality open-source/add-based/cheap software. When users complain that $39.95 is too much for a software, it is sometimes difficult to find incentives for development. 10-15 years ago paying $99 for a piece of software was a good deal, now it is either free or < $40 (giveawayoftheday, bitsdujour, etc)