I'm new to this forum but have been looking for simple inexpensive tools to get started with GTD. I keep seeing reference to omnifocus. I did look at the app online but it seems awfully expensive for a list manager- the price is saw was $79- Is there a less expensive version of this that does pretty much the same? I thought I might try actionastic which seems like a simple interface and syncs with my ical and my ipod but the drag and drop feature on omnifocus appeals to me as a mac user. What tools do some of you use?
Omnifocus
- Thread starter michaela
- Start date
Highly recommend OmniFocus
I've praised OmniFocus on these boards before. It's gotten even better since then. It's among the most powerful yet easy-to-use GTD applications available. (Believe me, I've tried nearly all of them available for the Mac...)
The new OmniFocus iPhone functionality makes it an easy win for anyone using Apple's OS and David Allen's GTD principles. I think OmniFocus offers a lot more than just "list management." I've been using OmniFocus since the alpha testing days, and I'm still uncovering features I didn't know it had.
I think OF has a trial period, too, so you don't have to pony up until you've had an opportunity to try it.
Tim
I've praised OmniFocus on these boards before. It's gotten even better since then. It's among the most powerful yet easy-to-use GTD applications available. (Believe me, I've tried nearly all of them available for the Mac...)
The new OmniFocus iPhone functionality makes it an easy win for anyone using Apple's OS and David Allen's GTD principles. I think OmniFocus offers a lot more than just "list management." I've been using OmniFocus since the alpha testing days, and I'm still uncovering features I didn't know it had.
I think OF has a trial period, too, so you don't have to pony up until you've had an opportunity to try it.
Tim
Omnifocus
Totally agreed that OmniFocus is the best Mac GTD app around.
I use it daily and love it!
I also have the iPhone version which is elegantly designed.
If you're looking for a price break, consider beta testing OmniFocus: http://tinyurl.com/344wbj.
-Josh
Totally agreed that OmniFocus is the best Mac GTD app around.
I use it daily and love it!
I also have the iPhone version which is elegantly designed.
If you're looking for a price break, consider beta testing OmniFocus: http://tinyurl.com/344wbj.
-Josh
mcogilvie
Registered
michaela;61253 said:
I think Omnifocus is not the best tool for getting started with GTD. I have both the desktop and iPhone version, and it works as advertised. This is saying a lot, because it does have a ton of functionality inside. However, I don't use it, because using that functionality has a significant cost for me in time and energy. While it is possible to use Omnifocus and not use the outlining, flags, et cetera, there is no real reason to do so, because there are other apps around that are faster and easier. However, Omnifocus is by far the best "full-featured" program of its kind for the mac. It has a free trial period.
But is that what you really need? I think many successful, experienced people have found that simple tools with clean edges work better. Right now I am using a web tool, Toodledo, for my lists. It has many features I don't use. I don't use due dates, priorities, subtasks, or many other features. I use folders (for contexts), title and notes. That's it, and I am more productive than ever. Toodledo has free accounts, or you might try paper. In one of his books, DA quotes a proverb "the work will teach you how to do it." Easy and fast is better than complicated and hard.
I use and highly recommend Things: http://culturedcode.com/things/
It is very nicely designed and implemented, much simpler than OmniFocus but not less powerful IMO, and although it is still in beta, I have used it daily for months and never had any big problems with it. They also have an iPhone version that synchronizes with the desktop.
It is very nicely designed and implemented, much simpler than OmniFocus but not less powerful IMO, and although it is still in beta, I have used it daily for months and never had any big problems with it. They also have an iPhone version that synchronizes with the desktop.
darlakbrown
Registered
You could try iGTD. I used to use it and liked it. Now I'm on OmniFocus and not looking back. It's the best.
I've heard people talk about Things but not checked it out before. I like this comment on their website
"The big picture. A Leopard style source list lets you easily focus without ever switching view modes or wrapping your head around filter criteria."
Omnifocus has different viewing modes and filters
Michael
"The big picture. A Leopard style source list lets you easily focus without ever switching view modes or wrapping your head around filter criteria."
Omnifocus has different viewing modes and filters
Michael
Claudia Volkman
Registered
PC counterpart to Omnifocus
A former colleague who uses a PC just got an iPhone and he is using something called Nozbe. When he showed me how it looks on his iPhone, it looked pretty identical to Omnifocus - at least at first glance.
A former colleague who uses a PC just got an iPhone and he is using something called Nozbe. When he showed me how it looks on his iPhone, it looked pretty identical to Omnifocus - at least at first glance.
mcogilvie
Registered
der56;61352 said:
I'd use a web-based tool for lists. I use Toodledo, and also like Remember the Milk. Nozbe is pricier, and less vanilla. Toodledo can be used for free, but for $15/year you get extra features like subtasks. This might appeal if you like the outlining in OmniFocus. I like outlines myself, but I keep them in notes instead.
Jim
GTD Ninja
Even with a browser plug-in like Google Gears, I don't feel comfortable using a online-only web-only solution.
A native program will always be faster and more versatile than web-based one. With a speedkey and OmniFocus' Quick Entry feature, I can capture my inbox items while I am in any program, as inspiration strikes. And this can be completed before a web page is even loaded.
If Toodledo, RTM and Nozbe offered native clients (Mac, Windows, iPhone) in addition to web access, then I would consider them.
When using a native program with speedkeys, I feel like I am Captain and Commander of my system. With web-based systems, I feel like a web surfer.
Just my 2¢.
Jim
A native program will always be faster and more versatile than web-based one. With a speedkey and OmniFocus' Quick Entry feature, I can capture my inbox items while I am in any program, as inspiration strikes. And this can be completed before a web page is even loaded.
If Toodledo, RTM and Nozbe offered native clients (Mac, Windows, iPhone) in addition to web access, then I would consider them.
When using a native program with speedkeys, I feel like I am Captain and Commander of my system. With web-based systems, I feel like a web surfer.
Just my 2¢.
Jim
mcogilvie
Registered
Lecter;61393 said:
Interesting. One of the reasons I don't use Omnifocus is because I find it slow and a little awkward to move around in. Capture is fast because of the little utility program OmniGroup provides, but I think the time to load a web page compares very favorably with the time to load Omnifocus. Of course, I keep Toodledo in a browser tab all the time, just as I would keep Omnifocus open if I still used it. Another consideration is syncing. Omnifocus's sync works fine for me on multiple macs and an iphone, but it is slow. To each his own.
Jim
GTD Ninja
mcogilvie;61438 said:
I find OmniFocus to be as fast as can be (I never have to wait on OmniFocus, whereas I have had to wait for a web app to update). Web applications are tied to the speed of your internet connection and their compatibility with your web browser.
I love and use the Opera web browser (which is standards compliant), and many web applications (that are not standards compliant) don't work well in it. OmniFocus always works well for me, and I don't need Google Gears to access it if my internet connection is down.
And for programs that have a OmniFocus plug-in, capturing accurate, delineated data (populated into the fields with a link back to the original) is something no web application can lay claim to. Sure, web apps like Remember The Milk try hard with JavaScript and other APIs, but they pale in comparison with native applications.
For example, I just tried using RTM's Quick Add to add three e-mails (from web mail, as Quick Add doesn't work outside of a web browser) to RTM. Total time: forty seconds, and it added only selected text. In OmniFocus, it took under eight seconds to add three e-mails with the Clippings service speedkey, and each capture automatically transferred to OmniFocus with the message subject as the topic, the body of the e-mail as notes, and it included a link to the e-mail in Apple Mail. Results: less than a fourth of the time, with more data transferred, with a link to the source.
Keep in mind that I am not dismissing web apps like Toodledo, RTM and Nozbe. For web apps, they are amazing. But I find native programs faster, better integrated (with the operating system and other programs - not just a web browser), and more functional overall. Now if the web apps would create (well-designed) native applications that connected with their servers (or native applications added a reliable web interface to synchronized data), that would be very interesting, and worth heavy evaluation. EasyTask Manager is off to a good start in this regard and Appigo Todo (a native iPhone app) connects to Toodledo or RTM and syncs data. So, in the forthcoming months, I will keep an eye on them as they evolve.
Jim
mcogilvie
Registered
Lecter;61446 said:
The Mail Clip-o-Tron 3000 (that's what they call it) in Omnifocus is nice, and it is fast. I get close to the same speed by forwarding the email to Toodledo, but not quite as fast. On the other hand, it's simple and robust, and works from anywhere. I'm not particularly concerned with issues of security, control, and access when comparing a good web-based system to a local program. I have back-up, it's just lists, and there is nothing very embarrassing to me or anyone else there.
The reason I am not using Omnifocus (and I paid for it on both iPhone and mac, with not much regret) is that workflow wasn't working. Too much focus on the tool, not enough on getting things done. My lists filled with non-actionable items, because Omnifocus was too much like a filing cabinet for me. I would be interesting in hearing in detail about other people's usage of Omnifocus. I think it probably appeals to the maximalist (as opposed to minimalist) in all of us.
Jim
GTD Ninja
mcogilvie;61488 said:
Security, control, access and speed all contribute to my workflow and in my confidence in the tool. When they are there, I truly feel like I am Captain and Commander of my system.
If you aren't concerned about security, control, and access - then we have core differences in our mental foundations (which are unlikely to be resolved in this forum discussion).
I took another look at Toodledo, and using it feels very sluggish compared to using a native program. It is very fast as a web application, but very slow as a native application. The keyboard shortcuts leave the shortcut as a entry in the field in Opera, which I need to delete, which is a extra step. The iPhone interface feels like I am navigating through 2G speeds (I was using Wifi). Toodledo hardly feels minimalist to me (comparatively, Remember the Milk actually does) - there are plethora of settings, layouts and configurations - which makes it easy to get distracted. I felt lost navigating Toodledo. Its interface feels inefficient to me. For example, it takes three clicks just to make a selection in a drop-down menu (one to activate the menu, one to drop it down, one to make the selection).
If one needs to use an inefficient tool in order to limit its use, I would argue that the issue is a matter of discipline rather than an issue with the tool itself. My car is a tool. I could tweak it endlessly, drive to random locations, or spend superfluous time at the auto store. Or I could use the tool to get me to my destination. It is discipline (not the maximal nature of the car) that gets me to where I want to go. It is my choice how to use the car (I could use a car as a filing cabinet - but it isn't the car's fault if I choose to use it inefficiently). It is the same way with OmniFocus.
This thread is reminding me why I use a paper system...
Synchronization issues: none. One notebook, small enough to carry everywhere.
Speed: Blazingly fast. Most tasks take less time than an electronic system would need to wake up. User interface completely intuitive.
Cost: trivial. Even expensive notebooks are cheaper than most software. Basic tools universally available.
Flexibility: semi-infinite. Paper and pens available in a vast range of shapes, colors and sizes. No constraints on either individual data fields or overall data organization.
Security and access: data remains secure and accessible indefinitely as long as physical possession of the notebook is maintained. No monthly fees, upgrade costs, or data format incompatibilities. Future proof relative to all known or potential advances in electronics technology. System remains fully functional regardless of connectivity or other location-based restrictions. System immune to all electronic perils, many physical perils.
Yes, I know that there are many good reasons to prefer an electronic system. But threads like this one seem to devote huge amounts of energy to dealing with problems that paper just doesn't have.
Katherine
Synchronization issues: none. One notebook, small enough to carry everywhere.
Speed: Blazingly fast. Most tasks take less time than an electronic system would need to wake up. User interface completely intuitive.
Cost: trivial. Even expensive notebooks are cheaper than most software. Basic tools universally available.
Flexibility: semi-infinite. Paper and pens available in a vast range of shapes, colors and sizes. No constraints on either individual data fields or overall data organization.
Security and access: data remains secure and accessible indefinitely as long as physical possession of the notebook is maintained. No monthly fees, upgrade costs, or data format incompatibilities. Future proof relative to all known or potential advances in electronics technology. System remains fully functional regardless of connectivity or other location-based restrictions. System immune to all electronic perils, many physical perils.
Yes, I know that there are many good reasons to prefer an electronic system. But threads like this one seem to devote huge amounts of energy to dealing with problems that paper just doesn't have.
Katherine
Jim
GTD Ninja
Hi Katherine,
Given that most electronic systems allow you to print your data, the electronic systems can reap the benefits of digital processing as well as the benefits of paper. Kind of a best of both worlds situation - where the weaknesses of both are minimized or eliminated.
I can see several issues with pen and paper:
One of the major shortcomings I see in a paper-based system is how to sort by context, while maintaining sorting by project. For a computer program, this is trivially easy. I am interested in how you handle this with paper. Do you do double entry? If you don't do double entry, then how do you view your lists by context and also by project?
I don't think the discussion is based on issues that are solely related to electronic systems. If there was a flawless system, everyone would use it. When Mead releases the GTD paper system, I will take an honest evaluation of it.
I think that passionate discussions are great, as they encourage me to think about and refine my techniques when my inbox is empty and processed. I am not permanently tied to a particular system, I am just passionate about a system that makes my life so much better, and allows me to get things done with confidence and trust.
Given that most electronic systems allow you to print your data, the electronic systems can reap the benefits of digital processing as well as the benefits of paper. Kind of a best of both worlds situation - where the weaknesses of both are minimized or eliminated.
I can see several issues with pen and paper:
- Synchronization: paper has none - which is one of its primary weaknesses. Unless you make back up copies by hand (time-consuming) or electronically (photocopying makes the purported advantages of cost moot), you are relying on not losing or damaging your paper lists. Unless you have hand copied or photocopied your paper lists, if you lose them, your data is gone. With electronic systems, even if my computer is stolen or damaged, I can recover my data in seconds (in my particular case, off of MobileMe).
- Costs are relative. If you are happy with cheap paper (such as a HipsterPDA index cards) and a cheap pen (such as Bic), then have at it. If you want a quality pen (such as Mont Blanc) and a quality notebook (such as a leather binder or some of the Levenger items), you can spend much more than on a inexpensive desktop or laptop. This also doesn't factor in the auxiliary uses of the multifunctional computer, which defers the expense (try editing video, sending e-mail or just reading this forum with only pen and paper at hand).
- Flexibility: Computer systems are the clear winner here. Copy and paste, customizable fields, deletion, sorting, searches...I could go on and on.
- Security and access: Paper has no security. If I pick up your notes, I have complete and utter access to them. If your notes are stolen or lost, you have zero access to them (without copies, which bring time and expense back to the discussion). On the other hand, I can password protect my electronic data and back it up for secure access in a few seconds. I never need to refill my ink in my pen, nor buy new paper or notebooks.
One of the major shortcomings I see in a paper-based system is how to sort by context, while maintaining sorting by project. For a computer program, this is trivially easy. I am interested in how you handle this with paper. Do you do double entry? If you don't do double entry, then how do you view your lists by context and also by project?
I don't think the discussion is based on issues that are solely related to electronic systems. If there was a flawless system, everyone would use it. When Mead releases the GTD paper system, I will take an honest evaluation of it.
I think that passionate discussions are great, as they encourage me to think about and refine my techniques when my inbox is empty and processed. I am not permanently tied to a particular system, I am just passionate about a system that makes my life so much better, and allows me to get things done with confidence and trust.
Lecter;61497 said:
Except that as soon as you commit the data to paper, you lose synchronicity with the electronic version. That was the problem I had when I tried a paper-electronic hybrid. Unless there's a data entry step to bring notes on paper into the electronic system, the advantages of the electronic system are lost. But life is too short to do data entry (or scanning, or photocopying).
True in theory. In practice, I've lost far more data to electronic perils than I have to misplaced or damaged paper.
If you spend as much on paper and pens as you would on a computer for video editing, you go to *way* better stationery stores than I do. Certainly the gap between a cheap pen and a pack of index cards and a $80 copy of OmniFocus has room for many attractive paper-based options. And if you're using a $500 Mont Blanc to write in a $200 leather-bound notebook, I'm guessing cost isn't a major consideration for your productivity system anyway.
Infinitely flexible data entry can accommodate freehand sketches, flow diagrams, annotations as easily as structured data, rendering "customizable fields" irrelevant. Sorting by arbitrary criteria, including those made up on the spot. Searching by visual cues rather than merely alphanumeric contents. "Tagging" by color, shape, size as well as merely textual labels. I could go on and on, too.
Honestly, I don't. For me, an explicit project-next action link doesn't add enough value to be worth the overhead to maintain. If the link isn't evident from the description, then the item isn't phrased clearly enough.
Katherine