Back-to-Basic feature suggestions

[Richard R]

I'm bemused by this conversation.  As I wrote a while back, I've been using
More since it morphed over from ThinkTank, and have tens of thousands of
files in it.  For that reason, and since in my 50's and no longer so quick
at learning new tricks as I once was, I'm inclined to side with folks who
want OO to emulate More almost completely, commands, buttons and all; I
THINK in More, it does nearly everything I want it too (shy of columns which
I've wished for for years), and it will be problematic for me to switch
over. 

On the other hand, if the end result is better (I don't have OO yet, because
I don't have OSX yet, because I don't want to risk running More under it ­
catch 22 ­ so I'm not in a position to say whether OO is indeed better...)
then I guess it will be worth my while to learn the new way.  It does feel
like learning a Dvorak keyboard after a lifetime of Qwerty though - you have
to slow down a lot for a long time to be able to speed up a little.

Richard R

> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 01:35:52 +1100
> Subject: Re: Back-to-Basic feature suggestions
> From: Nathan Kelley <phyax at mac.com>
> To: OmniOutliner Users <omnioutliner-users at omnigroup.com>
> 
> To OmniOutliner Users <omnioutliner-users at omnigroup.com>,
> 
> I should start by saying that I have never used MORE. However, since at
> least half the messages on this list in recent times reference it, and
> most of those references are glowing, I'll assume that it is a great
> application that has many useful features.
> 
>> From: "J. Davis" <joel at proofrunner.com>,
> 
>> With all that being said, and seemingly universal acknowledgement that
>> MORE is THE standard, why waste time soliciting suggestions on features
>> to implement in OmniOutliner?
> 
> One mans' bread-and-butter is another mans' 800KB of free disk space.
> How can OmniGroup know what to implement if they don't listen to their
> user base?
> 
>> As far as I see it, there are only four issues to consider regarding
>> further development of OmniOutliner.  1.) Inventory MORE's features
>>  2.) create your own outline interface that mimics MORE's that of MORE,
>> and 3.) do so by liberating yourself from Apple’s Application Kit
>> framework. You simply can't expect to provide MORE’S rich user
>> interface using standard-issue Application Kit interface widgets.
> 
> We would effectively have a MORE clone, and one that didn't conform to
> Aqua UI Guidelines, at that. Aside from legal issues, what compelling
> reason would there be to use OmniOutliner, apart from the fact of it
> being MacOS X native? And what is it about Aqua interface elements that
> are unsuitable to building a similar interface?
> 
>> As food for thought, I leave you with the System Requirements of MORE
>> II:
>> A Mac Plus, SE or II;   1 MB of  RAM;  one 800K floppy drive and a hard
>> disk; and System 4.1 or higher...amazing. And FOURTEEN YEARS LATER on
>> my 670MHZ Titanium sporting 1GB of RAM and 40GB hard drive I’m still
>> running MORE in Classic mode. Because nothing comes even close.
> 
> The OmniOutliner 1.2 package is around 2.8MB on disk. It appears to take
> around 5MB with no outlines loaded - certainly small and efficient by
> today's standards, given the computers that run MacOS X. Perhaps
> OmniOutliner will be in use fourteen years from now - it certainly
> deserves the chance.
> 
>> Why try to get creative on the basics when what already exists works
>> perfectly? Use MORE's excellent, proven interface as a start, THEN look
>> to adding new features such as columns. We don’t need another “ToDo”
>> app. We don’t need Word’s oblique approach to outlining. WE NEED
>> MORE!!!!
> 
> OmniOutliner is already more advanced that other "to do" applications
> (such as Simple To Do) and Word's outline view.
> 
>> I will be very curious to see what other discussion group members think
>> of this approach.
> 
> I believe OmniOutliner should evolve along its' own path. It may have
> started out as "bring MORE to MacOS X", but a number of the suggestions
> on this list have included requests for features which likely never
> existed in MORE. I think OmniOutliner will end up as useful, but
> different. Different is good :-)
> 
> Cheers, Nathan.