UltraRecall v4 update worth it?

Posted by Daly de Gagne
Aug 24, 2009 at 05:34 AM

Mark, though not agreeing with all you wrote, I was willing to assume good faith on your part in assessing Jan’s paqst criticisms of UltraRecall.

Until I read your last line - the gratuitous, snide comment that your nickel isn’t wooden, unlike Jan’s 2 cents.

Then I wondered what your motive was.

Because it seems to me there’s a lot of merit to Jan’s criticisms of UR, in addition to the fact that the UR folk treated him very shoddily.

In the process you manage to find fault with Zoot’s founder for not being forthcoming on progress unless you ask him.

Let’s compare.

We know Tom is Zoot - essentially a one person shop. He doesn’t issue a lot of statements on progress. But if you ask him, as you yourself said, Tom responds promptly.

After all these years we still have no idea whether UR is a one person shop, or a dozen staff, or what.

And questions asked are not always answered promptly by the UR folk.

Yes, you are right: the UR folk have been pretty consistent with a road map.

But what was it you wanted from Tom by way of development progress.

Let me see, “I am taking a 16-bit program, rewriting it completely to function as a 32-bit program, in the process of doing which my intention is to eliminate limits to file sizes, etc.”

Was that not clear to you?

What more did you want, a lot of dazzling new features because that is usually what development means.

But Zoot already had more features than most 32 bit programs - the development news was getting it into the 32 bit age so it could develop further.

And it took a long time. Because Tom is thorough. He is a skilled craftsman. And oh yes, did I mention, he’s essentially by himself.

And today we know that Zoot 6 - not Zoot 5 - is going into beta testing - that it has an outline feature, a built-in browser, and and a self contained email program.

Tom’s roadmap may have been updated less frequently than UR’s, but in software terms the Admiral’s following of his succinctly stated road map has been the equivalent of refurbishing and upgrading the interstate highway system in the US.

It is all new.

Back to Kinook, the UR folk made it clear they were essentially no longer developing the program. You are right that they probably changed their mind.

But look at the way they did it, and how badly Jan was treated in the process. Perhaps they changed their mind because Jan had understood exactly what they said, though it seems they themselves did not. And Jan called them on it.

If Jan had not, we might not have a version 4 of UR today.

But the point is not really whether they changed their mind, or even whether Jan might have urged them in that direction.

The point is that the UR K folk didn’t have the decency to come clean they made a mistake, or that they treated one of their most loyal users - Jan - like crap.

Again, the question is begged, why cannot people who operate in public date to admit a mistake, to say they are sorry.

I will point out something else about he K folk - many times there has been criticism, well justified from a consumer point of view, that their help files are not good, and that though they may have technical smarts they have not figured out how to communicate the non-technical side of software.

The point being - we are not all geeks.

Two of the geekiest guys around may be Tom at Zoot and Pierre at InfoCube - I say this judged on all that they have accomplished, Tom over many years, Pierre in a relatively short development period.

These two “geeks” has shown what real communication and collaboration are about when it comes to developing software.

The K guys keep on ignoring legitimate criticisms on their communication style.

Both Pierre and Tom are human beings - we know so little about the K folk. We don’t even know where they are. They have made a fetish out of being too private and too close to the chest. That, combined with the vicious way Jan was treated makes me highly suspicious of them

I will choose not to trust UR effort until I see a little more humanity and humility from the world of K.

Incidentally, just reread your assessment of Tom’s moving Zoot to 32 bit. It is very unfair. What took almost forever was to finish version 4. His taking Zoot to 32 bit did take a long time, but not as long as you make it seem. And he did at various points make it quite clear what the challenges were and why they were taken so much time.

You say Tom didn’t put his road map on the web site. As you and everyone else know, Tom communicates through the Zoo Yahoo group.

That group is not an official group site, like the one UR has on its web site.

Tom seems to prefer working thru the group - the intrinsic democracy and accountability of responding to people in a forum he doesn’t control.

Coming back to your shots at Jan. I can tell you straight up that if you ever had a piece of software that Jan was checking out, you would be truly blessed to have a guy who puts his heart and soul into it, and has more patience and understanding of detail than most of us.

For the record, I do not think the UR folk are sleazy - but I think their lack of understanding of good communication resulted in their behaving in a sleazy manner, and thus giving an appearance of being so.

If they chose to start looking at some of the communication oriented criticism they could turn that around.

But it seems to me they have chosen to emulate the reclusive Infoselect Jim Lewis at Micrologic who is known for running an operation that has more communication problems than the GOP on the day after Michael Steele makes statement to the press.

Daly

Mark wrote:
> >Somebody is wrong on the Internet, and I must correct them!
> >
>http://xkcd.com/386/
> >Jan, with all due respect, that’s not fair.
> >You
>write:
> >> Some time ago Kinook announced the cessation of further development of URp
>except for bugs & compatibility issues. When I commented on this on their fourm, they
>fudged the statement but never came clean on the issue realizing that the
>announcement was probably bad for business.
> >A more charitable reading would be
>that they changed their minds. Excuse, don?t accuse, as a wise mother (not mine) might
>say. And no, I don?t want to rehash your exchanges with them back then.
> >You write:
> >>
>I wouldn?t deny any independent programmer more $$ to help them along but I generally
>object to charging for a make believe upgrade just to generate funds. That?s what I
>judge v4 to be. Most, if not all, the improvements requested by users over the time I was
>using the program & was active on their forum (before being thrown off) were basically
>bypassed or ignored.
> >They made an improvement I requested, which is to
>automatically import things copied to the clipboard. Many requested for search
>results to be highlighted. They did that. Many requested HTML export, so you can
>create a clickable document tree you can put on the Web. They did that. I?ll wager other
>improvements were also the result of user requests. To say that ?Most, if not all?
>requests users made weren?t acted on is false.
> >You write:
> >> I might even have gone
>for the upgrade even though I don?t use the program @ this time just to support their
>efforts but after the sleezy way they handled their development announcements, I?ve
>chosen not to. This is in stark contrast w Tom Davis? efforts w Zoot & Pierre?s efforts w
>InfoQube. I?ve supported these & many other such programs financially & in forums
>over the years just to be supportive. But the folks @ UltraRecall are a different
>stripe.
> >The UltraRecall people have been forthcoming in more experience,
>certainly more so than one of your examples. I like and I have used Zoot for years and Tom
>Davis is responsive if you write him, but he shares almost nothing useful about Zoot?s
>progress. UltraRecall publishes a roadmap and lo and behold, actually follows it
>reasonably closely. Where?s the official Zoot roadmap? (Yes, I know recently he?s
>outlined some promised features in emails on the forum, but he hasn?t posted a roadmap
>on the Web site) Davis has been talking about improvements of Zoot for years and has yet
>to deliver in a significant way. The transition to 32-bit Zoot took forever, almost
>literally. Even when it finally happened, only a few new features were added. More
>recently, he said a beta for Zoot 6 could be in January. Didn?t happen. Then he said
>maybe July 15. Hasn?t happened. Now, apparently, it?s imminent. I hope so. When
>UltraRecall releases an updated version, they tell you what bugs were fixed. I don?t
>recall Davis ever telling us. I like Zoot and I believe Davis is a good guy, but to say
>that somehow the UltraRecall people are sleazy in comparison is ridiculous.
> >I like
>UltraRecall. It?s a well-made, richly featured, reliable program ? much, much
>better than most products in this category.
> >That?s my nickel, and unlike your two
>cents, it?s not wooden.
> >