Critical View of Devon Think - or the Emperor Is Missing Some Clothes

Posted by Harlander
Sep 2, 2010 at 11:28 AM

So, what does he criticise?

“Now I?m starting to wonder. DEVONThink is an application best described as inattentive to its appearance. It is messy in the way it interacts with others and is more worried about the mad scientist, artificial intelligence core of the program than in adding any real value to how users create or manage data.”

I have to say I don’t quite follow here. I think most parts of DevonThink are quite accessible and comprehensible, at least I haven’t had any difficulties finding what I was searching for in terms of appearance… Interaction with other programs is messy? What does that mean? Getting things into or out of DevonThink is easy, integration with other programs just fine and mostly just one click or drag-and-drop away. And the “mad scientist” inside makes it easy to find related stuff. So I think there is indeed some real value in it.

“A web buddy of mine, who also searched for another after her Journler romance failed, called DEVONThink ?realy, um?. German.? She was right. DT is rigid in its requirements and often sports a bad haircut. You get the idea.” -“It was this Arian capacity for endurance that seduced me to DT.”

Wow, what an unbelievable sense of humour.

“But the better question is what do these apps do for you that the file system doesn?t? If there is no work being done by the application then it is just an additional layer of code that will eventual corrupt or become obsolete (Anyone here ever use Ecco Pro back in the 90?s? I bet your data is lost too.)”

With DevonThink you can create, structure and search data in numerous ways. You can work with many different file types, get a concordance of all the words, search for related documents, copy text from various sources right into your notes, split notes, combine notes. You can import them via the sorter, replicate them, duplicate them, just index them etc. Of course, some of these things can be achieved by just using Spotlight, Aliases and a folder structure - but not all of them. And not in an integrated environment. As for the question whether your data is lost in DevonThink - no. All files are accessible from the finder.

He goes on that DevonThink does no tagging (as of Feb 2009). Which is not true any more. So, yes, you can tag whatever you want, though it is still in its early stages.

“It doesn?t have a common view of multiple folders.” - That’s right.
“It is more cumbersome to use than directly editing Spotlight comments.” - No. Just click on “info” and you can edit your spotlight comments.
“The text editor is forlorn. ” - No. It’s just the standard editor. If you want more, use a Word Processor. That’s why they exist.
“For some bizarre reason shortcuts (which they call replicas) are always labeled red.” Well, some people might like to see there replicas at once. If you don’t like it, just turn it off.
“Wiki links do not open in their own window.” They do.
“Tabs look like they are from the 1990?s, refuse to open in a separate window, and resist any reorganization.” He’s right on that.
“Labels are written to exported files but are not included in imports.” Maybe. I have never used labels.
“Dozens of keystrokes have to be modified to match standard OS X functionality.” No.
“Labels sort alphabetically by label name”. I don’t know what he’s talking about. You can sort your data by whatever you like. Does he really want to sort the labels themselves? Strange, as you can only have a dozen of them.
” File metadata is not accessible or searchable, and dates are considered sacrosanct, not editable except by a ?who knows if it will be there tomorrow? script.” True. But that’s also true for most applications. By the way, metadata can be a search criterion, you just have to use the advanced find window…
“The scripts just help overcome the deficiencies of an introverted application.” Scripts are a part of OS X and some programs make use of them and let users create new ones. So does DevonThink. That’s not “sloppy programming”, that’s extendability.

So, where are the valid points? I haven’t found any. Some quirks, that are minor to me, might of course be a great thing for others. But the core functionality just works as it should. If the author’s needs are different, maybe he should just use a different program. How about Tinderbox? ;-)

Andreas