Forum Posts Feed
Infohesive
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by JohnK
Feb 21, 2008 at 07:36 PM
Well, as I said in the first post, I use and like 2brightsparks’ SyncbackSE, so I was a bit disappointed by InfoHesive—it didn’t seem to offer anything new. I visited the beta forum and asked the developers to say why we should be interested in Infohesive.
The response is here: http://2brightsparks.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=18389.
My very brief summary would be that they seem to be emphasising its ebook capabilities, and more specifically its ability to produce high quality help files (something I have not tested).
Posted by Graham Rhind
Feb 21, 2008 at 08:09 PM
I also remain unconvinced. Their e-books and help files are in a proprietary format, so the free Infohesive reader is required to view them, which puts the software on a par with products such as Whizfolders. It doesn’t produce “standard” help files that can be called by most programs, such as .chm files, and there are also free help file creators around, such as HelpMaker (http://www.vizacc.com). I’ve no doubt that it will be stylish and stable software (as is SyncSE), but they’re entering a crowded market place!
Graham
Posted by Stephen Zeoli
Feb 21, 2008 at 09:45 PM
JohnK wrote:
>Well, as I said in the first post, I use and like 2brightsparks’ SyncbackSE, so I was a
>bit disappointed by InfoHesive—it didn’t seem to offer anything new. I visited the
>beta forum and asked the developers to say why we should be interested in
>Infohesive.
>
>The response is here:
>http://2brightsparks.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=18389.
>
>My very brief summary
>would be that they seem to be emphasising its ebook capabilities, and more
>specifically its ability to produce high quality help files (something I have not
>tested).
John,
I saw your question at the forum and was hoping they’d respond. Thanks for pointing this out.
I agree that Infohesive does not break any new ground and is certainly much less powerful than UltraRecall and Zoot, for instance. It is more on a par with Jot+, Maple, ActionOutliner and other simple two-pane PIMs. In that realm, it does compete nicely, I think. I’ve enjoyed playing around with it. It feels stable and looks good—certainly a subjective evaluation. And I like the editor. It feels like a good writing environment—mostly due to its extended selection ability.
I think they are making a mistake in requiring a separate viewer for e-books and help files. Instead they should provide the ability to create a run-time, executable of the e-book or help file. If I’m not mistaken, MyBase does this… or used to. Then all you need to do is distribute one file instead of two, one of which needs to be installed.
Thanks for the post!
Steve Z.