Okay, I’ll blather for a while about Tinderbox. It is, after all, one of my favourite applications on the Mac.
Actually, I used Tinderbox for more than just a place to keep my notes. I used it to define the actual structure of my books, and allow me to view various components of it in different collections. For example, I could have one view that shows the narrative order, and another view that isolated various plot threads, so that they could be read as a linear sequence. I also used its mapping abilities to place each of the narrative sections onto a huge time chart.
This was when I was also using Ulysses for all of my creative writing. Like you, I was never able to find Tinderbox as all that useful for writing creatively. There is just too much interface in the way for that. So I would write in Ulysses, utilising its full screen, and then dump the resulting text into my book structure. This was back when only a handful of applications had full screen. Nowadays, with WriteRoom around, we have access to full screen anywhere, and if Scrivener had not have come along, I would probably just used WriteRoom in conjunction with Tinderbox.
One of the things that Tinderbox really does right is allow a strong way of viewing data in multiple metaphors. Outlines are useful for some things; visual maps with arrows between them can be useful for other things; being able to follow a trail of links and branch off based on link type is subtle and useful; and collected text views such as what Edit Scrivenings provides, are useful for still other tasks. For real mapping, Tb is not as strong as something like Inspiration or CMAP, but it gets the job done, and is much much stronger in other areas than either of those applications.
So, Scrivener has changed things a lot. I no longer use Ulysses that much, and I have less need for filling the organisational gap, so my usage of Tinderbox as a way of keeping track of my stories has waned. I still have a lot of use for it, but mostly with web publishing and managing large projects from a task level basis.
I still find VP to be the best and most natural way to brainstorm and take notes on things. Tinderbox has a WikiLink mode, but it is rather limited for a number of reasons. Tb’s strength is in organising and displaying what is already in it. It isn’t so hot for making new things in it. At least that has been my experience. Fiddling with its millions of options are an asset when you are finding relationships between things – but not when you are trying to write.
The pricing scheme for Tb has never bothered me. I think it is unfortunate in that it is rather unorthodox and commonly misunderstood. I suppose, if you paid your dues every year and only got your incremental updates, it would feel a little expensive. There isn’t anything requiring one to do this though. The application will work forever with or without a yearly upgrade fee. The option is only there if you really do wish to keep up to date. You could treat it like any other major application that has a two or three year release cycle and only pay for the one year upgrade to get the benefit of all those years worth of upgrades. The difference is that, unlike those major applications, you get whatever else comes along for an entire year, as well. That is actually more generous than most offers which only give you the features up until that version point you paid for. Also unlike other applications, waiting doesn’t make things more expensive. If you wait five years to update, the upgrade fee doesn’t change. You get all five years of development, plus whatever happens in the sixth, for the same cost as if you had upgraded one year later and then stopped. So, patience pays off.
All of that said, some years are much better for Tb than others. This year so far has seen Tb grow in many substantial ways. A lot has been added to the AgentAction, OnAdd, and Rule fields that have massive implications on how data can be dynamically evolved. A lot has been added visually, too. Integration with OS X is much better. Other years have been less impressive. There have been years that I’ve skipped going for an upgrade; plenty happy with the girth of things that have been added in the two year interval.
While the trial is useless for new users, it can be pretty useful as a way of gauging whether or not it is time to spring for an upgrade. You can still load your 8,000 note masterpiece of information theory, you just cannot add new notes to it. Everything else is available including full access to export.
The concern you have with OS X integration is definitely one of the bigger ones. The whole Cocoa vs. Carbon thing doesn’t bother me as much. There is a valid place for Carbon applications, especially those that have a long standing history into pre-X days. If they already have a strong tool kit either hand-coded, or from professional libraries, there is little reason to use Apple’s Cocoa kit. You can still accomplish a lot of integration, including Services. Tb already has incorporated some of them – Services included. The fact remains, it is less integrated than a lot of applications are.
At least, it is less automatically integrated, and that is an important distinction to make. To an advanced user, its level of open integration is much higher because it is malleable to the user. Someone who has the ability to manipulate XML files can do quite a bit with Tinderbox. Its export engine is also extremely powerful. As long as your output format is text based, you can pretty much do anything. One of the first things I did with Tb was make an RTF exporter by using the HTML export engine. I ran into a few snags (which I posted on the Wiki) and since then those snags have been addressed. For those of you wondering why I wrote an RTF exporter, being such a plain text freak – well blame writing on a Palm Pilot and using WordSmith, for that. It would have been possible, for an example of integration, to make a synchronisation script between Ulysses and Tinderbox, so that I could write in Ulysses and organise in Tinderbox. They would both use a common data source and never even realise it. I never created it though, because in the time when I started researching it is also when Scrivener came out. While in theory such a system could work with Scrivener, it would be a lot more complicated because of the whole rich text thing. A lot.
For the long term direction of development. Yeah, that concerns me. I know a Windows port is in the making, and I also know it has been in the making for many years now. I am not sure how much it impacts the Mac development, actually. Tb has grown a lot – more than the average Mac project does, as a matter of fact. Given that, and how long the Windows port is taking, I do have to wonder just how committed they are to the port. As a long time Mac user, you always get a little worried when one of your favourite developers says “Windows Port”. Too many times we’ve seen ourselves side-lined once the “real” money starts rolling in from the countless hoards of Windows users. There are two things that lower my concern: A) Tinderbox is always going to be a niche program, no matter what platforms it supports. The learning curve is too substantial for most casual users to get in to it. If they keep their 15 note trial policy, it will continue to keep people at bay (and that remains, in my opinion, one of the most absurd trial limits, ever! It would be like a Photoshop demo where you could only make fifteen brush strokes or menu commands). B) The fact that they continue to support the OS 9 crowd to this day, causes me to consider that they are willing to put money beside legacy support. There seriously cannot be a lot of money is an OS 9 anymore. So, even if they do end up going Windows, and they do make a lot of money there, I am not too worried about the Mac side getting closed down. Things are just not as bleak as they used to be, too. It isn’t 95% to 5% anymore. These days, Macs are everywhere.
But, I remain prepared. I only buy a yearly upgrade when the price is fair for the number of new features I’ll be getting – rather than banking on the chance that the coming year will have significant upgrades, too.
Oh, and while Universal is still in development, I’ve tested Tb under Rosetta, and it works just fine. Tb is one of those rare complex applications that actually operates on a system with very minimal resources. That makes it suitable for emulated execution. I’d imagine you would want to lower agent priority a bit for complex projects, though.
Okay, I’ve blathered enough.