- #Things 3 vs omnifocus 3 manual#
- #Things 3 vs omnifocus 3 full#
- #Things 3 vs omnifocus 3 for android#
You can send links to web pages or other text clips into your inbox using the standard Android share sheet. You can add a home screen link that will open a quick entry panel to quickly let you add tasks to your inbox. Use widgets to stay on top of important projects. You can style the text with bold or italics fonts to make sections stand out. Tap on the note description in the task detail screen to edit notes. Note that at least one copy of OmniFocus* is required in order to synchronize.Ĭreate tags for persons, locations, places, energy level or priority and organize your tasks in any way you want.įocusGTD works with OmniSync Server* or you can also use another WebDAV shared drive. You can configure the time and date when you want to be reminded.įocusGTD synchronizes data with OmniFocus* (version 3 or higher) on the Mac or iOS. This application is in no way related to OmniGroup.įocusGTD reminds you when tasks become due.
#Things 3 vs omnifocus 3 full#
It supports the full GTD methodology with Tasks, Projects and Contexts.
#Things 3 vs omnifocus 3 for android#
Why, oh why, must I use a Mac to have good task management software? At a minimum a nice Ajax enabled web client is in order.ĭespite my criticisms I do like both of these programs and think they’re better than anything available for Windows (Outlook doesn’t even come close).Focus GTD 3 is a GTD application for Android that can synchronize with OmniFocus 3 (only) on the Mac and iOS. But I do have Windows machines both at work and home.
I think Macs are great (more specifically OS X). Unless of course I want to change something because I didn’t do something.įinally, they’re both only available for the Mac. Why? Because entering new tasks needs to be very fast and shouldn’t required that I do anything else to organize them beyond that initial entry. This is the definition of kludgy and is Things biggest limitation.
What this means is that project and area associations must be manually created after the task is created via a wizard like menu system. But it doesn’t allow for anything but tags to be entered (associated) during task entry. All good things and allowing finer control over tasks than OmniFocus. Things has projects, areas, hierarchal tags, and people. Then again, nothing that I’m aware of offers that right now, so maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. A cross between relational organization and hierarchal organization would be super powerful.
This is a good thing overall, but even there it would be nice to have a little more depth. It does, however, allow for hierarchal contexts.
#Things 3 vs omnifocus 3 manual#
That’s a big deal, manual operations take half of the value out of a task management applications. It does have folders (aka groups), but that’s a completely different concept and requires manual organization. As a seeming result it doesn’t offer things like deep projects (projects with sub projects that have their own sub projects…ad nauseam…). OmniFocus being too structured appears to be the result of strict adherence to the GTD scheme. Nothing is ever perfect, but a couple small changes to either and my life would be so much easier. Omnifocus is a little too structured while Things is a little too loose and, even worse, manual. I would simply choose one, but they both have their limitations. I’m using them both just too see which one I end up using more and then I’ll stick with the winner. OmniFocus and Things are both great GTD/PIM/Productivity applications.
0 kommentar(er)
