BUMBLEB  I came to the exact opposite conclusion. The interface of OmniFocus on the mac, is totally awkward and confusion. I guess some like it, but I simply can't work with it daily. Feels almost like a Windows app: Clunky, too much, cluttered...

And your comment: "I prefer the use of contexts, which are like categories. OmniFocus follows the use of contexts. (Things has something similar called "Areas"; but they are just not the same thing in practice.)"

– totally gives away the fact that you totally misunderstood Things.

Areas = what David Allen talks about as Areas of Focus in his latest book - Roles in Steve Covey terms. Has absolutely nothing to do with contexts.

Tags = contexts. In Things you can assign many tags, ie. several contexts, like: "office, Janet, website" which is wonderful and less constricting than using one single context.

You can use these tags to filter your next actions, in exactly the same way as OmniFocus, although I may argue, in a much better, easier, faster, lean way. No need to switch mode from "Projects" to "Contexts" as in OmniFocus.  
(Version 1.6)

ROBBNASHVILLE  I don't think that I misunderstood THINGS; I used it for over six months. As I mentioned in my review, I'm sure a lot of people like that approach. I prefer more organization and precise control over what I see. THINGS just does not deliver that as well as OmniFocus. I know this because I was forever searching around in THINGS, having to remember tags and whether I had placed something in NEXT, SOMEDAY, etc. whereas in OMNIFOCUS, I can get to it easily. I get things done with OMNIFOCUS much more easily and quickly. Obviously, you work differently; and that's fine ... but there's no need to imply that a user doesn't understand a program just because he doesn't like it. Regarding the interface, I think most people would say that THINGS is prettier; I agree. However, I don't find OMNIFOCUS "windows-like" at all ... just not as glamorous ... but OMNIFOCUS is definitely better organized.  
(Version 1.6)

BUMBLEB  As to finding things in Things (no pun intended) there is a wonderful search box, beautifully implemented. And the Someday list is genius: Simple, works, and hides all the crap/stuff I accumulate. In OmniFocus, that is scattered:

You can put the project on hold, view projects that are on hold, or hide them, or you can or you can put the individual actions in a someday/maybe context, and several other things. OF course, that is flexible, but way way too much for me at least. I respect that you like it. We are all different and unique as human beings, and that's wonderful.

I also totally respect that you feel better about OmniFocus, but if you equate contexts to the "areas" in Things you indeed didn't get it. Your comments on Things was therefore incorrect.

Bullshit is bullshit, of course Things didn't work for you if you tried to use it in the wrong way. Like sitting in Pages and wanting to print by choosing Save and complaining it doesn't print. Or trying to screw a nail in your wall with a screwdriver. You would indeed be screwed.

I was with the private beta of OmniFocus, own a family license, and the iPhone software. I just never got stuff done with it. But let's celebrate the fact that there is choice in this market. Remember a few years ago when there was only poor attempts at GTD apps, no iPhone at all, only Nokia phones, BlackBerries and Palm Pilots. I'm so happy I can lie in bed at night and do a review in Things... or OmniFocus... Just the possibility is wonderful.

Sorry if I've come across as rough, I don't mean to;-)  
(Version 1.6)

ROBBNASHVILLE  YOU WROTE: "but if you equate contexts to the "areas" in Things you indeed didn't get it. Your comments on Things was therefore incorrect."

Huh? Are you really serious?

Contexts in OmniFocus consist of such things as "Home", "Office", "Mac", "Online", "Shopping", etc. Exactly what is your interpretation of "Areas" in Things? Of course, contexts & areas can be user definable in whatever way makes the most sense to the individual; but they are pretty much the same thing. The reason I said that OmniFocus handles them a little differently and takes the concept to the next level is that you can have multiple sub-contexts within a context if you want a great degree of organization (which I do). Then, of course, you can use the context view in OmniFocus and combine them at any particular time and sort them in a number of ways to help you see everything on one screen so much more clearly that Things allows.

I'm really not saying that Things is not useful if you are a person who does not like a lot of organization. What I did not like about Things mainly was the inability to sort as deeply as I need AND the multiple cubbyholes such as NEXT, SOMEDAY, etc. I find the OmniFocus context called "waiting" superior for actions that you either cannot complete at the moment or simply don't want to complete at this time. You can even have individual actions within a project with this context while other actions within the project have a different context if you like. If you have an entire project that you feel this way about, you can change it's status, yet if you want to see all remaining projects, you can sort that way and not have to search among various views to find it. Then there are the "tags" in Things. I know that some people find them fascinating and useful. I find them exactly the opposite.

I do thank you for this conversation; and I don't mind if you disagree with me. However, you are wrong when you say that areas and contexts are very different. They are not.  
(Version 1.6)

RPPHOTO  Well, I tried Thinking Rock and thought it was unpleasurably ugly. In fact, I've been trying them all for months now, and I'm back to OmniFocus. There's some novelty in the others, and maybe less of a learning curve, but this is the one I enjoy using and it causes me to get my work done.  
(Version 1.5)

ESPIRIDION  It's great to have so many choices these days. :-)

I don't find TR2 ugly, although it's certainly not the most beautiful interface. Midnight Inbox has a truly nice interface from what I remember, but I couldn't use it for my GTD system.

Thinking Rock enables me to be more productive and adheres to the GTD methodology. Plus I've been able to use it at home (Mac) and at the office (PC). I'm more into function than beauty :-)

There's a poll at the Thinking Rock website, and so far only 3% of respondents want them to focus on "Aesthetics (make it look better)"

They're very responsive to their users, and in this case most users don't think that working on a nicer interface is a priority.

Again, it's great to have options:

http://www.priacta.com/Articles/Comparison_of_GTD_Software.php  
(Version 1.5)

ROBBNASHVILLE  You wrote: "but if you equate contexts to the "areas" in Things you indeed didn't get it."

Huh? Are you serious?

OK ... in OmniFocus, a context is something like: "Home", "Mac", "Online", "Shopping", etc. What is an "Area" in Things in your understanding of the program? (Well, of course, an area AND/OR a context can be as simple or as complex as you want it to be and is somewhat user definable ... even to the extent of departing from the generally accepted use of the term. You can have just a few areas/contexts or many. (OmniFocus allows you to even have sub-contexts if you really want organization; and I do.) However, contexts and areas DO serve the basic need. OmniFocus has a context called WAITING, which takes the place of the dreaded SOMEDAY cubbyhole in THINGS so that you don't have to guess whether you should be looking in Next, Someday, etc. when you are trying to view what you want or need to do today. AND you can have an individual action with that context (Waiting) and still have it a current project. If you really want to have the project in an area like "Someday", you can change the status in OmniFocus.

Thank you for this discussion. It's been fun; and I certainly have no problem with you disagreeing with me. I'm a big boy; and I can take it. However. you really should have thought about that statement that areas and contexts are differnt. :-)   
(Version 1.6)

ROBBNASHVILLE  I think I posted the above comment on the wrong thread. Please excuse.

Robb  
(Version 1.6)

YULETIDE  Ditto! I'm also looking for this functionality!  
(Version 1.0)

BEELERS  I use Missing Sync for Palm by Markspace software to get the functionality you're talking about with my Palm Treo, Omnifocus and iCal.  
(Version 1.0.1)

MARKYEARY  Another vote for Missing Sync. Sync Omni Focus to iCal, then iCal to Palm (Treo 650 in my case). iCal is essentially a conduit for my task list between OF and my Treo.  
(Version 1.0.1)

JKT  Not everyone has basic to-do lists and the point of OmniFocus is not to be a basic to-do list, it is ultimately to be a GTD app (with enough flexibility to be usable by people who don't know anything about GTD). While that might sound like a trivial difference, it isn't, as the plethora of GTD apps that have sprung up recently testify to (with, incidentally, none suiting absolutely everyone's way of GTD, hence the number of different apps that have arisen - many different attempts at solving the GTD problem).  
(Version 1.0)

TOADLING  According to Omni, priorities _are_ supported in the fact that you can arrange your listed actions and projects in order of importance. So rather than having only 3 or 5 levels of priority that most "to do list" apps provide, you have infinite granularity and can prioritize to your heart's content.

This may or may not work for your particular needs, but I'm just pointing it out.  
(Version 1.0)

LEV  Good point. But you still actually SEE everything; sometimes I want to say "Just show me the stuff that's really high priority". Otherwise the list can get visually overwhelming.

Perhaps the truth is GTD doesn't work for me. As a writer, working from home, I don't have contexts really. I don't have meetings, I don't commute, differentiating @work from @home is kind of meaningless, and if I'm here, the Mac is here and so is the internet... perhaps something simpler (TaskPaper?) would be better for my needs.  
(Version 1.0)

TOADLING  I use flags to indicate "really high priority" stuff - the things I intend to work on immediately. OmniFocus allows filtering on flagged actions and projects so you can see only those items. Maybe that would work for you?

I also work from home (as a software developer). The "all my contexts are in the same place" issue troubled me at first, too. But I've since found that if I broaden the definition of "context" beyond just physical locations, they're still very useful.

I have contexts for servers I connect to, where I need to do some work. I have other contexts for specific tools and environments, particularly ones that take a while to set up (if I go through the trouble of setting it up, I want to be able to find other tasks that need to be done there). I also set up contexts for people I work with on a regular basis. I don't see them in person, but I still need to track tasks that depend on them.

I have contexts for my personal life, as well: friends and family, errands, shopping, vehicles, areas of my house (attic, roof, yard, garage, etc.). If I'm going to do some work in the attic, it's really nice to be able to pull up a list of everything that I have planned to do in that location so I can get it all done at once.

As for other apps, I've also tried TaskPaper. In fact, I even bought a license. But after using it for a month or so, I found it to be too basic for my needs. Although, I really admire the simplicity and flexibility of the plain text format. It's a nice little app. I'd recommend giving it a try to see if it suits you better than OmniFocus. For me, however, OmniFocus seems to work best. Good luck!  
(Version 1.0)

BUMBLEB  lev >

Use. Perspectives.

=)  
(Version 1.0)