TOADLING  I've been using Yojimbo since January 2006 and it's still one of the few apps on my Mac that I truly love. It's simple, polished, and effective. Highly recommended.  
(Version 2.1)

TOADLING  The tools OmniFocus offers, synchronization, iPhone client, reviewing, outlining, focusing, filtering and sorting, and overall usability make this app the best all-around solution for managing large, complex collections of tasks and projects.

I've tried both Things and THL; both are nice apps, well-suited for simple task management. But when trying to deal with *everything* going on in my busy life, all the other apps simply couldn't manage and spiraled out of control.

OmniFocus, on the other hand, gives me the tools to stay on top of this mountain of projects. Thank you, Omni Group!  
(Version 1.7.3)

TOADLING  Personally, I had no problems with the upgrade, but I can sympathize with your loss. :-) Fortunately, it looks like all the issues have been ironed out in the more recent updates (i.e. 1.7.3).  
(Version 1.7.3)

TOADLING  I have to agree with ROBBNASHVILLE here. I came to virtually the same conclusion about Things -- the app just feels scattered and difficult to handle large collections of data (~2500 action and ~400 projects).

People can argue about the different implementations of various features (areas vs. tags vs. contexts vs. folders) and how to best use them, but for me the bottom line was that OmniFocus simply provided a better set of tools for what I wanted to accomplish.

I'm sure Things is a great app for a lot of people; it's simple and straightforward (although I personally find it's interface a bit "heavy" and dark and clunky). But for heavy-duty GTD task management, I found OmniFocus is the more powerful tool in terms of flexibility, functionality, and usability.  
(Version 1.7.3)

TOADLING  OmniFocus is a clear leader among GTD apps. There are some strong competitors (such as Cultured Code's Things), but they all fall short in key areas and, in the end, none of them can match the capabilities of OmniFocus.

That's not to say OmniFocus is perfect - there's still room for improvement. But it is currently the best GTD app available on the Mac.  
(Version 1.0.2)

TOADLING  I've used LaunchBar for a couple years now, taking a few breaks along the way to try out the competition. But I always come back to LaunchBar. Others may have even more features, but LaunchBar does nearly as much and with a much greater degree of elegance and simplicity. It's proven to be a rock-solid, reliable companion on my MacBook Pro. I love it.  
(Version 4.3.4)

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)

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)

TOADLING  I've been using OmniFocus for the past month or two in its late alpha and beta stages. It's always been very stable and reliable. So far, I've been very happy with the 1.0 release as well.

I've tried Things and took a close look at Midnight Inbox and iGTD2, but I think OmniFocus is the best of the bunch in terms of capability and usability. It allows me to view my projects and actions in the most intuitive way.

Documentation is sparse but adequate and support from the Omni Group is stellar.

The price may seem a bit steep compared to some other GTD apps, but OmniFocus is worth it in my mind. Plus, Omni Group provides some nice discounts. I actually ended up getting OmniFocus for less than most competitors are charging. And OmniFocus is arguably a better app.  
(Version 1.0)

TOADLING  Thanks for your tempered response, minimal design. I didn't want this to be a holy war and I'm really happy to see people discussing this rationally, especially since I actually like TextMate. It's just that I like BBEdit even more. :)

I used TextMate exclusively on a project for about 5-6 months last year. I'd like to think that I learned the application fairly well, but maybe I missed something, or maybe some things have changed since I switched back to BBEdit.

Can you be more specific about which of the above features TextMate has or implements better than BBEdit? If it can do things I don't know about, I'd certainly be interested in learning. After reviewing my original post again, I don't see any place where I've been unfair.  
(Version 8.7)

TOADLING  TextMate has a very vocal following. I was convinced to try TextMate on a project for a few months last year and I grew to like it. I even bought a license.

But after extensive comparisons, I ultimately returned to BBEdit and concluded that it is still the better tool. I haven't seriously used TextMate since.

First of all, BBEdit follows long-standing Mac paradigms: text dragged onto BBEdit's icon opens in a new window, events trigger on mouse up rather than mouse down, renamed open files are automatically updated, text selection feels more natural, undo is chunked rather than performed on each individual character, etc.

Second, BBEdit provides several features that are amazingly absent in TextMate: split window editing, tabbed editing OUTSIDE of a project, multi-file search and replace OUTSIDE of a project, ability to open very large files (>250MB) and function reliably, spell checking by right-clicking on a word, single click selection of multiple lines, ability to assign a key combination to just about anything, complete AppleScript support (so the application itself can be scripted not just the text in a document), GUI file comparison showing character-level differences, synchronized scrolling between multiple windows, optional display of all non-printing characters, optional display of tab stops, search for the current selection with a single key press, double-click to balance, named markers (a.k.a. bookmarks), ability to jump to previous insertion points, Text Factories, etc.

And third, BBEdit's implementation of key features is often superior to TextMate's: code folding triggers on mouse up rather than mouse down, opening and closing fold markers are easier to distinguish, BBEdit allows multiple arbitrary folds on the SAME line (useful for very long lines of code), folded blocks can be selected/copied/pasted/dragged, clippings auto-completion is easier to use and doesn't require remembering obscure strings coupled with a tab to complete, BBEdit's tabbed-editing makes it easier to work with more open documents (easily handles 40 or more) and with longer filenames because "tabs" are displayed vertically rather than horizontally, tabbed documents can be dragged between multiple windows, ALL unused features can be turned off (resulting in an interface I personally find less cluttered and easier to navigate), BBEdit's File Groups makes it easier to work with multiple projects simultaneously because they are displayed in separate windows, more fully-featured grep search/replace, visual feedback when looping on a quick search, line numbers are NOT part of the text view and don't scroll out of view when scrolling horizontally, a better organized and more fully-featured function menu, BBAutoComplete (a free BBEdit plug-in) allows arbitrary word completion based on text in the current document or in all open documents or from the system's spelling dictionary, etc.

Of course, TextMate has a few nice features: more control over syntax coloring and style, excellent scope system, slightly nicer column editing. But I can easily live without those considering all the advantages of BBEdit.

The bottom line is TextMate is a nice editor and it's less expensive than BBEdit, but it's also significantly less capable. If I used TextMate, I'd still need BBEdit to have all the capabilities I want. However, I could easily live entirely in BBEdit and never even miss TextMate. If you make your living writing code or working with text, and you want the best tool available on the Mac platform, the choice is clear: BBEdit.  
(Version 8.7)

TOADLING  How is TextMate's snippet support significantly better than BBEdit's Clippings? TextMate has a slight advantage in that it recognizes scope. And it comes with more "factory-installed" snippets, but other than that I prefer BBEdit's implementation.

(1) BBEdit allows you to save Clippings as individual text files rather than having to edit them in something like TextMate's Bundle Editor, so you can use the power of the text editor to edit your Clipping library. It's also easy to save new clippings in BBEdit: just select some text and choose "Save as Clipping" from the Clippings menu.

(2) You don't have to remember obscure tab-completion names to insert a snippet. Just type the first few letters (as many or as few as you want) and hit your key combo to auto-complete the Clipping. If BBEdit matches several Clippings to what you've typed, it pops up a selection window that let's you further refine the search, select the one you want manually, or start over and insert something completely different.

(3) BBEdit's Clippings can insert all kinds of dynamic data, even the output of scripts, just like TextMate.

(4) In TextMate, sometimes I remember having seen a command, but I can't find it in that insanely-organized Bundle menu and the search capability is horrendous (perhaps because it limits searches by the current scope?). Anyway, after about 10 minutes of looking, I give up and launch BBEdit and find what I'm looking for right away.  
(Version 8.7)

TOADLING  Hmm, personally I don't agree. I think the new bar is a vast improvement and is the perfect size.  
(Version 4.3.1)

TOADLING  LaunchBar is still my favorite launch utility. It's simple, clean, and elegant. And I love the new look - easier to see, easier to use.  
(Version 4.3.1)

TOADLING  I've been looking closely at some of the interesting features offered in other apps of this kind (like some of the new things in SOHO Notes 6), and I hope Yojimbo continues to grow.

But what keeps me coming back to Yojimbo is its sheer simplicity, elegance, and reliability. Yojimbo might not have some of those extra features, but its very good at what it does. And all the features in the world are useless if the app isn't reliable.  
(Version 1.4.2)

TOADLING  I've been using LaunchBar for about a year and a half now, and I still thinks it's the best in the launcher category. I've tried many others, but LaunchBar simply offers the best combination of ease of use, elegance, unobtrusiveness, and features I actually use.

Version 4.2b2 provides further polish to an already excellent application.  
(Version 4.2b2)

TOADLING  Just installed 9.0.28 on a MacBook Pro and had no problems. Installed fine, seems to be working properly, and did not require any permissions to be repaired (as other posters have suggested).  
(Version 9.0.28)

TOADLING  Yojimbo is exactly as the developer described it: effortless and reliable. It may not have all the whiz-bang features of some of its competitors, but Yojimbo's sheer simplicity, elegance, and reliability make it an absolute joy to use and a perfect solution for storing all the odds and ends that don't seem to fit anywhere else.

I'm a long-time Bare Bones customer and must admit that the company's excellent reputation had a strong influence over my selection of this app over others. After 9 months of heavy usage, however, Yojimbo has certainly proven itself and I have absolutely no regrets.

As for academic research, outlining, or writing books, there may be better choices. But for quickly collecting everyday tidbits of information and reliably retrieving them later with minimal fuss, Yojimbo is hard to beat.

And version 1.3 adds some great features, including possibly the best tagging implementation I've seen in any app.  
(Version 1.3)

TOADLING  LaunchBar is great. It's simple, easy to use, unobtrusive, fast, and reliable. I've tried to like Quicksilver, but I keep coming back to LaunchBar.  
(Version 4.1.1)

TOADLING  Quicksilver is good at many things, thanks to its plugin architecture and development community. It can do some things that LaunchBar simply cannot. However, for performing common launcher-type operations like locating and executing scripts and applications, basic file browsing and manipulation, and web searches, I think LaunchBar is better. Here's why:

1) LaunchBar's UI is very simple, unobtrusive, and more flexible than many of Quicksilver's interface plugins. It lacks some of the pizzaz of Quicksilver, which is sometimes borderline gaudy, but LaunchBar gets the job done with minimal fuss - exactly what I want in a launcher utility.

2) While both utilities may find items at similar speeds, LaunchBar feels faster because things can be accomplished in fewer steps.

For example, to open a file with something other than the default application, Quicksilver requires 5 steps: 1. type filename, 2. tab to action field, 3. type "open with", 4. tab to object field, 5. type name of application. LaunchBar, on the other hand, requires only 3 steps: 1. type filename, 2. hit tab, 3. type application name.

LaunchBar also supports common Finder key combinations. So rather than having to tab to the action field in Quicksilver and type "Copy" or "Get Info", I can just hit command-C or command-I in LaunchBar, which is faster and more intuitive because I'm already used to doing this in the Finder.

3) LaunchBar remembers the last input string for each operation requiring some kind of text input, while Quicksilver shares the same text input for all operations.

For example, in LaunchBar I can do a complex mathematical calculation and then track a FedEx package on the web with some other string input. Later, I can go back to the calculation or the FedEx package tracking entry and modify it or run it again without having to retype the text input each time. Quicksilver, on the other hand, reuses a single text field for *all* inputs (and sometimes outputs). So I'd have to retype that equation and FedEx tracking number every time I do a different operation in between.

4) LaunchBar automatically creates Smart Groups for items of the same kind in its index. This makes it very quick to search or browse only among related items, like all volumes (hard drives, optical discs, disk images, thumb drives), or only OmniOutliner documents, or all ZIP archives. As far as I know, Quicksilver does not do this.

5) LaunchBar seems to have a more intelligent search algorithm and requires less "training". It's better at guessing what I want when I ask for something. Quicksilver can be trained to find all those things, but it requires more work.

6) LaunchBar has more flexible options for controlling what files are indexed. For example, you can use simple shell wild cards (* and ?) to exclude specific files. Quicksilver's File/Folder catalog scanner plugin has no exclude options at all. Plus, LaunchBar can perform full content searches on text, rich text, and HTML files. Selecting a match from the resulting list opens the appropriate file with the matching line selected.

7) In my experience, LaunchBar is more stable and more reliable. I have never seen it so much as hiccup in over a year of heavy use. Quicksilver, on the other hand, sometimes seems a little flakey. I've seen occasional crashes and unresponsiveness, icons sometimes don't show up for certain items, it's sometimes very slow at reading large directories when file browsing, several interface plugins have drawing errors, etc. I have never seen these types of things with LaunchBar.

Phew, this post got a little too long. If you're still here, sorry for the rant.  
(Version 4.1.1)