I do sort of the opposite to you I guess. I’m a strict email deleter so I don’t keep marketing emails etc., but no email lives forever in my clients: they get archived in a DT database. This is because a) I don’t want my emails sitting on someone else’s server, and b) DT’s search is much better so it’s easier to find things.
For the original question, I use DT for “everything” (with reason ). I also don’t think anyone in this forum would consider DT just a warehouse, so these results are perhaps a bit biased. I’m sure there are users who do use it just for that and have never explored what else it can do, but they’re probably not in the forum.
I’ve had a busy spring and my main database (where I work and think) is a little untidy at the moment - lots of unfinished notes, more files tagged “currently working on” or “high priority” than is normal. I know I’ve not had enough ease in my schedule because it’s starting to stress me a bit. So DT, like a paper notebook, is also a barometer of my time. (I can’t remember who said it - I want to say Feynman but I don’t think it was - that if your notebook has been blank for a couple of days you’re probably too busy).
It’s been a long time since I’ve used Scrivener, so long harp glissandos are probably warranted.
Like any app that saves it’s work as a Finder package, I believe it’s safe to store Scrivener projects in DT and I did so many times. Create a Scrivener project, drag and drop it into a DT group other than the global inbox.
Or exit Scrivener, saving a new project to the global inbox. Just remember to move it to a normal DT group before working with it again.
Anyway, that gave me one nice little playground for all the files related to a project plus the Scrivener project itself in one tidy bundle.
It also solved synchronizing with my laptop through a USB drive.
Now, about “I believe it’s safe” stuff, I also believe backups aren’t a bad idea - but I never had trouble with Scrivener files in DT databases.
Just jumping in for a moment: A Scrivener file is a package file. So are TextBundle files. So are RTFD files. And modern office formats, e.g., .xlsx, .pages, etc., are also packages. So storage is not an issue or a danger. You can (potentially) view and open such files in their bespoke applications as safely as the Finder does.
With the exception of RTFD (and maybe one day, TextBundle), package files are stored safely with a “Look but don’t touch” approach. RTFD is editable as we already support RTF and it’s an incredibly simple format with next to no moving parts. But there is a complex series of gears and levers inside a Scrivener, Word, Keynote, etc., file that needs to be managed by their respective applications.
Scrivener Many (writers) use Scrivener for writing and DT for research. That shouldn’t really be necessary. Scrivener can “handle” all kinds of documents—even a very, very large number of them. Unless you’re trying to search within a large project. That’s when Scrivener’s perhaps only weakness becomes apparent.
If this is fixed in version 4 (if there ever is a version 4), then I’m not sure how many people will still need both apps.
Scrivener is a great platform. I don’t use it, but I recognize the people behind it offer great support. Scrivener powers a lot of creativity.
It would have to come a long way, far afield of a writing tool’s domain, to match DT for knowledge management or document warehousing.
I plan to keep a current license for Scrivener because that company is cool. Version 4 might draw me back into the fold. Even if it doesn’t, I’ll get a Version 4 license when it’s available just so I can keep up with the cool kids.
Scrivener and Word in the same sentence? What heresy is this??
Otherwise, quite true. Like DT, don’t open Scrivener’s component files outside of Scrivener. Although, it must be said Scrivener’s structure is really easy to mess with.
Not by me, of course not. I knew a guy once who was into that sort of thing.
That’s undeniable But most people who use Scrivener don’t need that.
L&L is going to launch a new writing app before Scrivener 4. It’s supposed to work a bit "simpler.” We don’t even know the name yet. In any case, if this app fixes Scrivener’s biggest weaknesses … We’ll see
Scrivener is an exceptional application… I’ve never had a use for. I have always admired the look and some of the features, but I don’t write things that require its toolset. Or I write things built on very specific technical frameworks beyond its capabilities.
So true and I don’t think I’d advise Devonthink to pursue word processing. Devonthink is best when it’s agnostic to my fickle tastes. Which, fortunately, it is.
Yes. I don’t really use DT as a storage tool. For me it is the primary planning and research tool for my business. I use it to:
plan and write marketing campaigns
outline and track goals and objectives
keep track of all business information (taxes, insurance, etc)
save key learnings and methods for using my business tools (software, website, financial tools)
DT is constantly open, and in use. It is how I think and plan. If it is not mulled over and saved in a DT doc, it is not remembered, considered, or acted on!
“DEVONthink is often dismissed as little more than a document warehouse:”. Is it? By whom?
I use DT4 Pro every day. The sorter ideal for notes of calls, text from websites that comes in handy. I have 3 main databases and one or two feeder databases. Four databases including the feeders are indexed to Finder folders. The feeder databases are for adding pdfs pending manual renaming which once done I drag/drop the pdf(s) into a relevant folder on Finder. I find renaming a pdf n DT4 much easier than renaming in Finder. It’s also easier when part of the rename of several pdfs is a word or more common to each rename. For example, when a rename is an address, for consistency I use town - road - number - date. Where say 10 pdfs are the same town, i select the pdfs and on the built-in scripts menu select rename, enter the text, and done. Finding pdfs to rename with a common name is also easy: select the pdfs, enter the search term, and add the common word. It’s quicker now I’ve renamed most but any processing is a breeze with DT4.
I don’t use DT4 for journalling, i have my own website for that. My database for research contains anything that might be useful. Only this morning I was reading a dissertation from 2008 by a USA student about nightclubs in New York.
The search I find phenomenal; a phrase in an 800-page pdf in a second or so.
What I meant was: I don’t use DT primarily to store documents from other applications or sources (PDFs, etc). I’d say at least 95% of my documents are RTF docs made and editing within DT.
In my work (legal) I need to create very detailed chronologies for each case. I use a folder with an individual RT file for each “fact” using yymmdd format, in which I link the fact to other docs in the case file. For each fact I put short blurbs from other docs containing any statements by parties/witnesses; any documentary evidence about the fact, and any related cases/statutes. Then, when I’m reviewing the facts of the case, I can quickly link to a particular Word or email, or a particular page of any pdf to see the original source and details of conflicting evidence or contradictory statements. I also tag each fact for related party/witness, legal theory, or “to do” (questions for particular witnesses (e.g. “?4FN”), stage of the case (e.g. discovery, summary judgment, settlement)), so I can quickly access those related facts. This linking feature is so incredibly useful, but I’m sure there are additional functionalities I haven’t developed yet (like scripts) but I’m not very computer literate – I wish DT had some short videos showing how to use those features.
Well sure, I wouldn’t write a novel in RTF! But it works fine for most documents I create (1-5 page reports, project plans, etc.). And having the editor integrated into the document management tools? Chef’s Kiss. Such a time saver as I am constantly “dancing” among multiple documents (finding, editing, linking).
). I also don’t think anyone in this forum would consider DT just a warehouse, so these results are perhaps a bit biased. I’m sure there are users who do use it just for that and have never explored what else it can do, but they’re probably not in the forum.
Many (writers) use Scrivener for writing and DT for research. That shouldn’t really be necessary. Scrivener can “handle” all kinds of documents—even a very, very large number of them. Unless you’re trying to search within a large project. That’s when Scrivener’s perhaps only weakness becomes apparent.
But most people who use Scrivener don’t need that.