What word processing, bibliographic, note taking programs do you use?

Early in my PhD program, I started using Nota Bene, an integrated program for academic research and writing. It was lifesaver, especially for researching and writing my dissertation. I've been out of the academic environment for several years, but my NB remains useful for my research and writing in the church. I've thought on occasion, though, about moving to another program or set of programs which may work more seamlessly with Logos. Nota Bene is a superior program, but it is a small company producing a niche product. The current release of NB is a 16-bit program, and I have to run it in the Window Virtual PC in my 64-bit Lenovo ThinkPad.

NB has been working on a 32-bit iteration, and it will probably be released within a couple of months and will cost $99 to upgrade. Before I sink another $99 into the program, though, I thought I would see what other options I may have. I may discover that I have the best available. This is where you Logos comrades come in. Smile What do you use? Any suggestions?

And Mac users--please chime in. I may move everything over to Apple one day.

Thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Mark Barnes

I use Endnote in combination with Microsoft Word 2010. That works very well for me. I find it far more powerful and intuitive than Notabene. It doesn't integrate with Logos in any way, but I don't really need it to.

Matthew C Jones

NB has been working on a 32-bit iteration, and it will probably be released within a couple of months and will cost $99 to upgrade.

I bought Nota Bene second hand from a South African Bishop several years ago. He gave me an incredible bargain on it. I looked at Endnote but saw no need to switch. If I am ever to be convinced to upgrade NB, they will have to offer significant new features to reel me in. As for wordprocessing and notes: Microsoft Office 2010 and OneNote. (I found I use Excel often.)

Now, I will check out Nota Bene's new features.[8-|]

one more thing Bill; I am not impressed with MS Office for Mac. It is far shy of the Windows version. There has got to be a better wordprocessor for Mac.

Bill Moore

I use Endnote in combination with Microsoft Word 2010. That works very well for me. I find it far more powerful and intuitive than Notabene. It doesn't integrate with Logos in any way, but I don't really need it to.

Thanks, Mark. I've not used MS Word 2010. I started out with WordPerfect in the late 1980's and never went to Word because of its lack of reveal codes. NB's reveal codes is WP on steroids. [;)] But it is interesting that you find Word and Endnote more powerful than NB. Would you mind elaborating on that?

By integrating with Logos, I was mainly referring to the extra step required to copy verses from Logos to NB. With MS Word and several other options, one can have the verse or passage directly sent to the program from Logos. With NB, you have to paste it. Not a big deal, but it is another step.

Bill Moore

NB has been working on a 32-bit iteration, and it will probably be released within a couple of months and will cost $99 to upgrade.

I bought Nota Bene second hand from a South African Bishop several years ago. He gave me an incredible bargain on it. I looked at Endnote but saw no need to switch. If I am ever to be convinced to upgrade NB, they will have to offer significant new features to reel me in. As for wordprocessing and notes: Microsoft Office 2010 and OneNote. (I found I use Excel often.)

Now, I will check out Nota Bene's new features.

one more thing Bill; I am not impressed with MS Office for Mac. It is far shy of the Windows version. There has got to be a better wordprocessor for Mac.

Thanks, Matthew. The upgrade is $99 from version 9 and $199, if memory serves, from version 8. If you have an earlier version than 8, the price may make upgrading too pricey for the benefit.

I will look into OneNote.

Mark Barnes

But it is interesting that you find Word and Endnote more powerful than NB.

I've made by software choice a number of years ago, so haven't used NB9. The core NB functions are NOT more powerful in Word/Endnote. In fact, NB probably still has the edge. But beyond the core, MS Word clearly has the edge. There are so many functions that I use beyond that (including integration with other software) than NB can't touch. I'm not willing to sacrifice all that for a minimal benefit in bibliographic functionality. Just as a minor example, NB won't render images, but only supports OLE. Now, OK you can get around that, so its not a show-stopper - but there are dozens of examples like that, and cumulatively they matter to me. Have you seen the advice given for JPEGs in Nota Bene's manual?

…although you can view a JPEG file on most systems (because Explorer lets you do so), some people do not have JPEG editors installed, so they cannot directly include them in NB files. However, if you do want to insert a JPEG or GIF image, for example, but you don't have an OLE server for that kind of file, there is a way around this problem… if you have Microsoft Word on your system, you can create a Word document that contains just that image (since Word does some of this rendering itself, not calling on the other program), and save it as a Word file with a .DOC extension. Then, in NB, you can include, that Word document or Photoshop image instead of the original file.

Now I'm sure you don't do that, and JPEGs work just fine, but the point is simply that NB lacks critical core functionality that I need, and although its very good at bibliographic stuff, I'm not willing to accept its lack of functionality in areas like this.

Bill Moore

But it is interesting that you find Word and Endnote more powerful than NB.

I've made by software choice a number of years ago, so haven't used NB9. The core NB functions are NOT more powerful in Word/Endnote. In fact, NB probably still has the edge. But beyond the core, MS Word clearly has the edge. There are so many functions that I use beyond that (including integration with other software) than NB can't touch. I'm not willing to sacrifice all that for a minimal benefit in bibliographic functionality. Just as a minor example, NB won't render images, but only supports OLE. Now, OK you can get around that, so its not a show-stopper - but there are dozens of examples like that, and cumulatively they matter to me. Have you seen the advice given for JPEGs in Nota Bene's manual?

…although you can view a JPEG file on most systems (because Explorer lets you do so), some people do not have JPEG editors installed, so they cannot directly include them in NB files. However, if you do want to insert a JPEG or GIF image, for example, but you don't have an OLE server for that kind of file, there is a way around this problem… if you have Microsoft Word on your system, you can create a Word document that contains just that image (since Word does some of this rendering itself, not calling on the other program), and save it as a Word file with a .DOC extension. Then, in NB, you can include, that Word document or Photoshop image instead of the original file.

Now I'm sure you don't do that, and JPEGs work just fine, but the point is simply that NB lacks critical core functionality that I need, and although its very good at bibliographic stuff, I'm not willing to accept its lack of functionality in areas like this.

Thanks. Yes, that's the sort of thing that has me looking elsewhere. As a general word processing program, NB is behind the curve, or so it seems to me.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

I am not impressed with MS Office for Mac. It is far shy of the Windows version. There has got to be a better wordprocessor for Mac.

LibreOffice is free, which has international language option for Right to Left textual direction.

Mellel has often been mentioned, including Logos User Voice suggestion => add Mellel support for "Copy Bible Verses" (currently has 26 votes)

Scrivener is another writing tool to consider for Mac (and PC) => http://www.literatureandlatte.com/scrivener.php?platform=mac

Keep Smiling [:)]

GregW

I haven't used NB or EndNote, but have used Zotero, which also has plugins for several Word Processors. I use it with Word, and it works fine. It has the advantage of being Open Source, and therefore costs nothing. It handles all the normal bibliographic & citation formats, and you can import book/journal, etc details into it from online library catalogues or Amazon. Worth trying, both on PC and Mac. Only other point is that it only works with Firefox browsers. You can find it at www.zotero.org.

Rosie Perera

For word-processing I use Word. I can't imagine using anything else. I helped write it, so I guess I'm kind of biased. [:)]

For bibliographies I use Zotero some of the time, though I haven't converted over completely to using it. I still have my main research bibliography (on faith and technology) in Word. It's more work to add each new entry I discover to it than it would be in Zotero, but the barrier of converting it all to Zotero is too high for me.

For quick and dirty note-taking when I'm out and about with my tablet, I use Evernote. Otherwise I use Word for that too.

BillS

What do you use?

I use a combo of Word's outlining & word processing functions. I flip back & forth through them. Why?

When I'm taking notes, I'm also thinking about publication, & I find the outlining to be a VERY handy way of building my TOC from the ground up. And it helps to organize my thinking by doing it that way....

BLessings on your choice.

Bill Moore

Greg, Philana, and Bill--thanks for the input. Very interesting about Zotero. I'll definitely look into it.

I could perhaps start using LibreOffice, save everything as .doc files, and then switch to MS Office when the 2012 version is released. It's tough living with such a cheapskate. [:)]

Donovan R. Palmer

I'm on Mac and use DevonThink. It has an academic following and is very powerful.

MJ. Smith

Only other point is that it only works with Firefox browsers. You can find it at www.zotero.org.

Zotero has in beta a version that is not Firefox dependent. It does not automate importing bibliographies from books where I would like to see at least as much "importing" as recipe programs. It is a solid program. I keep my notes in Logos for reasons directly related to my use of them ... but I am not satisfied with their features.