[svsmailus]

Originally Posted by wilsonng

Speedy development cycles also have their detractors.

We're talking about 6 years here. None of the other software developers I use have this length of version cycles.

Originally Posted by wilsonng

Omni has been also busy trying to keep up with the various iOS updates and adding features that we didn't have before. Things like iOS Reminder integration, an iPad app, and two iPhone apps (OF 1 for iPhone and OF 2 for iPhone).

Wow, you're not doing them any favours. Six years just to keep up-to-date with os changes. Apart from some minor changes OF hasn't changed much in this space of time.

Originally Posted by wilsonng

I don't know about this. There are many people who have been working just fine with single contexts. No serious considerable financial investment lost here.

Two things.

1. Psilas mentioned sticking with OF based on multiple contexts being on the table, not because single contexts are great.
2. OF is serious financial investment. Desktop, iphone and ipad all together come to a not inconsequencial sum.

Originally Posted by wilsonng

I've found that OmniFocus has actually been quite flexible. Its flexibility lends itself to becoming difficult to use. But its flexibility has also allowed me to change my folder structures and use of contexts over the years.

Hardly flexible, "change folder structure and use of contexts"! Flexible means I can change the programme to suit my workflow. This is not possibe with OF. As mentioned before apart from cumbersome work-arounds Covey's matrix cannot be used. The same applies for tasks that have multiple contexts such as a tool and a person.

Originally Posted by wilsonng

I've also found that it made me challenge myself. We can have well baked ideas and philosophies that may have worked in 2010 but no longer work in 2014.

Exactly, so an app that has seen little real change since 2008 is going to be a problem.

Originally Posted by wilsonng

I like changing my productivity system as my needs and demands change over the years.

So do I. I do not change my core system, because it is reliable and I'm effective using it. I do however, tweak the system. This is where OF has become increasingly untenable as it does not allow this.

I have a heavy workload. Covey's roles and important principles work well for me. The only task management system that was almost perfect was The Hit List. Sadly, the developer has issues and development has almost but stopped. The Mac app is still great, but I need iPad support which it doesn't offer.

I have some 40 active projects and a couple of hundred tasks. Importance plays a key role in allowing me to see what I should be working on. Roles also enable me to be balanced in life rather than focusing on just one role to the exclusion of others.

At the moment Things best allows me to use this system. Areas are great for roles and tags allow me to use urgent and important criteria. Along with this I am responsible for many people. This also needs to be included into the mix of tasks, which incidently can be rudimentally done with Things' contact option. One context is a joke. Even suggesting that one should use #tag in the item description demonstrates the need for more than one context (as suggested by Ken himself earlier in this thread). I'm amazed that omni has been dragging its feet for so long on this issue.

I've really wanted to like OF and tried to use and re-use many times, but the single context kills the whole thing or forces my to lengthy workarounds that reduce my effectiveness.