Jump to content

Chris Darby

Level 1
  • Posts

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Chris Darby

Chris Darby's Achievements

7

Reputation

  1. I haven't tried this, but if you have an additional drive available, and then reinstall Evernote on that other drive, then I wonder if the database would also be stored on that other drive. If that doesn't work, then there might be some other tricks involving file path redirects or symbolic links to fool the Evernote application into accessing the database on another drive (i.e., maybe Evernote looks to store data in C:\Evernote\data\ but a redirection mechanism forces it to actually store on E:\Evernote\data\).
  2. There does not seem to be an offline database in the sense that the full collection of notes are available while offline. The new Evernote seems to only download a note when it is opened while online, after which point in time that particular note (that was previously opened) will then be available while offline. However, if I have thousands of notes and have not opened each one of them recently while online, then when I am offline on an airplane I am not able to open those other notes. Put another way: If I have recently opened notes 1 through 100 while online, then I can access those offline; whereas, if I attempt to open notes 101 through 1,000 while offline, then I cannot access those notes. I am hopeful that Evernote prioritizes full offline functionality in the near future.
  3. Thank you for sharing your experiences with this, I do greatly appreciate it.
  4. I keep running into this issue with technology and I suspect others do as well. We invest significant time and effort over years to make use of some incredible tools that people create, like Evernote, and we are more than happy to continue to purchase or subscribe to their services as a result, but then our "house of cards" teeter on the brink of collapse when the product suddenly and unexpectedly breaks or dissolves. As you alluded to, as we each organize and tag thousands of records, enabling us to rapidly retrieve past thoughts and concepts through indexed searches, leaves us dependent on tools like this as a sort of auxiliary brain. Ultimately I only have myself to blame for this, investing so much confidence and faith in a single tool and service provider, rather than breaking it out among different products. If I were to start over, I would rearchitect my approach by possibly focusing on open source software (although there are certainly support and maintenance pitfalls there as well), as well as spreading out the approach to data organizing among multiple different products. The problem with splitting up our auxiliary brains between multiple products is that we lose data correlation (record "A" now relates to record "B" in a different information ecosystem). I suppose the only potential for rearchitecting one's approach would be to focus on using open standards (i.e., service-oriented architecture, microservices) in which different products can communicate back and forth, ideally between each other within an isolated offline instance and online. Or maybe Evernote will surprise us and fix their previously product offering, and I can continue my dependency on their previously awesome software even in light of its proprietary nature.
  5. Exactly. The approach should have been to make the new version available, but not force everyone onto it. The current properly functional application should be maintained while they continue to improve the new-and-improved modern shared code base (etc. etc.) version separately. I understand where they're coming from, they want to simplify, reuse code, organize, modernize and try to future-proof their products, and where they're going with the new version is probably on the right path. However, to suddenly force (or at least mislead) everyone to upgrade (downgrade?) without warning, and to leave them no other option than to install a "legacy" version of the application, this is not the way to retain a loyal customers. If I were to suddenly force all of my users to start using vastly different version of a major production enterprise application, with performance problems (delays and freezing) and a lack of equivalent features, they would be making such noise that I would probably be left having to look for another job. And that's just one guy supporting code in one business. I can't imagine how all of the leadership at Evernote concluded that pushing out this new version the way that it was pushed out was the way to go, impacting hundreds of thousands if not millions of users, all nearly simultaneously. They should have taken a phased approach over six to nine months (maybe longer given their larger user base), requested feedback from those users, go back to fix, iterate over and over, re-release, and slowly expand the deployment audience. And even with a phased approach with smaller user counts at first, it still should have been optional. I get that it is absolutely impractical to pay for extra coders to continue simultaneously support both the older version and the newer version, and that unification and simplification is the smartest and most economical way forward for the business on the surface, but it should have been handled differently.
  6. I agree as well. I was just looking to see if this issue has been mentioned and it looks as if I'm not alone.
×
×
  • Create New...