Reporting back...
I contacted "Evernote Support" to discuss/resolve my issues with Evernote 3.0. Should anyone decide to do so, be warned that after some 10 emails back-and-forth to "Evernote Support" I finally realized I was in a conversation with at least three (maybe more) different people, but none of them used a different name! Everyone was "Evernote Support." This made things very difficult since each one I was in "conversation" with apparently did not read the history of my issues and responded to my concerns very randomly. Weird. It was like the "tech" had schizophrenia since no one wrote they were a different person. I remained somewhat bewildered by the exchange until a "supervisor" entered the discussion and explained. In reply I posed the possibility that each different tech could use pseudo-names (like everyone else) to help keep the customers from driving themselves batty trying to add 1+2+3 and make it equal 4! The response was that "security" and "
customer convenience" dictated that all communication should be under the singular umbrella of "Evernote Support." Is this ridiculous or am I missing something? I again tried to explain that each one using a different nickname would have no impact on "security" whatsoever and would be of tremendous service to their customers. This fell on deaf ears.
Once the mess began to clear up, I entertained the possibility that I might take another look at 3.0 and explained my "pros" of EN 2.2 over the "cons" of 3.0. Again, my efforts to extract a licensed copy of EN 2.2 was thwarted. On a brighter note, I was told 3.0 can be made to resemble and function like 2.2 and that a user can get their data from their server at anytime in a usable format, albeit in a disconnected form. The text is downloaded to your computer into one folder in HTML format and the graphics are downloaded into a different folder. I am guessing that the HTML contains links to the graphics, but this was never made clear and I have not tested it yet. If I get the chance to test this out, I will report back here.
Next on the agenda was in regard to their shift to web-based, subscription-based provisioning/storage. I explained that I, nor many I had heard who voiced their concern, was
NOT in favor of "subscribing." "Evernote Support" stated that they were "forced" to do it. I responded that in that case, I was "forced" to forgo their 3.0 offering and look elsewhere. At this point in the conversation they shifted to sales-pitching the 3.0 which I did not respond to and left it at that.
Bottom line...
- I actually had to help them locate their php error on their server (which they apparently have not fixed yet per OldElmerFudd above). Personally I found it odd that they could not search their own server to locate an erroneous link, but had to have my help?!?
- There is NO WAY they will help you out with getting Evernote 2.2 anymore.
- In theory, there are some redeeming characteristics to 3.0...
- EN 3.0 can be made to look like and act like 2.2.
- EN 3.0 can be used standalone (without using the web).
- If one uses the web, one can extract their data in non-proprietary formats at anytime day or night and according to "Evernote Support" even if their server is down. Unfortunately, I received no explanation of how this is possible.
.
I have to say that the whole ordeal/fiasco was most disappointing. I have never had a problem with privately requesting and making a "deal" with different software vendors to acquire legacy products that worked for me. I have no way of knowing what is really going on, but the only other time I have noticed anything remotely this herky-jerky was when a vendor was responding to litigation. This affair was really taxing and should you decide to contact "Evernote Support," please keep these things in mind, but maybe they were all just having a bad day and you will fare much better.
Regardless, should anyone have interest in Evernote, I recommend to only look at 3.0 without comparing it to 2.2 since it is still a good program and could serve one well. It still is the fastest search of your data on the market AFAIK.
