Has anyone any feedback (good or bad) in using the aforementioned software? Or do you use something else that you would suggest is superior?

I think its pretty standard software for doing qualitative coding. I am not that familiar with it, but what I have had experience with looks like it would work great if you are very comfortable working on a computer scree v. hard copy for coding. There is no particular magic in it, it does not do your coding for you, you are still identifying things as you would if you were working from hard copy. Perhaps its just an age thing, but I am happier working with hard copy when trying to code, than on the computer screen. I did not see any particular advantages in working directly on the screen v. hard copy coding, other than perhaps saving yourself big piles of paper. But I have those anyway, so that is not a particular issue.

Hi Golfpro,
I am just starting to use NVivo7. As this is my first venture into qualitative research I don't have anything to compare it to, but it seems quite user friendly. I am still trying to get my head around some of the more complex functions like the models - but I think that is me being slow, not the software.
There is a function in this version for using the software to do the coding, which I anticipate using.
The University of Surrey run excellent courses on it, and have a good website (google Caqdas for their page).
I'll be interested to read other NVivo replies as I am short on people to discuss it with.

Did the course on the programme and soon discovered that it doesn't automatically do much for you. Like Olivia said you still have to do all the coding. I prefer doing it all on hard copy. Olivia i don' think its an age thing, its just that with paper you can spread it out,hang it, colour code etc (i have been using huge drawing sheets!)- there is a certain degree of getting your hands dirty with something that readily creates a memory picture- more like a mapping thing. on the one hand if you are doing a massive research - with hundreds of interviews it may deliver.

Before learning more about it I had some idea that somehow the software did intricate calculations for you in coding. While it does have sophisticated features, it does not do this, and gives you options to colour code your data. I prefer hard copy as I said...but there are probably other people who prefer this program to hard copy. To some degree, its probably just a matter of individual preference. I wonder too if somehow using a computer program gives a feel of more sophistication to the analysis, somehow upgrading its worth over hard copy data. But again, given that the program does not do your coding and analysis for you, in the end, the evaluation of the data is down to the researcher(s) involved, and whether its via hard copy or a computer, I think the choice should be whatever works best for themselves and their data.

Golfpro, if you're going to be using it, don't buy it I'll seed it for you if need be.

Thanks to all for the feedback. Cheers Walminskipeasucker, I can know doubt dig up a copy. I'm a bit of a pirate myself. Just weighing up my options re what to do.