 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> The paperclip at least can be disabled. The other unecessary
>>> helpy-helper features seem to be unavoidable.
>>
>> I don't know what version of Word you're running, but... I dunno,
>> maybe the "Tools->Auto Correct" options is what you're looking for?
>>
>> It looks pretty straightforward to me.
>
> Do you know where I can turn off the option that tries to automatically
> format the current bullet point the same way as the last one?
Well, I go over to the help list and type in "turn off bullet list
formatting" and it returns a help page that says
"""
Turn on or off automatic bulleted or numbered lists
On the Tools menu, click AutoCorrect Options, and then click the AutoFormat
As You Type tab.
Under Apply as you type, select or clear the Automatic bulleted lists or
Automatic numbered lists check box.
"""
That dialog looks as attached. (Ooo. Never knew there was a way to define
styles based on formatting.) There's also options to just underline in blue
formatting that is inconsistent with the rest of the document, in case
you're not turning on styles.
I guess it's that "format beginning of list item" that impressed me last
time it kicked in automatically.
> (Your screenshot looks suspiciously like it's running on Vista...)
Yes? And?
> Maybe because I'm trying to type stuff that features program source code
> that has weird grammer and punctuation?
Yeah, that would probably confuse it. You probably want to turn off all the
auto formatting and correcting stuff. Or use notepad. :-)
> Or, more likely, they've made the IDE more flexible in the 10 years
> since I last used it.
Possibly.
> Well, when I tried it, it did. I had a working Java project that
> compiled perfectly, but I couldn't do anything with it in VS until I let
> the program rearrange all the files the way it wanted. (This included
> manually importing all the classes, one at a time, by hand.)
Well, if you create a blank project, sure, you have to add the files into
the project. That's like complaining the paragraph in that other document
has to be pasted into this one for it to print.
>>> It insists on autogenerating buckets of code that you then have to
>>> manually delete.
>>
>> Only when you ask it to.
>
> I couldn't find a way to avoid it. Maybe they've redesigned this part now.
Maybe. Depends what kind of project you started and so on. If you just open
a "blank" solution, you don't get any files that aren't needed for the
language you're using.
> Presumably this only works for one specific version control system though?
I don't know. It certainly works with Microsoft's version control system.
:-) You can probably go through 50 times the effort and get it to work with
someone else's, if it's worth that much to you.
> Maybe this was my mistake - expecting to be able to make sense of the
> file layout from outside the IDE. Maybe they just assume you'll never
> want to do that? (I mean, it's not like you'd ever want to put just the
> source code into a Zip file so you can send it to somebody else or
> something like that...)
It does make sense. You just have to know what the files are.
For example, in one test windows forms project (i.e., with a non-templated
GUI), I have the source files I typed, the one resource file holding all the
resources, app.config (which is a .NET thing that lets you store the
configuration of the application, like POV's .INI files, and which also
holds stuff like which version of the runtime system it needs and so on, all
thoroughly documented), a directory called "Properties" which holds the
auto-generated code, a "Program.cs" which is the auto-generated "main"
program (about 3 lines of code long), and a "csproj" file, which holds the
configuration of the specific project (basically, the tree view of the files
and settings and stuff for the project, that you would otherwise be passing
on the command line to the compiler in a makefile).
It has a bin and an obj file, each with a Debug and a Release directory.
I'm not sure what junk you had in your IDE, but nowadays they seem to do a
fine job.
> Which is all the more amusing given that last time I looked, I couldn't
> even figure out what C# *is* from the information M$ provided. (It seems
> they have improved this now.)
Um.... OK.
>>> It seems that if you want to know anything remotely "technical" about
>>> M$ products, the only way to find out is to go on a course. I find
>>> this very objectionable. I've paid money for this product, why can't
>>> you just tell me how to operate it? Why must I now pay even more money?
>>
>> Because if it came with an 800-page manual, fewer people would buy it.
>
> More likely it would cost a lot of money to print an 800-page manual.
> But they could supply it electronically, surely?
They do. It's online. I've been giving you pointers to it all day.
> What does MSDN actually contain anyway? I've never looked at it.
Damn, dude. No wonder.
Microsoft Developers Network.
It's all the documentation and code and etc for people who work with
microsoft code to develop or configure software.
> usually just search the Microsoft support website - or, if that fails to
> turn up any information, there's always Google. (Finding suitable search
> terms is highly nontrivial though.)
Well, yeah. I wouldn't be surprised of most of MSDN doesn't get indexed by
google. The MS support site is for "my computer is broken, how do I fix it?"
MSDN is for "I need to use Windows to do my job, what do I need to know?"
>> FSF doesn't like man pages for some reason I never figured out.
>
> Er, yeah, I've noticed how 98% of all manpages say "please concult the
> infopage". Why?
Because the InfoPage runs in emacs, which is RSM's baby. They're emacs
scripts pretending to be a web browser. Annoying as hell.
> Indeed, *everything* seems to be VB.NET. AFAIK, this is a different
> language to the VBA used in Office 2003.
I don't understand. I put in "vba office 2003" in the search engine, and I get.
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Search/en-US/?query=vba%20office%202003&ac=2
The first four links are for Excel VBA language reference, Access VBA
language referene, Word VBA language reference, and VBA language reference
for the Office 2003 data model. Later links are for outlook, powerpoint,
graph, frontpage, compiled as a help page, etc.
Why do you think Microsoft isn't documenting this?
> The top link appears to be a reference document. Which is nice, but not
> for learning how to use something for the first time.
Suck it up, dude. Not every product comes with a free tutorial.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=vba+for+dummies&x=0&y=0
First try gives me 17 books about VBA for the office suite as tutorials. If
the reference is too complicated, get the boss to shell out $20 for a
textbook. If the boss won't do that, you need a new job. :-) But you knew
that already.
You know, my car didn't come with a book teaching me how to drive, either. :-)
> (Also, is there a
> reason why none of these M$ documents allow you to nagivate properly
> whichout lots of trickery with tabs and trying to defeat the JS links?)
Because there's a giant TOC on the left side for most of MSDN? I dunno.
Works for me.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Do you know where I can turn off the option that tries to
>> automatically format the current bullet point the same way as the last
>> one?
>
> On the Tools menu, click AutoCorrect Options, and then click the
> AutoFormat As You Type tab.
This looks like the relevant info. Maybe if I turn this off, Word will
finally behave deterministically...
>> Maybe because I'm trying to type stuff that features program source
>> code that has weird grammer and punctuation?
>
> Yeah, that would probably confuse it. You probably want to turn off all
> the auto formatting and correcting stuff. Or use notepad. :-)
Yes. Because Notepad allows you to use multiple typefaces. Oh, wait... :-P
>> Well, when I tried it, it did. I had a working Java project that
>> compiled perfectly, but I couldn't do anything with it in VS until I
>> let the program rearrange all the files the way it wanted. (This
>> included manually importing all the classes, one at a time, by hand.)
>
> Well, if you create a blank project, sure, you have to add the files
> into the project. That's like complaining the paragraph in that other
> document has to be pasted into this one for it to print.
You'd think you could import *all* the classes in one go though, no?
> I'm not sure what junk you had in your IDE, but nowadays they seem to do
> a fine job.
OK. Apparently they improved it then.
>> What does MSDN actually contain anyway? I've never looked at it.
>
> Damn, dude. No wonder.
>
> Microsoft Developers Network.
>
> It's all the documentation and code and etc for people who work with
> microsoft code to develop or configure software.
I see. I thought it was only for people who want to write low-level C
code that runs under Windows. (Obviously, this is not something I ever
want to have to do.)
> Well, yeah. I wouldn't be surprised of most of MSDN doesn't get indexed
> by google. The MS support site is for "my computer is broken, how do I
> fix it?" MSDN is for "I need to use Windows to do my job, what do I
> need to know?"
I see. This was not clear to me.
>> Er, yeah, I've noticed how 98% of all manpages say "please concult the
>> infopage". Why?
>
> Because the InfoPage runs in emacs, which is RSM's baby. They're emacs
> scripts pretending to be a web browser. Annoying as hell.
Well, I never liked it much...
>> Indeed, *everything* seems to be VB.NET. AFAIK, this is a different
>> language to the VBA used in Office 2003.
>
> I don't understand. I put in "vba office 2003" in the search engine, and
> I get.
>
> http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Search/en-US/?query=vba%20office%202003&ac=2
>
> The first four links are for Excel VBA language reference, Access VBA
> language referene, Word VBA language reference, and VBA language
> reference for the Office 2003 data model. Later links are for outlook,
> powerpoint, graph, frontpage, compiled as a help page, etc.
>
> Why do you think Microsoft isn't documenting this?
I'll resurve judgement until *after* I've read this stuff. ;-)
>> The top link appears to be a reference document. Which is nice, but
>> not for learning how to use something for the first time.
>
> Suck it up, dude. Not every product comes with a free tutorial.
Why the hell not? If you've paid good money for it, surely you expect to
get instructions?
> You know, my car didn't come with a book teaching me how to drive,
> either. :-)
No, because (for the 8th time) this is not specific to your car. It
works for *all* cars.
You know what? When I bought a Pascal compiler, it came with a book that
teaches you how to program in Pascal. You'd think if you buy a
wordprocessor, it could come with instructions telling you what all the
various options mean, and how to make it do stuff. (Especially given the
exorbitant price tag...)
>> (Also, is there a
>> reason why none of these M$ documents allow you to nagivate properly
>> whichout lots of trickery with tabs and trying to defeat the JS links?)
>
> Because there's a giant TOC on the left side for most of MSDN? I dunno.
> Works for me.
I get a ToC, but not focused on the thing that's actually displayed in
the main pane. (This seems to happen frequently.)
<cynical> I wonder if it's because I'm not using IE? </cynical>
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> This looks like the relevant info. Maybe if I turn this off, Word will
> finally behave deterministically...
It's deterministic. It's just not always easy to understand. :-)
> Yes. Because Notepad allows you to use multiple typefaces. Oh, wait... :-P
Mark it up with HTML then. :-)
> You'd think you could import *all* the classes in one go though, no?
Dunno. You might need to write a 5-line VBA script to do that. ;-)
> I see. I thought it was only for people who want to write low-level C
> code that runs under Windows. (Obviously, this is not something I ever
> want to have to do.)
No. If you develop anything for Windows, that's where it goes.
And if you subscribe for something like $50/year, you get boxes and boxes of
CDs with every version of every OS and Office and development tool they ever
produced.
>>> The top link appears to be a reference document. Which is nice, but
>>> not for learning how to use something for the first time.
>>
>> Suck it up, dude. Not every product comes with a free tutorial.
>
> Why the hell not? If you've paid good money for it, surely you expect to
> get instructions?
You get instructions. You don't get a tutorial for people who can't handle
the instructions. :-)
> You know what? When I bought a Pascal compiler, it came with a book that
> teaches you how to program in Pascal.
Gee. And to think I spent all that money on college.
> You'd think if you buy a
> wordprocessor, it could come with instructions telling you what all the
> various options mean, and how to make it do stuff. (Especially given the
> exorbitant price tag...)
Uh, it does. As reference material.
> I get a ToC, but not focused on the thing that's actually displayed in
> the main pane. (This seems to happen frequently.)
That happens sometimes. You might have to scroll, especially if you have
javascript turned off.
> <cynical> I wonder if it's because I'm not using IE? </cynical>
Works fine for me with firefox.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/10/2009 3:03 PM, Darren New wrote:
> And if you subscribe for something like $50/year, you get boxes and
> boxes of CDs with every version of every OS and Office and development
> tool they ever produced.
In all fairness, the least expensive subscription is $699/yr ($499/yr
renewal), although all of the information (articles & such) is free
online (you just don't get the software).
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/10/2009 12:56 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Uh, didn't this thread start out with "M$ doesn't document things well
> enough"?
No, this thread started out with making things easier for particular
groups of people :)
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> If you're setting up a home PC, this is precisely what you want, of
> course. But if you're trying to set up a corporate PC that's supposed to
> be part of a business network, you now have to go in, delete the local
> account just created (but note that it still appears in the Windows
> registration information), delete the corresponding profile, turn off
> auto-login, turn on the login prompt, and basically mess around with a
> whole crapload of stuff.
I don't think MS expected the bog-standard XP install disc to be used by
companies setting up more than half a dozen machines.
I must admit I don't know the details, but I believe it is relatively
straightforward to customise an XP install pretty heavily to suit your
setup.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:27:17 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Well, I've never seen that happen. Which version of Office is this?
>
>I think it's new with 2003. I find 2003 far more friendly than the earlier
>versions I've used.
I'm still using Word 2002 and it has that feature
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:27:17 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Well, I've never seen that happen. Which version of Office is this?
>> I think it's new with 2003. I find 2003 far more friendly than the earlier
>> versions I've used.
>
> I'm still using Word 2002 and it has that feature
I think I skipped from 2000 to 2003, so that's possible, yes.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> In all fairness, the least expensive subscription is $699/yr ($499/yr
> renewal), although all of the information (articles & such) is free
> online (you just don't get the software).
Technet is cheaper, but I'm not sure if it's the same thing I was thinkign
of. I think the last place we were at, we must have gotten something with 10
licenses or some such, because all the software was allowed to be on 10
machines. Probably a one-off is more expensive, yes.
You can also get these things on ebay pretty easily. Some company buys 20
licenses, and has 18 people, or goes out of business, or whatever.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:45:21 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I'm still using Word 2002 and it has that feature
>
>I think I skipped from 2000 to 2003, so that's possible, yes.
I also download the updates so it could come from them but I think that feature
has been around for a while.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
