Combining sections in OneNote

[BD]

Hello,

I'm trying to use OneNote as a data share for my team, which is placed in a
folder on our team share site. The issue is that for each OneNote section I
create, I have to save it separately to the share. To use it, each
workstation has to bring up the individual OneNote section icons. What I
want to do is combine the icons in to one and be able to add new sections and
just have them pull up w/one OneNote icon in my team's share folder.

Is there any way to do this?

 

[Patrick Schmid]

Look at OneNote 2007 Beta. In the thread "Sharing ALL OneNote files on
server" that was started today by Disnoid, I gave a longer explanation
of how 2007 works for teams with a server. I'd suggest to read that one.

Patrick Schmid

 

[BD]

This is interesting, but I can't seem to find a link to download OneNote.
Can you point me in the correct direction?

 

[Rainald Taesler]

This is interesting, but I can't seem to find a link to download
OneNote. Can you point me in the correct direction?

OneNote preview:
http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/programs/onenote/highlights.mspx

As OneNote is a part of Office, for the downoad start here:
http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/beta/getthebeta.mspx?showIntro=n

HTH
Rainald

 

[Patrick Schmid]

Google "Office Preview".

Patrick Schmid

 

[Rainald Taesler]

Patrick Schmid shared these words of wisdom:

Google "Office Preview".

Why google when the exact links have been posted already? <g,d&rf>

Rainald

 

[Patrick Schmid]

I have my signature in the clipboard, so I am often too lazy to copy &
paste something else...
Btw, my messages were stuck in the outbox for a while...way past the
time you posted it...

Patrick Schmid

 

[Rainald Taesler]

Patrick Schmid shared these words of wisdom:

Sorry, Patrick, it was only meant as *JOKE*.
Didn't you see the "grin, duck and run fast"?

I have my signature in the clipboard, so I am often too lazy to
copy & paste something else...

How come?
Signature feature too complicated in Outlook ?? <bg>

Honestly speaking: I for one could not work with a blocked clipboard.
And how about using something like "Phrase Express"?
http://www.phraseexpress.com/
Works really great for things like signatures.

Rainald

 

[Patrick Schmid]

Why google when the exact links have been posted already?

Sorry, Patrick, it was only meant as *JOKE*.
Didn't you see the "grin, duck and run fast"?

Oh. I thought this was gibberish

How come?
Signature feature too complicated in Outlook ?? <bg>

Buggy. Signature gets inserted always at the end of everything, so way
below all replies...Rather annoying.

Patrick Schmid

 

[Rainald Taesler]

Patrick Schmid shared these words of wisdom:

Oh. I thought this was gibberish

[grrrh]
Sorry, thought that you would at least know the very basics of the
good old online-language akronyms. Too sad too see that you youngsters
<g> won't get a meaning out of what had been common for so many long

Buggy.

[grrrh]
And you want to tell me that Outlook would be usable instrument?
<g,d&rf>
May good old OE does have not the slightest problem in so far.

And as said: Go download "Phrase Express" (there's ton of other
similar tools).
It will make any kind of "shurtcut" avalaible. Just typing "PS " will
insert the whole signature wanted.

Signature gets inserted always at the end of everything,
so way below all replies...Rather annoying.

Ain't the system right in so far?? <bg>
Shouldn't a signature be "below all"????

Shouldn't this remind you on how to post in NGs?

Rainald
--
P.S. The style of posting in NGs has become seriously wrotten over the
last two or three years.
Out of good reasons for many long years it meant:
a) Only quote what's necessary, not more;
b) avoid the (meanwile common) e-mail style, i.e "reply on top, no
quoting, the rest of the old stuff below".
News-groups have totally different ways of communicating than f.e.
e-mail.
No need at all to carry on tons of previosus stuff.
The context is right before you in the thread.
No unneeded consumption of bandwith:
Anything not really needed to understand what a reply is about is
"from the evil/the devil"
etc., etc.
I know that I won't change the toatlly wrotten behaviour of people
posting in this forum.
But one may least try to keep to the rules (which were introduced out
of good reasons).

 

[Patrick Schmid]

Sorry, thought that you would at least know the very basics of the

good old online-language akronyms. Too sad too see that you youngsters
<g> won't get a meaning out of what had been common for so many long
years <g,d&r>

LOL. I know quite a bit of those things, just not all of them

Shouldn't this remind you on how to post in NGs?

*shrugs* Bandwidth is no longer a concern, and I actually like it when
people include the email style reply. Makes it a lot easier to read for
me.

Patrick Schmid

 

[srd]

Do you mean _this_ style? How should it be in NGs?

 

[Rainald Taesler]

Do you mean _this_ style? How should it be in NGs?

Patrick,
yes the style of your posting is what I had had in mind.

The traditional NG style is based on the idea of (a) interaction in a
discussion and (b) the availability of the whole discussion in a
threaded view.

"Discussion" means that a reply is directly tied to what it refers to.
Therefore the context is a most important issue and - different to
e-mail - normally one quotes the essential part of the text to which
one replies. The means a bit of editing to just keep the essentials
and cut out what's not needed for understanding what the reply is
about and what it refers to.

The availability of the context in the thread makes it unnecessary to
carry on what had been said in previous postings. It's a situation
totally different from the situation when receiving an e-email: There
one is not able to see the context and to climb up in the thread and
its branches in order to see what had previously been said.

What you sent is a very short reply, so the difference is not too
obvious.
In the NG style your posting would have looked something like things:

****

b) avoid the (meanwhile common) e-mail style, i.e "reply on top, no
quoting, the rest of the old stuff below".

Do you mean _this_ style? How should it be in NGs?
--
Stephen R. Diamond

*****

It's not a big thing really.
But it makes a lot of a difference when discussions get longer.
As I said, habits have changed.
In the international MS NGs nobody really cares any longer.
In most of the German MS NGs, however, some people are really strict.
They will point to the issue and refer to several websites on "how to
quote", they will send some more warnings and they finally will not
reply anymore to user who does not keep "to the rules".
I'm far from that. I hate this way of forcing user to obey.

But at times I just can not resist to point to the issue of the NGs
style [siiiigh]

 

[Patrick Schmid]

I am fully aware of what the NG style is supposed to be. It is however
inconvenient for me to use this style, because I am not using a threaded
view (due to Outlook 2007's major performance issues with folders with a
lot of messages). Rather, I have a search folder that shows all unread
messages. It's the only way I can prevent myself from going crazy with
2007, because a switch to a different folder takes easily 1-2 mins.
In addition, even when I have a threaded view (e.g. in OE), I prefer the
email style, because I generally have a last 7 days only filter applied
(due to my NGs having thousands of messages). So if someone replies to a
thread outside those 7 days, I am looking at just a message with no
context. Unfortunately OE is a pain in the ass to use when you try to
switch off the filter, yet still retain the focus on that message. Most
of the time, I just give up and ask the person what the message was
supposed to be for, because OE just doesn't do a good job. Hence the
email style is much more convenient.
As bandwidth and size is no concern today, it doesn't matter if there is
a bunch of stuff after a reply.

Patrick Schmid
--------------
http://pschmid.net

Do you mean _this_ style? How should it be in NGs?

Patrick,
yes the style of your posting is what I had had in mind.

The traditional NG style is based on the idea of (a) interaction in a
discussion and (b) the availability of the whole discussion in a
threaded view.

"Discussion" means that a reply is directly tied to what it refers to.
Therefore the context is a most important issue and - different to
e-mail - normally one quotes the essential part of the text to which
one replies. The means a bit of editing to just keep the essentials
and cut out what's not needed for understanding what the reply is
about and what it refers to.

The availability of the context in the thread makes it unnecessary to
carry on what had been said in previous postings. It's a situation
totally different from the situation when receiving an e-email: There
one is not able to see the context and to climb up in the thread and
its branches in order to see what had previously been said.

What you sent is a very short reply, so the difference is not too
obvious.
In the NG style your posting would have looked something like things:

****

b) avoid the (meanwhile common) e-mail style, i.e "reply on top, no
quoting, the rest of the old stuff below".

Do you mean _this_ style? How should it be in NGs?
--
Stephen R. Diamond

*****

It's not a big thing really.
But it makes a lot of a difference when discussions get longer.
As I said, habits have changed.
In the international MS NGs nobody really cares any longer.
In most of the German MS NGs, however, some people are really strict.
They will point to the issue and refer to several websites on "how to
quote", they will send some more warnings and they finally will not
reply anymore to user who does not keep "to the rules".
I'm far from that. I hate this way of forcing user to obey.

But at times I just can not resist to point to the issue of the NGs
style [siiiigh]

 

[Ben M. Schorr - MVP]

Aloha Rainald,

I use AutoHotkey for that. Very powerful (and free).

-Ben-
Ben M. Schorr - MVP
Roland Schorr & Tower
http://www.rolandschorr.com
Microsoft OneNote FAQ: http://www.factplace.com/onenotefaq.htm

 

[Rainald Taesler]

Gruess Gott, Ben,

I use AutoHotkey for that. Very powerful (and free).

Thanks fro the tip.
Will check it out.

Phrase Express is pwoerful and free to.

Rainald

 

[srd]

The traditional NG style is based on the idea of (a) interaction in a
discussion and (b) the availability of the whole discussion in a
threaded view.

I moved away from the "NG Style" because I found it often caused the
discussion to lose integration. Participants in some NG discussions will
take each long post apart to state their opinion about each paragraph.
Responses like "Yes, I agree," "Well said," or "No, definitely not" tend
to proliferate .It is better if you are commenting on just one of the
several points, but respondents who try to make comprehensive responses in
this style tend not to say anything interesting at all, because everything
is too closely tied to what went before, and expression of agreement or
disagreement gets overemphasized. But I think the NG approach is good in a
technical forum, where integration is often unimportant.

 

[Rainald Taesler]

Patrick Schmid shared these words of wisdom:

*shrugs* Bandwidth is no longer a concern,

Maybe not for *you*.
But it is for others.

and I actually like it when people include the email style reply.
Makes it a lot easier to read for me.

You said that before (soory can not find the psoting at present
[siiigh]).
But this IMO has to do with the very special way of working with
NewsGroups.
Outlook (even with a plug-in) to me seemas quite something <bg,d&rf>

Rainald