Comments on ON 12!

[exciter]

Yes guys, i have tried ON 12 yesterday about two hours and here are my
comments:

1. I had a problem after the conversion of ON 2003 files into ON 12 files.
I always used snap to grid on my customized stationary.
After the conversion the new ON has messed on this. Now, when I move the
page a litlle bit, the new ON
does not recognize the grid on the left and puts the page, and all my
numbered items to the right of the grid.
(before the numbers were left to the vertical grid line)

2. In new ON we have an additional navigation bar. I did not like it because
it simply takes, although not much,
more space on the screen. In ON 2003 it was more useful to be able to hover
over the section/folder title and the navigation bar was appearing. Now, the
bavigation bar always stands either on the left or on the right which is for
me annoying.
Moreover I dont like the color of it as it does not suit the whole appearnce
of the program anyway.

3. I appreciate the link feature. It is indeed useful and was in demand.

4. I dont like the new border for the cointainer. it gives the feelings that
you are limited to type.
The container style was much better in ON 2003.

5. Another nice feature is that you can simply drag and drop the sections
with the mouse in middle of other sections, which we had to "move" them to
do so before.

6. In ON 12 the sections and the folders are seperated in view. That is, the
folders are gropued on the right and sections on the left
beneath the format/standard toolbar.
Now this may seem to you that it is more neat now but to me it is a
disappointment.
Here is the reason:
I have a folder for "languages" in whcih there are sections and folders.
It goes like this: English, French, German, Turkish. Now the english, french
and Turkish are sections but the German is a folder.
however, I want this german folder to be displayed in the middle of French
and Turkish and this is simply not possible in ON 12.
I have many folders like this because I simply convert a section to a folder
in I need to put more things under it.
but I always want them to stay in alphabetical order from left to right.
So I am not happy with this now.

I will have more comments later on.
Unfortunately, despite its new feautres, my first impression is not
positive.

 

[exciter]

By the way I am not a tester or something, just tried it on a tester's
computer.
So I will not be able to provide comments any time soon I guess, as I dont
see my friend
often.

 

[Erik Sojka (MVP)]

Specifics about ON2007 should not be discussed here in the public
newsgroups.

 

[Ben M. Schorr - MVP]

Hello exciter,

Unfortunately, despite its new feautres, my first impression is not
positive.

Not surprising considering you were looking at an early beta version.


-Ben-
Ben M. Schorr, MVP
Roland Schorr & Tower
http://www.rolandschorr.com
Microsoft OneNote FAQ: http://www.factplace.com/onenote.html

 

[exciter]

Not surprising considering you were looking at an early beta version.

Why? Will the comoact version be much different? If so, why there is a abeta
version anyway?

I hope my disappointments will be solved in the release version.

At the very least, there should be an option in the views menu to remove the
navigation bar!!!!!
I just dont want it to take extra space on the screen!!!!
Moreover it does not look nice anyway.
Sorry but this is what I think.
So please, if possible, take my comment into consideration.

 

[exciter]

But when one asks you if a feature is in ON 2007, you answer that question
Erik.
If people ask you 20 questions like that, then the detailes are exposed.
Why do you provide an answer then?

Why the details should not be discussed? Why the public should not know
about it?
Is it good for consumers to buy a product before knowing what it is really
about?
Is not this a violation of consumer rights?

You will argue against, but this is another aspect I think.
No ofenses.

 

[Erik Sojka (MVP)]

No offense taken.

There's a difference between confirming what MS has already published
(not that Ben and I and the others refer back to Chris Pratley's and
other blogs when responding). In those cases, we're answering the yes/no
question "is (X) in the next version?"

I think your post went a little beyond that, and that level of discussion
is at this time supposed to be held on the private newsgroups.

There will be a more public beta later this year, at which point
(guessing from previous beta cycles) people will be able to have full
public discussions about the products and features. As of right now,
those in the current beta program are severly limited in what details we
can discuss in public by the NDA we signed.

 

[exciter]

I understand Erik.
Thanx

 

[EMRhelp.org]

Maybe MS should think about reasonable Beta periods, not 1 year.
and maybe MS should develop a reasonable update cycle, not the 3-5 year
"Users Must suffer" until the next version.

 

[Chris H.]

Maybe you should understand the beta process, but then why should you. Most
of your comments (and I can't believe your continued interest in OneNote)
are negative toward the program anyway. Just my personal opinion.
--
Chris H.
Microsoft Windows MVP/Tablet PC
Tablet Creations - http://nicecreations.us/
Associate Expert
Expert Zone -

 

[EMRhelp.org]

I like Google's Beta Process.
It's released in Beta and it works perfectly.
and it's constantly updated.

Don't worry Chris, I understand Microsoft's outdated, outmoded,
tiresome Beta "Process" all too well.
Even MS admits it's antiquated methods of software release need
changing.

Nice to see you incessantly defending the illogical.

At least you are consistent.

 

[skramer49]

Any word on when the public beta will be released?

I am totally dependant on ON2003 and am anxious to start testing ON12/2007.

sk

 

[Patrick Schmid]

Google and Microsoft have a different philosophy about projects. Google's
projects are geared to be 3-months stints, preferably not much longer.
Microsoft's biggest projects (Office and Windows) are geared towards 2-3
years (Windows Vista is a disaster in that regard though).
Both models have their advantages and disadvantages. Microsoft for example
was able to design a revolutionary user interface concept with Office 2007.
That design work couldn't have been accomplished in a short project. It
simply took a lot of time to do. I would suggest to read Jensen Harris's UI
blog if you want to learn more about the new UI and how it came about
(Google "Jensen Harris" and you'll find it).
In addition, a product like Office needs stability more than frequent
updates. Office has 400 million users and all of them have it installed on
their harddrive. Pushing updates to all of them is a difficult task and not
something you want to burden administrators with every few months. Also, if
MS were to update MS every few months, a lot of companies would have to
retrain a lot of people all the time. In fact, a lot of corporations
consider MS Office's update cycle even to be too short. It is very common
that corporations will skip one version. So they might have upgraded from
Office 2000 to 2003 and hence skipped XP to avoid the update cost.
Google with its model can release frequent updates to its products in
contrast. However, you should also keep in mind that most of Google's
products never leave a computer controlled by Google. So while Google has
lots of users as well, the number of computers that need to be updated to a
new version is only in the thousands. Also, Google has perfected the way it
uses its servers and the way it runs its software on it. It is actually
quite fascinating how they do it! Google has only a few products that need
to be installed on a user's computer. For those, it has tried very hard to
make them self-updateable from the Google servers.
You should also look at the size of Office versus Google products. Google
software generally only needs a few megabytes, whereas Office can be around
1+ GB. It is much easier to update a few MBs every few months than 1+ GB
every few months.
Microsoft is following the Google model for some products. For example
Windows Defender is still in beta and continously updated from a server (I
think the engine itself is updated every few months). Windows OneCare Live
is also installed off a server and updates itself in short intervals. There
are other products in the "Live" category that follow similar models.
Microsoft Office is looking at following CTP approach that other MS
products, e.g. Windows, have adopted recently. That approach sees the
release of builds less stable than betas in more frequent intervals during
the "beta period".
Last but not least, the complexity of a product like Office actually means
that "beta really means beta". These aren't small easily manageable products
like the ones mentioned above, but rather complex "beasts" that require a
serious amount of testing. They are full of bugs, some of them naturally
total "showstoppers", and MS needs to invest a lot of resources into helping
its ~10,000 technical beta users with using the beta versions, finding and
fixing bugs. Introducing such rough builds to a larger audience would be a
serious challenge.

I hope this explains some of the differences.

Patrick Schmid