Need help making Add-In work, please

[Ed]

I'm using Word 2000 with Windows 2000. I downloaded an Add-in that - as I understand it - is supposed to intercept the "Arrange All" command and show two open documents in one window (as in Word 97), instead of as two separate instances of Word, complete with all toolbars, etc.

I put the Add-In .dot in the same folder as my Normal.dot, and made sure I had it checked in Tools>>Templates and Add-Ins. But "Arrange All" still works the same. And the "Hide WIndows" and "Show Windows" commands that have been added to the menu give me a Run-Time Error.

If anyone can help me with this, I'd appreciate it.

Ed

 

[Jezebel]

Wrong location for the add-in. It belongs in the Startup folder. Go to Tools

Options > File Locations to check.

I'm using Word 2000 with Windows 2000. I downloaded an Add-in that - as I

understand it - is supposed to intercept the "Arrange All" command and show
two open documents in one window (as in Word 97), instead of as two separate
instances of Word, complete with all toolbars, etc.

I put the Add-In .dot in the same folder as my Normal.dot, and made sure I

had it checked in Tools>>Templates and Add-Ins. But "Arrange All" still
works the same. And the "Hide WIndows" and "Show Windows" commands that
have been added to the menu give me a Run-Time Error.

 

[Ed]

Thank you, Jezebel. That worked. Although I'm not sure I want this - I get
my two documents in a split "full screen" mode with NO toolbars OR menus!
This is NOT "like Windows 97", which I thought was the desired effect.
Maybe I've got the wrong add-in, or maybe I misunderstood what it would do.
Do you know of a way I can get ONE screen with ONE set of menus and toolbars
for use with TWO documents?

Ed

 

[Jezebel]

I think you're better off adjusting to the way the program actually works
than trying to make it function the way it used to. Personally I prefer the
W2000 approach. To me, switching between documents is the same as switching
between, say, a document and a spreadsheet. It doesn't really take much
getting used to: less effort than you've wasted on a low-grade add-in,
anyway.

 

[Ed]

Well, I'm taking a Planning document, where everything is "will do it this
way", and changing it to a Results report - "this is what we did and what we
got." Some elements need a simple change of future tense to past tense,
while some sections disappear altogether. It makes it much easier - not to
mention more uniform - if I can have a previous Results report open while I
work on the Planning document -- I can directly compare verbiage, I can copy
and paste certain common statements and tables, I can copy over styles and
formatting, etc. As always, it's just a convenience thing: having both
open without loosing half my screen space to toolbars in each window vs.
repeated Alt+Tab switching to compare documents.

Ed

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Why not just use an existing Planning document to begin with? Save As and
start with the verbiage in place, retaining what you need and deleting the
rest.

 

[Ed]

Hi, Suzanne.

Why not just use an existing Planning document to begin with? Save As and
start with the verbiage in place, retaining what you need and deleting the
rest.

I am using an existing Planning document, now SavedAs a RoughDraft_Report.
This is Research and Development of several similar, but significantly
different, prototypes. The Plannings for each were written separately.
Each Results report is likewise written separately. There are no templates
or "boiler plates", although there are similar sequence formats, data
tables, and stock "blurbs", since many of the same tests were run on each
item.

So, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel each time, it's easier to pull
up a previous report to find out: "How did I say that last time?" "Did I
put the chicken or the egg first in the previous report?" "How did I
present that table or chart in the other report?" It's like hand-made,
hand-painted pottery - all the same mold, all the same pattern, but each one
done separately. (Not that any of these reports is a work of art, you
understand! 8>) )

I'm sure some things could be done better. But I'm just a flunky here . . .

Ed

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

I know exactly what you're talking about. I'm currently working on appraisal
reviews of about a dozen nursing homes. We started with a base template, but
we're doing a *lot* of C&P because many of the appraisals being reviewed
were boilerplate from the same appraisal firm, so the comments on them tend
to be the same as well.