 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Applications / Word / June 2008PROBLEM: 12.1 version of Word 2008 will not open WinWord .doc files?
I have a folder of word documents -- all of these opened on Office 2008 with the 12.0.1 patch. I updated my Office 2008 with the manual 12.1 download. Now, only *some* of the documents will open when double-clicked. There's a finder action that makes it look like it's opening, but it doesn't. A "File --> Open" works to open the documents. I can "save as" the document and just rename it and it works to open the "save as" document. I passed some of these files on to a colleague in another department and he couldn't double-click open the files, either. It's *possible* these documents that aren't opening were created on some version of WinWord (I'd have to track this down as to what version if that's the problem. Anybody else seeing this? - Steve Hi Steve - Have you tried Control/Right-clicking one of the files in Finder & using Open With, then specifying Word 2008? If that works, use Get Info to set Word 2008 as the associated program for all files of that type. Also, if you didn't run Disk Utility - Repair Disk Permissions after applying the update do that first, restart your Mac... you may not have to change the association.  SignatureHTH |:>) Bob Jones [MVP] Office:Mac >I have a folder of word documents -- all of these opened on Office 2008 > with the 12.0.1 patch. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > - Steve > Hi Steve - > > Have you tried Control/Right-clicking one of the files in Finder & using > Open With, then specifying Word 2008? Does not matter. I had a coworker create a one word .doc file in Office 2007 and e-mail it to me (zipped). When I unzipped it, if I double-click on it, Word 2008 12.1 will launch and show me the "Project Gallery" -- just as if I had double-clicked on the program icon only. (Assuming Word wasn't running -- if it was running, the focus *changes to Word*, but the document doesn't open. > If that works, use Get Info to set Word 2008 as the associated program for > all files of that type. It's not that issue. The association *is* there. I can double-click/open other .doc and .docx files that I've created with Office 2004/2008. it's something about some flag in the Windows creation that is now not letting Office 2008 12.1 open the document. > Also, if you didn't run Disk Utility - Repair Disk Permissions after > applying the update do that first, restart your Mac... you may not have to > change the association. Didn't help. Tried this. I've had two other admins from other departments reproduce this on their machines now, too. If you want to shoot me an e-mail, I'll be happy to send you a couple of attachments back showing you this problem. MS should pull this update back for a couple of days to fix this... - Steve It looks like the docs that won't open - Word and Excel (and likely PPT too) are those that came from PCs. If you get info on one that won't open, it has a generic icon. If you get info, select the new Excel app, and then check "change all" it seems to make it work. Also, I reset my launchservices database. What a mess. Does anyone beta test???? Scott On 5/14/08 2:06 PM 5/14/08, in article 140520081706187560%maser@umich.edu, >> Hi Steve - >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > - Steve Yes. I have been beta-testing the 12.1.0 patch here for the past month. Office 2007 files open just fine on a double-click on this MacBook. So do .docx files created in Word 2003 on the PC. So please provide as much detail as you can, and we will try to help you track the issue down. However: Apparently some users are getting strange results if the file extensions are wrong. Mac OS X does not recognise some of the file types if there is no extension, or if the extension is incorrect. Cheers On 15/05/08 7:30 AM, in article C450AEF5.15B6E%scott.boettcher@umusic.com, > It looks like the docs that won't open - Word and Excel (and likely PPT too) > are those that came from PCs. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >> >> - Steve SignatureDon't wait for your answer, click here: http://www.word.mvps.org/ Please reply in the group. Please do NOT email me unless I ask you to. John McGhie, Microsoft MVP, Word and Word:Mac Nhulunbuy, NT, Australia. mailto:john@mcghie.name > Yes. I have been beta-testing the 12.1.0 patch here for the past month. > Office 2007 files open just fine on a double-click on this MacBook. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Cheers I'm not sure how else to give more detail: Started with Office 12.0 on a Powerbook G4 running 10.5.2. Had installed the AutoUpdate update and then the 12.0.1 update (via autoupdate) when they were released. I have some documents that were created on Vista SP1 with Word 2007 (with SP1 and all current patches). I have both .doc and .docx files. These documents will open when I double-click on them. I then (last night) let this laptop update via autoupdate to the 12.1 patch. I rebooted after the patch installed. double-clicking on the documents *will launch Word* -- but will not open the documents (the Project Gallery comes up.) I have other documents that were created on the Mac that *will open* fine. It's really that simple. - Steve > Yes. I have been beta-testing the 12.1.0 patch here for the past month. > Office 2007 files open just fine on a double-click on this MacBook. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > extensions are wrong. Mac OS X does not recognise some of the file types if > there is no extension, or if the extension is incorrect. So it was tested for Windows-created files... The plot thickens! Al the PC files are Office 2003/2003 SP1. It's not us, MS - it's something with your software. Scott On 5/15/08 6:11 AM 5/15/08, in article copespaz-C5FF84.09114415052008@sn-radius.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net, "MC" <copespaz@mapca.inter.net> wrote: >> Yes. I have been beta-testing the 12.1.0 patch here for the past month. >> Office 2007 files open just fine on a double-click on this MacBook. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > So it was tested for Windows-created files... The plot thickens! I'm not sure what to tell you, Steve. I'd be happy to take a look but just FYI: I have 2007 running in Fusion on my MBP. Just launched it, created a Word 97-2003 (.doc) file & dragged it to my Mac's desktop. When I double-clicked it Word 2008 (12.1.0) launched & opened the file in [Compatibility Mode] as expected. That suggests that there's something specific to your situation. Fire a couple off to: typegeneraltaz1ATcomcastdotnet Remove the word "type" & substitute the appropriate symbols for AT & dot SignatureRegards |:>) Bob Jones [MVP] Office:Mac >> Hi Steve - >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Steve I'm having the same problem. Before the update I didn't have any problems, and now that I've updated, I cannot open .doc files that were created on Windows computers. Word itself opens, but it creates a blank document--which doesn't really do me any good. I don't think I should have to attempt fifty different workarounds (though i have) in order to open a simple file-- it should just work. In case you need to know, I am running a macbook w/ the leopard os. > Hi Steve - > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > > > - Steve > I don't think I should have to attempt fifty > different workarounds Try one: File/Open. If desired, make a minor edit. Delete the edits. Save. Done. > > I don't think I should have to attempt fifty > > different workarounds [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Done. Your 1500 users clearly don't have thousands of documents extremely deep within subfolder upon subfolder upon subfolder -- on multiple server volumes, etc. You must not work in a higher-ed environment where you have faculty with documents going back decades, etc... It would be *less of a problem* if a user could drag-and-drop the document on the Office application in the dock. But that's not even an option. - Steve > Your 1500 users clearly don't have thousands of documents extremely > deep within subfolder upon subfolder upon subfolder -- on multiple > server volumes, etc. You must not work in a higher-ed environment > where you have faculty with documents going back decades, etc... K-12 to doctoral programs... And yes, rat's nests of subfolders on dozens of servers. Spotlight is their friend... and it works within File/Open! Most users haven't been using XL or Word since 1984/5 (90% of the students weren't even born then), but many have documents going back to the early 90's at least. OTOH, they don't *use* those documents very frequently. In any case, go back much before 1988 and NO version of Word or XL can open the 1.x docs, so it doesn't matter a bit. But, as has been previously mentioned, that's largely irrelevant. Since the third-party bug affects NEW documents that they touch, most of the times we've seen the problem have not been with pre-Office98 docs.. > It would be *less of a problem* if a user could drag-and-drop the > document on the Office application in the dock. But that's not even > an option. Of course not! That's using the same OS X Launch Services path as double-clicking... > In article , > > FWIW, we also have regularly told them that they should, if they plan to > work on a document, save it first and work off the saved copy. That's > far more stable than editing docs in a temporary directory, and just > good practice. Don't know anyone who works like this. Open the attachment document with a double click, review the contents and then discard or file in the appropriate place is the way almost everyone I know works. > Or, as has been stated many times, they didn't realize that third-party > applications were applying type codes that hasn't been applied by an MS > app during this century, and which in 99% of cases is *incorrect*. > > It's a BUG, but in the third-party apps! You keep saying this but if they didnt know they didnt test it. > And FWIW, the WDBN file type has been deprecated since Office 98 when > the new type came out. Support for deprecated features are often carried > along by software developers for a version (or several), but in general, > removal of support for deprecated items is not typically announced in a > release note. Disagree, if you are introducing incompatibility and usability issues then it should be flagged up to prospective users. By the way how do you explain that when I double click a Word email attachment the focus is passed from the email client to Word which simply sits there with an empty document and does nothing? Based on previous explanations Word should not be advertising its handling of WDBN file types and therefore focus should not be passed to it - or am I missing something? > > I have gone back to 12.0.1 and will not upgrade until > > this is fixed. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > They'd rather be more productive than petulant. I'm not being petulant, but for me this undocumented, unannounced change in behaviour constitutes the biggest problem with SP1 and far outweighs any bug fixes I get in return. I work for a computer services company and my users are definitely not as compliant as yours seem to be, and neither am I. > Don't know anyone who works like this. Open the attachment document with a > double click, review the contents and then discard or file in the appropriate > place is the way almost everyone I know works. Probably 98% of our users do to. But since they've been told the proper procedure, they evidently try saving and opening when something doesn't work. I can only infer from what we're seeing (or not seeing)... > You keep saying this but if they didnt know they didnt test it. It's apparently true that they didn't test what file types Eudora assigns to Office documents. They also probably didn't test whether Eudora did anything else to their files - that's Eudora developers' responsibility. Same for FireFox. I doubt they tested Fetch, InterArchy, Newswatcher, Transmit, MacSoup, etc., for what file type those apps assign, either (though they may add that to the protocol). Why would they - they've published the specifications for 10 years now. Granted, when enough users are screwed by a third party, sometimes the only thing to do is come up with a workaround. I don't know if that can or will be done in this case. > By the way how do you explain that Other posts in these threads have addressed this better than I could. > I'm not being petulant, but for me this undocumented, unannounced change in > behaviour constitutes the biggest problem with SP1 and far outweighs any bug > fixes I get in return. OK. If your users don't get the value, there's no need to roll out the SP. It just seems like you're focusing on "undocumented, unannounced" part - which has nothing to do with the problem itself. Did your users really read the release documents? If so, they're more far more compliant than you imply below. If not, you're making a distinction without a difference. True, if it had been discovered before release you might have been able to address it in advance - but you can do that now. > I work for a computer services company and my users are definitely > not as compliant as yours seem to be, and neither am I. I won't say my clients are *happy*, but at least for now, they're far happier being able to use the Office features that were fixed. > I doubt they tested Fetch, InterArchy, Newswatcher, Transmit, MacSoup, > etc., I just tested roudn-tripping a file through Interarchy and the fule type and creator are simply stripped. :-) Corentin Signature--- Mac:MS MVP http://www.cortig.net/wordpress/ --- http://www.mvps.org - http://mvp.support.microsoft.com MVPs are not MS employees - Les MVP ne travaillent pas pour MS Remove "NoSpam" to e-mail me - Retirez "NoSpam" pour m'écrire That's the proper method for Interarchy. PC's send files with the extension to a FTP server. And if Mac users have use extension turned on when they save documents they should to. FTP goes strictly by extension only. >> I doubt they tested Fetch, InterArchy, Newswatcher, Transmit, MacSoup, >> etc., [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Corentin Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phillip M. Jones, CET |LIFE MEMBER: VPEA ETA-I, NESDA, ISCET, Sterling 616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868 Martinsville Va 24112 |pjones@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailto:pjones@kimbanet.com <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm> <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm> <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html> <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm> <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm> <http://www.vpea.org> Hi Steve, me too. Same Thing! But, on mine it is documents that I have created with office 2008 word. It acts as though it will open it into word, but ceases the operation. I go on to do the open with feature and then associate all .doc files to open in word... same thing. I am trying the recommended repair permissions now to see if this does the trick. FYI. compliance doctor > I have a folder of word documents -- all of these opened on Office 2008 > with the 12.0.1 patch. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > - Steve If your problem is happening with documents created in Word 2008 in .docx format, you do not have THIS problem (the one in this thread). Post a new question and let's analyse your specific problem :-) On 25/05/08 4:43 PM, in article ee9b714.124@webcrossing.caR9absDaxw, "compliancedoctor@officeformac.com" <compliancedoctor@officeformac.com> wrote: > Hi Steve, me too. Same Thing! But, on mine it is documents that I have created > with office 2008 word. It acts as though it will open it into word, but ceases [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> >> - Steve SignatureDon't wait for your answer, click here: http://www.word.mvps.org/ Please reply in the group. Please do NOT email me unless I ask you to. John McGhie, Microsoft MVP, Word and Word:Mac Sydney, Australia. mailto:john@mcghie.name > I doubt they tested Fetch, InterArchy, Newswatcher, Transmit, MacSoup, > etc., for what file type those apps assign, either (though they may add > that to the protocol). Why would they - they've published the > specifications for 10 years now. Firefox 2.x? Thunderbird 2.x? Why weren't those tested? They aren't "old" by any means... (And I realize, "you don't know" is an acceptable answer) Fetch 5.3 blanks things out, btw. Even non-blanked files uploaded and then downloaded.. So what *is* right? "blank" file types? "current" file types (with no guarantee that the same thing won't happen with Office 15 8 years down the road?) Really -- the continued silence from the MacBU on this is troublesome. - Steve > (And I realize, "you don't know" is an acceptable answer) And that's the only one I can give... > Really -- the continued silence from the MacBU on this is troublesome. I couldn't agree more. > But, as has been previously mentioned, that's largely irrelevant. Since > the third-party bug affects NEW documents that they touch, most of the > times we've seen the problem have not been with pre-Office98 docs.. I beg to offer up my scenario which is clearly different from yours.. If you've been using one of the "third-party" applications since the pre-Office 98 days (and Eudora has been around for about a decade now, I think, and was -- at one point -- considered one of the "premiere" Mac E-mail programs...) You'd likely have a significant number of files received via e-mail (flaged as "Microsoft Word 1.x-5.x document" files) -- those have type WDBN and Creator MSWD. I also have Word document files (openable by Word 12.1) that have type: "W6BN" (a Word 6.0/95 document) with creator MSWD and no extension. Were these e-mailed to me 8 years ago? Probably... For all I know, they came on floppy disk... And those can be opened by "File --> Open" -- so they are valid word files according to 12.1, but not double-clickable. And that's just on *my* computer where I have no documents later than 1997 (my home computer probably does...) This isn't touching the faculty computers that their documents have been moved from computer-to-computer from even longer than that... - Steve > I beg to offer up my scenario which is clearly different from yours.. "Irrelevant" was a bad choice of words. My intended point was only that since the user has no control over how documents are touched before they get to his or her machine, even if one were to do a painless and error-free batch conversion of all your old doc types, and strictly eschew the offending applications, the problem would still exist. The message to which you attached your reply goes back to the very beginning of this [exhaustive] thread, which has also become fragmented. In the messages posted since you'll find that you can, in deed, open the files and that there are no "workarounds" involved... Take a look at JE's reply to your message & you'll find that the only "workaround" involved is little more than to open the file using the most fundamental & basic technique for doing so. Further, it has nothing to do with Windows computers specifically. It's a matter of how the file has been handled by certain types of software which have decoded the attachments inappropriately and could have occurred anytime during the life of the file. Regards |:>) Bob Jones [MVP] Office:Mac On 5/19/08 1:27 PM, in article C74BA38F-A9DC-4BE4-97AB-DD568342F983@microsoft.com, "sb on mac" <sb on mac@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > I'm having the same problem. Before the update I didn't have any problems, > and now that I've updated, I cannot open .doc files that were created on [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >>> >>> - Steve > I have a folder of word documents -- all of these opened on Office 2008 > with the 12.0.1 patch. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Anybody else seeing this? Yes I'm seeing exactly the same problems on some Word files since the upgrade to 12.1. If I double-click a file or use 'open with' Word opens a new blank document called 'Document 1'. I can open the file from within word file an open dialog. This makes it easier to open Word files using OpenOffice 3.0 than Microsoft's own product. On the the other hand my problems with Excel 2008 have been solved by someone with a microsoft.com email address so I'm happy that one door has opened as another closes. SignatureCheers, Steve The reply-to email address is a spam trap. Email steve 'at' shodgson 'dot' org 'dot' uk It looks like the docs that won't open - Word and Excel (and likely PPT too) are those that came from PCs. If you get info on one that won't open, it has a generic icon. If you get info, select the new Excel app, and then check "change all" it seems to make it work. Also, I reset my launchservices database. What a mess. Does anyone beta test???? Scott On 5/14/08 2:42 PM 5/14/08, in article 6914moF2v7i0dU1@mid.individual.net, >> I have a folder of word documents -- all of these opened on Office 2008 >> with the 12.0.1 patch. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > someone with a microsoft.com email address so I'm happy that one door > has opened as another closes. > It looks like the docs that won't open - Word and Excel (and likely PPT too) > are those that came from PCs. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What a mess. > Does anyone beta test???? You'd think that at the very least someone would have beta tested *this*! I have the same issue. When I double click a file, Word comes to the forefront. And nothing else happens. If Word isn't running, Word will launch, but only creates a blank, as though I've launched Word from the dock. I've repaired permissions, rebuilt launch services, re-associated file types, the only thing that worked was to use File>Open. After doing a "Save As..." or just a "Save" the file will then open properly when double clicked It also stops Applescript from opening these files in Word. Will > I've repaired permissions, rebuilt launch services, re-associated file types, the only thing that worked was to use File>Open. After doing a "Save As..." or just a "Save" the file will then open properly when double clicked > Did you also check whether dragging the file and dropping it on the Word icon in the doc worked? > > I've repaired permissions, rebuilt launch services, re-associated file > > types, the only thing that worked was to use File>Open. After doing a "Save [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Did you also check whether dragging the file and dropping it on the Word > icon in the doc worked? I just tried this. Doing this just changes the focus to Word -- but no document (not even a blank document) opens. a number of people on macfixit.com are reporting the same issue with no obvious fix. Yet, I have another admin here who is *not* seeing the problem (like the MVPs apparently aren't...) Those of us who are seeing the problem are not running the same "load" of 10.5.2 -- we're all different. And, I did *not* see this on my 10.4.11-running G5 that I just auto-updated. That worked as expected. Are you MVPs who are not seeing the problem running under 10.4 or 10.5? - Steve I'm also having this issue. Double click, right click -> open with, drag and drop on Word icon all do not work with most documents. The same applies to Excel. I have not tried Power Point. All of the effected document have been sent to me from various sources. The documents that do work all appear to have been saved by me at least once. I can provide example documents that don't work, and a 'saved' version of the same document that does work. Word / Excel versions 12.1.0 (080409). Mac OS X 10.5.2 This has only been an issue since sp1 was installed. > I'm also having this issue. > Double click, right click -> open with, drag and drop on Word icon all do not [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Mac OS X 10.5.2 > This has only been an issue since sp1 was installed. Out of curiousity - are those that are seeing this only seeing it in documents that were e-mailed to you? Looking more in depth here -- I have documents going back as far as 2003 (which would have been moved from computer to computer in the past 5 years) that are not opening. Both Excel and Word documents. But these were definitely e-mailed to me as attachments. If I go over to my co-workers PC and grab a file on a USB flash drive -- I *can* open those files. But if he e-mails them to me, I can not. - Steve > In article , > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Steve You are correct. Any word docs that I have been emailed, and have not been modified, I can not open by double clicking. Docs that have been copied over the network open fine. All of the test documents I have are originally from a Windows version or Word. I have not yet tested a Mac created version yet. Cheers, Jason Can someone test emailing yourself some docs created on the Mac (state which version), and see if the problem occurs? Does emailing yourself break docs that currently behave? What happens with new docs emailed to self? Difference between .doc and .docx files? And since emailing appear to be implicated, please state which email program you are using. Also, everyone, please note the OS version that is showing this problem for you. Be exact, not just 10.5 but 10.5.1 or 10.5.2? The first step in getting a problem fixed is figuring out what conditions allow it to happen to some and not others. > You are correct. Any word docs that I have been emailed, and have not been modified, I can not open by double clicking. Docs that have been copied over the network open fine. > All of the test documents I have are originally from a Windows version or Word. I have not yet tested a Mac created version yet. > > Cheers, > Jason Emailing myself is fine Entourage/Mail.app. I'm running another version of Leopard, but that's all I can say. It's still present. All the docs on my Mac(s) that caused the issue are PC-generated or PC-altered/saved. See this I posted on MacFixit: I have received messages that this has fixed for others as well...so, why is this happening? It only happened after applying 12.1.0. OK, it seems that people will not read all the threads, so try this one - it has worked on the Macs that had this issue for me... Rebuild the launchservices database - a number of free utilities do this, I prefer "OnyX" Now after doing that and logging out/in (or reboot, but not needed) you need to find a doc of each Office type (.doc, .xls, .ppt) that won't open. It appears as though the ones causing troubles are generated (or changed/saved) by Office on the PC (don't know if it's a certain version or not) Get Info on the file that won't open and associate it to Excel 2008 on your Mac. I noticed the icon was off on the ones not working. Before closing, select "Change all" Now, all of the Office docs open on my Mac(s) but this is not something I plan on doing on the machines I support so I will not roll out this version until MS fixes this. Please post on the MS Mac newsgroups or send them an email - they need pressure to get this fixed. Scott On 5/15/08 9:09 AM 5/15/08, in article urbGQYqtIHA.3968@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl, "Daiya Mitchell" <daiyaNOSPAM@mvps.org.INVALID> wrote: > Can someone test emailing yourself some docs created on the Mac (state > which version), and see if the problem occurs? Does emailing yourself [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> Jason >> > Emailing myself is fine Entourage/Mail.app. > I'm running another version of Leopard, but that's all I can say. > It's still present. > All the docs on my Mac(s) that caused the issue are PC-generated or > PC-altered/saved. Scott, did you also download those problem docs through Entourage/Mail, or through a web mail access? Do you know? Thanks for the specific fix instructions. Daiya > * > See this I posted on MacFixit: I have received messages that this has [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Scott > / Have not tried webmail - but I will now. I have confirmed with another Apple seed tester that attachments emailed from a PC are not working. I don't know his specifics yet. Scott On 5/15/08 11:08 AM 5/15/08, in article eh2BpartIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl, "Daiya Mitchell" <daiyaNOSPAM@mvps.org.INVALID> wrote: >> Emailing myself is fine Entourage/Mail.app. >> I'm running another version of Leopard, but that's all I can say. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >> Scott >> / Another thing - apparently, some files emailed get a ".dot" extension added after the .doc - which might explain why it opens the app, but not the file. Scott On 5/15/08 11:08 AM 5/15/08, in article eh2BpartIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl, "Daiya Mitchell" <daiyaNOSPAM@mvps.org.INVALID> wrote: >> Emailing myself is fine Entourage/Mail.app. >> I'm running another version of Leopard, but that's all I can say. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >> Scott >> / I installed the 12.1 update and cannot get any office 08 apps to open. each time I launch an app the setup assistant opens...can't get around it. trashed many .plist prefs. any solution? Thx. dkstudio > Another thing - apparently, some files emailed get a ".dot" extension added > after the .doc - which might explain why it opens the app, but not the file. In my case they all have ".doc" extensions. Charles > In article , Daiya Mitchell > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > - Steve Steve, I think you are on to something here. The above thread talks about UTIs, Universal Type Indicators, which Leopard uses for application launch. The issue in the thread above related to a 'mismatch' in mimetype treatment between Leopard and Office resulting in Word documents having a .dot extension appended. The problem most people seem to be having with Office 2008 SP1 is with emailed attachments which will have a MIME envelope. When an attachment is opened or saved this information will be used to determine the file type and application to load. The target application will take action based on the information in it's info.plist file. Could it be that we have two related problems here, firstly email attachments either open or don't based on how the MIME envelope is handled by your particular mail program and how that affects the action taken based on the data in the info.plist file of the target application, secondly for stored files launched from the Finder, again the data in the info.plist file conflicts/is mis handled by Leopard causing the target application to load but then passing incorrect settings so that the application cannot load the document. The above probably has many technical inaccuracies but based on what I've read it looks like a plausible theory. > Another thing - apparently, some files emailed get a ".dot" extension added > after the .doc - which might explain why it opens the app, but not the file. > Uh, that's actually a different bug, I think limited to some conflict with Safari, which adds that on downloading. I thought I've seen conflicting reports on whether 12.0.1 fixed that or not. Deleting the .dot is the workaround. > > Another thing - apparently, some files emailed get a ".dot" extension added > > after the .doc - which might explain why it opens the app, but not the file. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > conflicting reports on whether 12.0.1 fixed that or not. Deleting the > .dot is the workaround. "different"? Or "related"? Might be worth asking if people seeing the double-click problem are having the .dot problem. I'm having both... - Steve Different - and there's no rule that states that you can't in deed have *both*:-) Regards |:>) Bob Jones [MVP] Office:Mac On 5/16/08 10:04 AM, in article 160520081004300179%maser@umich.edu, "Steve Maser" <maser@umich.edu> wrote: >>> Another thing - apparently, some files emailed get a ".dot" extension added >>> after the .doc - which might explain why it opens the app, but not the file. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > - Steve > "different"? Or "related"? > > Might be worth asking if people seeing the double-click problem are > having the .dot problem. I haven't yet seen anyone using Safari and having the double-click problem. Can I ask you what browser and e-mail client you are using Steve?? Corentin Signature--- Mac:MS MVP http://www.cortig.net/wordpress/ --- http://www.mvps.org - http://mvp.support.microsoft.com MVPs are not MS employees - Les MVP ne travaillent pas pour MS Remove "NoSpam" to e-mail me - Retirez "NoSpam" pour m'écrire > > "different"? Or "related"? > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Corentin Web browser -- Safari 3.1.1 E-mail program -- Eudora 6.2.4. I'm not seeing this in Eudora 8 (based on Thunderbird 3.0), but that seems to use a different method of decoding attachments. And if I .zip the attachments to myself and send them along that way, when they are unzipped they open. I'm certainly willing to point the finger at Eudora 6.2.4, based on it's age. However an office update shouldn't render thousands of documents (basically) unopenable. (And other posters have listed other e-mail applications so I don't think it's limited to Eudora -- but the MacBU can certainly test that...) And there is the odd twist to this that Safari 3.1.1/Office 2008 12.1 isn't having either problem under 10.4.11 (at least here.) But -- let's be real -- using "File --> Open" to manage documents is unreasonable these days... Microsoft changed something unexpectedly and it broke everything for many people. They need to fix this. - Steve > In article , > Corentin Cras-M�neur wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > - Steve > Steve, 100% agree. Dalya says this thread has outlived its usefulness, completely disagree with that. The thread pointed at for 'useful information' has a worse than useless workaround and then blames other email clients for 'corrupting' Office documents. Why then if I restore to 12.0.1 does everything start to work again? >> Steve, 100% agree. Dalya says this thread has outlived its usefulness, completely disagree with that. The thread pointed at for 'useful information' has a worse than useless workaround and then blames other email clients for 'corrupting' Office documents. Why then if I restore to 12.0.1 does everything start to work again? >> Uh, I just meant that posting new information in this thread is unlikely to help find a solution, because MS has identified the cause of the problem. According to them, the specific browser/client you use to download the document doesn't matter, because the change could have happened anywhere along the doc's lifecycle. So a whole bunch of people posting about which browser they use, or where these files come from, or what makes the problem files different from other files, isn't going to get us anywhere useful. MS is already past that point. You are right that rolling back to 12.0.1 ought to be mentioned as a workaround for this. It would be better, I think, to post other workarounds in clearly marked new threads, rather than burying them in a complex and confusing list of attempts to identify the cause of the problem. > So a whole bunch of people posting about which browser they use, or > where these files come from, or what makes the problem files different > from other files, isn't going to get us anywhere useful. MS is > already past that point. Actually, I'm a little wrong there. It is connected to the browser or email client in use, but the files might have been tweaked at any point in their lifetime. So if you use Safari or Entourage to get a document that has been shared around a whole bunch of people and gone through a bunch of browsers, you might run into the problem even if Safari/Entourage isn't causing it. But, if you know that most of the files you receive are were probably created new by the person sending them, then you might experiment with getting your email in different programs or browsers. For instance, if the same document breaks via webmail access in Firefox but not Safari, then we know it's a conflict between Office and Firefox. Or vice versa. I don't know how useful knowing the exact conflict would be, though. It's be easy enough to switch browsers for webmail access in the future, but using File | Open a lot sounds less inconvenient to me than switching email clients. And it won't help with documents that already exist on your harddrive. (I have no clue whether the software the sender uses to send/upload the document would make a difference.) > Web browser -- Safari 3.1.1 > > E-mail program -- Eudora 6.2.4. Thanks Steve, [...] > But -- let's be real -- using "File --> Open" to manage documents is > unreasonable these days... Can you drag the files to the icon of the application to get them to open?? Corentin Signature--- Mac:MS MVP http://www.cortig.net/wordpress/ --- http://www.mvps.org - http://mvp.support.microsoft.com MVPs are not MS employees - Les MVP ne travaillent pas pour MS Remove "NoSpam" to e-mail me - Retirez "NoSpam" pour m'écrire > > But -- let's be real -- using "File --> Open" to manage documents is > > unreasonable these days... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Corentin Nope. I wish I could that -- same issue as double-clicking. Focus changes to Word, but doesn't open the document. - Steve <snip> On 5/16/08 10:45 AM, in article 160520081045247131%maser@umich.edu, "Steve Maser" <maser@umich.edu> wrote: > But -- let's be real -- using "File --> Open" to manage documents is > unreasonable these days... You're absolutely right - Command +O is much more efficient... Unless it facilitates your workflow to bring up a Finder window then navigate from there in order to locate a file so you can dbl-click it to get a file open. >Microsoft changed something unexpectedly > and it broke everything for many people. They need to fix this. <snip> Right again - it's all a part of their master plan to get people to stop using Mac Office with the expectation that the demise of MacBU will put the corporation in a position to declare bankruptcy resulting in the undermining of the U.S. economy & paralysis of the nation in order to facilitate their global takeover... The end is near;-) Regards |:>) Bob Jones [MVP] Office:Mac My solution was to use Time Machine to restore my Office 2008 folder from the day before I applied the update. > My solution was to use Time Machine to restore my Office 2008 folder > from the day before I applied the update. Wellll, you shoudl be careful with that. If I quite remember, the update also updates various elements in /Library (though it might not bee too bad, snice they are limited. I believe the fonts get updated for instance). You also end up with a receipt for the package corresponding to 12.1.0 even though you effectively have 12.0.1 installed. Corentin Signature--- Mac:MS MVP http://www.cortig.net/wordpress/ --- http://www.mvps.org - http://mvp.support.microsoft.com MVPs are not MS employees - Les MVP ne travaillent pas pour MS Remove "NoSpam" to e-mail me - Retirez "NoSpam" pour m'écrire > Rebuild the launchservices database - a number of free utilities do this, I > prefer "OnyX" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Mac. I noticed the icon was off on the ones not working. > Before closing, select "Change all" I tried this with a Word .doc e-mailed to me this morning from a Windows PC but still the same problem. (I also have the problem with Excel and PowerPoint for Windows files e-mailed to me.) Here is my setup: MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo 2.33 GHz OS X 10.5.2 Office 12.1.0 (080409) Office 2004 (Word 11.4.2 [080415]; Excel 11.4.1 [080219]; PowerPoint 11.3.5 [070411]) Charles Add one more fact, Charles--how do you get your email? Program, web access, or what? How are these files arriving on your computer? > Here is my setup: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Charles > Add one more fact, Charles--how do you get your email? Program, web > access, or what? How are these files arriving on your computer? I get my e-mail via POP using Eudora 6.2.4 (paid mode). Charles This thread has outlived its usefulness--please see the announcement here: http://www.officeformac.com/ProductForums/Office/1973 > >> Add one more fact, Charles--how do you get your email? Program, web [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Charles > This thread has outlived its usefulness--please see the announcement here: > http://www.officeformac.com/ProductForums/Office/1973 Huh? (I was answering your question.) Charles > >> This thread has outlived its usefulness--please see the announcement here: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Huh? (I was answering your question.) > Oh, sorry, I wasn't especially replying to you, just to the most recent post on the thread. But my questions, attempting to find the cause of the problem, had become outdated, superseded by the announcement that MS has tracked down most of the cause. Which browser/email client you use might make a difference for new files, but files that have been shared and exchanged around could still trigger the problem even if the brower/email client you use isn't implicated. > Oh, sorry, I wasn't especially replying to you, just to the most recent > post on the thread. I see--I couldn't tell you weren't replying to me because you were replying to my message in which I was answering your question. Charles > Can someone test emailing yourself some docs created on the Mac (state > which version), and see if the problem occurs? Does emailing yourself [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Also, everyone, please note the OS version that is showing this problem > for you. Be exact, not just 10.5 but 10.5.1 or 10.5.2? Related to this e-mail issue... under 10.5.2... If I e-mail myself a Word document <file.doc> and download it from our *webmail interface* with Safari 3.1.1 -- it's coming down as <file.doc.dot>. The thread below blames Office 2008: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6549428 I don't know how much of this is interrelated to the problem at hand, but it makes me wonder if it is -- somehow .doc/.xls files *received* are being set incorrectly - Steve I'm seeing exactly the same thing. Documents that I could double click this morning, both Mac and PC created, by me or by others, will not open after the 12.1 update. Double click, drag and drop to the dock, drag and drop to the application in the apps folder, right click and select 'open with', all do the same. Bring the MS app to the front, but do not open the document. File, open does work to open the same documents. Macbook Pro, 10.5.2, Office 12.1.0 (080409) multi volume license (school). Updated with the office update assistant. > I'm also having this issue. > Double click, right click -> open with, drag and drop on Word icon all do not work with most documents. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Mac OS X 10.5.2 > This has only been an issue since sp1 was installed. > I've repaired permissions, rebuilt launch services, re-associated file types, > the only thing that worked was to use File>Open. After doing a "Save As..." > or just a "Save" the file will then open properly when double clicked Assuming that the problem is with files that were created in Windows, I would have thought this would be one the *first* things the programmers would test. Maybe they assumed it would work... Hi Steve, anything more you can say about the difference between the documents that open when double-clicked and the ones that don't? Extensions present? Emailed to you after the SP1 update? Version created in? Person or Persons coming from? Visual icon? Any commonalities you can find among the ones that don't open, not shared by the ones that do, would be very helpful in identifying why SOME documents show this behavior but not others. > I have a folder of word documents -- all of these opened on Office 2008 > with the 12.0.1 patch. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > - Steve I booted to cd and ran the disk util, both repair perms and disk. All documents I created now open when I double click. All Excel and PPT files appear to open, mine or others (including Windoze created). Word files created by others still do not open other than with file, open. These all have the .doc ext, from many different people, but I think all windows users (not too many mac users around here). The icons have the correct mini preview display, both ones that work and ones that do not. If I try to double click them open, then go to the file 'get info', it does show the last opened time as when I tried to open it and it did not open. These are files that I have had, and have opened in the past. No other visible differences I can think to check. > Hi Steve, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > would be very helpful in identifying why SOME documents show this > behavior but not others. Thanks for all these details, Mike--it's pretty much been narrowed down to emailed documents, so now the question is (for everyone seeing this problem, not just Mike)-- how do you get your email and download these problem docs? If through webmail access, what browser? If through POP/IMAP access, what program? Any other relevant details? Exact versions, please, plus exact versions of OS and processor, in case it's Leopard-only or PPC only or somesuch. > I booted to cd and ran the disk util, both repair perms and disk. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > These all have the .doc ext, from many different people, but I think all > windows users (not too many mac users around here). > <snip> > > No other visible differences I can think to check. > > These are docs that are on my desktop that I've opened before, too. POP3, Thunderbird version 2.0.0.14 (20080421) Webmail, gmail and gaggle (yes, gaggle, not google) MacBookPro, 10.5.2 > Thanks for all these details, Mike--it's pretty much been narrowed down > to emailed documents, so now the question is (for everyone seeing this [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > > >> Hi. I have just finished running some tests and here is what I have found. It is definitely email related. I have use gmail (web interface), Thunderbird (2.0.0.14) and Mail.app (3.2) for testing. I'm running Mac OS X 10.5.2 on both the Macs ( Al 2.8 iMac and 2.2 2006 MacBook Pro) , Windows XP on the PC. Office 2008 12.1.0 on the iMac, office 2004 on the MacBook pro, and Office 2003 on the PC. All documents are word documents, and all have the .doc extension. All open Word when double clicked and show the Word icon. Any type of direct copying works, Mac to Mac, or Windows to Mac. If I email from a Mac to a Mac using Mail everything works as it should if I use Mail.app. If I send from Mail.app, and receive with either Thunderbird or gmail it works as expected. If I send from gmail on either Mac or Windows., and receive with Mail.app is works, but it does not work if I receive with Thunderbird. Double clicking opens Word but not the file. Comparing the files that do work, with the one that doesn't, the file sizes are slightly different. 19,456 bytes for the non-working version, and 19,742 bytes for the working version. Comparing the actual data, they are identical, byte for byte. I'm thinking that somehow the Finder meta data is missing or the resource fork. Previous versions didn't seem to care, but 12.1.0 appears to. I can provider examples of these files if need be. I have also tried the fix above and several others and they have not worked. Cheers, Jason > Thanks for all these details, Mike--it's pretty much been narrowed down > to emailed documents, so now the question is (for everyone seeing this [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > > No other visible differences I can think to check. > Thanks for all these details, Mike--it's pretty much been narrowed down > to emailed documents, so now the question is (for everyone seeing this [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Exact versions, please, plus exact versions of OS and processor, in > case it's Leopard-only or PPC only or somesuch. I am seeing the problem with emailed documents received via POP using the Mailsmith 2.2 (245) beta. I am running Office 2008 12.1.0 under 10.5.2 on a MacBook Pro. SignatureCheers, Steve The reply-to email address is a spam trap. Email steve 'at' shodgson 'dot' org 'dot' uk > > Thanks for all these details, Mike--it's pretty much been narrowed down > > to emailed documents, so now the question is (for everyone seeing this [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I am running Office 2008 12.1.0 under 10.5.2 on a MacBook Pro. I am using Eudora 6.2.4 and see this problem. I have e-mailed attachments going back 10 years (so this would be using multiple versions of Eudora over the years) where those files will not open. As other posters have mentioned direct file copying (ie, moving a file through the network from PC to Mac or copying to USB stick) -- those same files will open (but will not open when e-mailed...) - Steve Just to post an answer here that Steve already knows: The issue is that the File Type or Creator Code inside the documents is not one that Mac Word is expecting. This may have happened because the file was edited by an application other than Word, or because the file was emailed by Lotus Notes, or because the file was downloaded with one of a few (usually, older) applications that are writing the wrong file type and creator code into the file on save. The cure, in each case, is to use File>Open from within Word to open the file. Make a change (for example, add and remove a space) then save the file. Word will correct the file type and creator code and the file extension, if it is missing. After that, the file will open on a double-click each time. Hope this helps On 16/05/08 6:09 AM, in article 150520081639165151%maser@umich.edu, "Steve Maser" <maser@umich.edu> wrote: >>> Thanks for all these details, Mike--it's pretty much been narrowed down >>> to emailed documents, so now the question is (for everyone seeing this [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - Steve SignatureDon't wait for your answer, click here: http://www.word.mvps.org/ Please reply in the group. Please do NOT email me unless I ask you to. John McGhie, Microsoft MVP, Word and Word:Mac Nhulunbuy, NT, Australia. mailto:john@mcghie.name > This may have happened because the file was edited by an application other > than Word, or because the file was emailed by Lotus Notes, or because the > file was downloaded with one of a few (usually, older) applications that are > writing the wrong file type and creator code into the file on save. Presumably been doing that for years and it's only this version of Word that chokes on them? SignatureCheers, Steve The reply-to email address is a spam trap. Email steve 'at' shodgson 'dot' org 'dot' uk Exactly. It's not the files, it's the SP1 UDPATE. It should be a simple fix. Let's hope it arrives soon. No rollout of SP1 until then. Scott On 5/17/08 4:55 AM 5/17/08, in article 697vdhF318fj1U1@mid.individual.net, >> This may have happened because the file was edited by an application other >> than Word, or because the file was emailed by Lotus Notes, or because the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Presumably been doing that for years and it's only this version of Word > that chokes on them? > No rollout of SP1 until then. Right. God forbid that users get the hundreds of real productivity improvements in SP1 because they may have to use File/Open (CMO-o) on a few (or even a lot of) files... Sorry, but that sounds remarkably like the IT guys I've known who thought that all those hundreds of other people working in the business existed to allow them to play with their servers. Maybe I'm missing something - perhaps your users store all their files on the desktop and can't or don't use menus or keyboard shortcuts. In that case, I can see why you'd think that the advanced features, like formatting, charts, picture handling, keyboard compatibility, being able to open XL07 workbooks, page break manipulation, second displays, proper date formats, sync services stability, SSL v3 authentication, no longer duplicating contacts when syncing, proper font sizes, etc., etc., etc., aren't worth it. YMM(obviously)V. You don't support many people do you "JE"? I do. Many of whom may or may not be lazy/irrational or just don't like changing work-flow. It's not up to THEM or ME to work-around a bad update. It's up to Microsoft to fix what they broke. Until then, please don't waste space here with this kind of drivel. Scott On 5/17/08 2:20 PM 5/17/08, in article jemcgimpsey-215087.15205917052008@news.microsoft.com, "JE McGimpsey" <jemcgimpsey@mvps.org> wrote: >> No rollout of SP1 until then. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > YMM(obviously)V. > You don't support many people do you "JE"? About 1500 desks of Office 2004 and 2008... From a phone, I bet. On 5/19/08 1:35 PM 5/19/08, in article jemcgimpsey-2360FD.14350119052008@news.microsoft.com, "JE McGimpsey" <jemcgimpsey@mvps.org> wrote: >> You don't support many people do you "JE"? > > About 1500 desks of Office 2004 and 2008... > From a phone, I bet. Phone, sure. Also on-site, via email, video, remote sessions, the occasional house call... Fortunately for my time, my contracts are second-tier, rather than at the front-line interface. And, apparently fortunately, the on-site first responders report that telling those users having problems with opening files to use File/Open, rather than double-clicking, is being met with equanimity and acceptance. I've only had one executive call me directly - and he seemed to get it. > In article , > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > acceptance. I've only had one executive call me directly - and he seemed > to get it. JE, do those same users have the issue of not being able to double click an email attachment? If, like me, they have to save the attachment then go to Word and then do a File/Open I'm sure they wouldn't 'get it'. Everyone is assuming that MS have deprecated the WDBN file type, as far as I know there's nothing in the release notes and I still say that either MS did not test this properly or they have a blatant disregard for the usability of their software on the Mac platform. I have gone back to 12.0.1 and will not upgrade until this is fixed. > JE, do those same users have the issue of not being able to double click an > email attachment? If, like me, they have to save the attachment then go to > Word and then do a File/Open I'm sure they wouldn't 'get it'. Of course they do. After the initial confusion (where we got a half-dozen or so calls), we put out a message to the users reminding them to use File/Open, and we haven't had a complaint since. Can't be 100% positive that all the desks are updated yet, but the vast majority are. FWIW, we also have regularly told them that they should, if they plan to work on a document, save it first and work off the saved copy. That's far more stable than editing docs in a temporary directory, and just good practice. > Everyone is assuming that MS have deprecated the WDBN file type, as > far as I know there's nothing in the release notes and I still say > that either MS did not test this properly or they have a blatant > disregard for the usability of their software on the Mac platform. Or, as has been stated many times, they didn't realize that third-party applications were applying type codes that hasn't been applied by an MS app during this century, and which in 99% of cases is *incorrect*. It's a BUG, but in the third-party apps! And FWIW, the WDBN file type has been deprecated since Office 98 when the new type came out. Support for deprecated features are often carried along by software developers for a version (or several), but in general, removal of support for deprecated items is not typically announced in a release note. > I have gone back to 12.0.1 and will not upgrade until > this is fixed. Well, living with dozens of bugs may work for you, and that's fine. It doesn't for the users I support. They'd rather be more productive than petulant. Bugs in 3rd party apps? LOL Docs created with MS Office on PC Docs sent via Exchange server to Entourage/MS Webmail users. Files fail to open with double-click. Where's the third-party software, JE? That's the best one yet. Are you really Steve Balmer? Your methods or best practices may work in some Bank of America environment, but not where I work. Scott On 5/20/08 7:15 AM 5/20/08, in article jemcgimpsey-F8CA19.08150720052008@news.microsoft.com, "JE McGimpsey" <jemcgimpsey@mvps.org> wrote: >> JE, do those same users have the issue of not being able to double click an >> email attachment? If, like me, they have to save the attachment then go to [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > They'd rather be more productive than petulant. > Bugs in 3rd party apps? > LOL > Docs created with MS Office on PC > Docs sent via Exchange server to Entourage/MS Webmail users. > Files fail to open with double-click. Hey Scott... Really? What file type is Entourage putting on the Word documents? WDBN? Not W8BN (or "blank"?) (And, yes, Firefox 2.x certainly should have been tested -- there's little excuse for not testing that after 14 revisions of the Firefox 2 code base of a "not-10-year-old app"...) - Steve > Bugs in 3rd party apps? Well, if not bugs, at least failure to follow decade-old specifications. > LOL > Docs created with MS Office on PC Which don't HAVE Mac file types, and therefore (AFAICT) aren't assigning bad ones... > Docs sent via Exchange server to Entourage/MS Webmail users. > Files fail to open with double-click. > Where's the third-party software, JE? So far, Eudora and Firefox have been directly shown to cause the problem. Perhaps I've missed it, but I've not seen any reports of problems that have been documented here to involve files that have ONLY been touched by the above MS apps (including the templates they're created from), and I can't recreate the problem on the systems that I have access to. Nor have I had any user reports of that occurring. > That's the best one yet. > Are you really Steve Balmer? No. I just try to help users sort out problems. JE, my point was that our workflow is all MS, and the docs are not "double-clickable" No third-party stuff here. They all worked fine before 12.1. Did EXCH break it? Did some PC version of Office break it? Or did the 12.1 update break things? I'm not mad at you, but I am mad that people here seem to think USERS should pay the price for this. Finding and using Open/File is not acceptable. I don't even like/accept it and I get what's going on. When you deal with people who have deals to make; contracts to create/edit and time is of the essence, this is stupid. I don't care why - if 12.0 and 12.0.1 can open these docs, so should 21.1 and 21.2 etc. Still no reason for this, and the MS site still calls this an "issue" It IS an issue. Scott On 5/20/08 10:30 AM 5/20/08, in article jemcgimpsey-D393F8.11301520052008@news.microsoft.com, "JE McGimpsey" <jemcgimpsey@mvps.org> wrote: >> Bugs in 3rd party apps? > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > No. I just try to help users sort out problems. > Perhaps I've missed it, but I've not seen any reports of problems that > have been documented here to involve files that have ONLY been touched > by the above MS apps (including the templates they're created from), and > I can't recreate the problem on the systems that I have access to. Nor > have I had any user reports of that occurring. JE, you've hit the nail on the head! We live in a world where interoperability and usability are key. You cannot expect everyone buying and using Office 2008 (or Office 2007 on Vista) to be using a complete MS stack (much as MS would like us to). Scott is absolutely right, this isn't acceptable and no amount of justification will change that. > JE, you've hit the nail on the head! We live in a world where > interoperability and usability are key. You cannot expect everyone buying and > using Office 2008 (or Office 2007 on Vista) to be using a complete MS stack > (much as MS would like us to). Scott is absolutely right, this isn't > acceptable and no amount of justification will change that. Neither can a major software vendor leave security vulnerabilities open just because someone else is making non-standard changes to their files. That too is unacceptable and unjustifiable. It's a balancing act, but in general, I'd prefer my vendors err on the side of making the other guys fix *their* broken stuff. I don't know, but I would guess that there's a lot of discussion at MacBU right now about how much *system* testing needs to be added to their protocols. And how much the price of Office 14 will increase because of it... > I don't care why - if 12.0 and 12.0.1 can open these docs, so should 21.1 > and 21.2 etc. Sorry, I think we'll just have to disagree here. AFAIC, 12.1 can and does open these docs, and so will 12.2. However, even at the rate of one version every two years, I'd say the odds are long that 21.1 will open them... Hi Richard - I promised myself that I'd stay out of this melee but I simply can't resist the temptation:-) It's not an assumption. One of the major points that many seem to overlook (or choose to ignore) is that the WDBN file type was deprecated when Word 6 was introduced over 10 years ago and brought along a new format on both Mac as well as PC. It's only those programs involved which have continued to assign it to documents, and that's where the problem originates. Simple question: How many people do you know who are still using the *same version* of the *same email/browser* they were using 10 years ago? If the involved software had been revised appropriately the number of affected documents would be miniscule. Ergo, that's where the "fix" needs to be made. I can't - and don't presume to - speak for MS, but FWIW there's no doubt in my feeble mind that there will be no resurrection of that archaic, obsolete file type by MS in any future update to Office 2008 - or ever. And even if they did, it wouldn't change the fact that the affected document would still have the same - more serious problem - of being incorrectly coded. Why some seek to hold MS accountable for the irresponsibility of other developers I simply can't fathom. Ironically, if MS *did* attempt to control those developers they'd be taking just as much flak - if not more - for that... And from regulatory agencies as well as from users. I'm not unsympathetic to the inconvenience, but your decision is tantamount to cutting off your nose to spite your face, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or any number of other platitudes one might choose to apply to the circumstances. By staying at 12.0.1 you're depriving yourself of all the other fixes & improvements provided by the 12.1.0 update - any of which [IMHO] outweigh that one issue and are detailed in several of the posts scattered among the various threads on the subject. If you missed them - or can't find them - you might want to have a look at what those changes are: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/952331/en-us Regards |:>) Bob Jones [MVP] Office:Mac On 5/20/08 7:24 AM, in article ee9b714.103@webcrossing.caR9absDaxw, "Richard_Starling@officeformac.com" <Richard_Starling@officeformac.com> wrote: >> In article , >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > on the Mac platform. I have gone back to 12.0.1 and will not upgrade until > this is fixed. Before People Dis Mozilla 9FireFox/SeaMonkey/Thunderbird) products folks have remember that these products re written from brand new code from the ground as soon as Max went to OSX. I just read an article in either MacLife (MacAddict) or MacWorld that OSX is 7 years old. OSX.0 was written in 2001. That was long after Word 6/Excel 5. I don't see how such products can have such a defect. The problem didn't show up until the 12.1 SP install and was not present in versions previous to the SP1. No other applications exhibit this problem. So the old saying: If it looks like a duck, Quacks like a duck & walks like a duck; it must be a Duck is in order. > Hi Richard - > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] >> on the Mac platform. I have gone back to 12.0.1 and will not upgrade until >> this is fixed. Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phillip M. Jones, CET |LIFE MEMBER: VPEA ETA-I, NESDA, ISCET, Sterling 616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868 Martinsville Va 24112 |pjones@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailto:pjones@kimbanet.com <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm> <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm> <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html> <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm> <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm> <http://www.vpea.org> SOLUTION for Office 2008 sp1 for customers using ExtemeZ-IP AFP Server Symptom: Mac user in Office 2008 SP1 attempts to open a file (.doc/.xls) by double clicking or dragging the file onto the application (Word/ Excel). A new blank document opens instead of the file selected. See the full Knowledge Base article on how to edit the type/creator mappings: http://www.grouplogic.com/knowledge/index.cfm/fuseaction/view/docID/317 Hi Scott/Steve: This is not an error. Various file types have been disabled by design. I am sure more will be removed in future updates. This is a security measure, it was intentional, and there's no chance it will be changed. Cheers On 18/05/08 1:48 AM, in article C4545353.15A69%scott.boettcher@umusic.com, > Exactly. > It's not the files, it's the SP1 UDPATE. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> Presumably been doing that for years and it's only this version of Word >> that chokes on them? SignatureDon't wait for your answer, click here: http://www.word.mvps.org/ Please reply in the group. Please do NOT email me unless I ask you to. John McGhie, Microsoft MVP, Word and Word:Mac Nhulunbuy, NT, Australia. mailto:john@mcghie.name > Hi Scott/Steve: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Cheers Where is the "official statement" from Microsoft on this? If that's truly the case -- that file types will willy-nilly be disabled with *zero* advanced notice -- then there needs to be a written, public KB article indicating this and/or a free tool that will convert file types accordingly and enough pre-testing/announcing needed to indicate what web browsers/e-mail programs will be affected by this. Not just something that MS decided to tell beta-testers about and hope for the best when it's released to the public There's a *enormous* conceptual difference between if Microsoft had decided to do this with Office 2008 (original release) where people could have made adjustments/updates *before* installing the suite vs. a "service pack" upgrade that users would just automatically install when prompted. It would be akin to saying Firefox 2.0.0 through 2.0.0.13 will allow you to visit all .com web sites, but 2.0.0.14 won't. Why are people making excuses for that behavior? - Steve Hi Steve: If you have a "message for Microsoft", I suggest that you use Help>Send Feedback to send it in to them. The chance that Microsoft staff will read it in here is not reliably distinguishable from 0. I am certainly not making excuses for Microsoft. I am well known for flaming their little behinds as often as needed (they would say far more often than needed...). But I am struggling to understand why anyone would think that this particular decision needs any excusing. If you had some exposure to the computer security field, you would probably understand that it's not such a smart idea to tell the bad guys what you are going to do in advance. Actually, that's kinda dumb :-) The only new information that has emerged is the discovery that some applications have been setting the file type or creator code wrongly, presumably because their coders have been either sloppy or too lazy to think. Effectively, they are misaddressing postal articles, and relying on the fact that the Post Office will get the package to the right place by clairvoyance. And now the post office has started reading the address label and dropping packages for a non-existent address in the dead letter office, they are complaining :-) But if we sit back and take a realistic look at this for a moment, we can see that in this case, what Microsoft has done simply doesn't matter. A work-practice that has always been a bit risky is now disabled, for a series of file types that have not been used for more than a DECADE. Why would we care? Why would ANYONE care? Your users already know the answer to this: it's been part of their standard operating practice for years. For many years we have been telling users "Word won't open some kinds of files on a double click. If you encounter one of those kinds of files, use File>Open." As a competent Sys Admin, you posted this on your Help Desk help page around 20 years ago. You did do that, right? The Mac is becoming sufficiently popular now that there are enough of them out there to make it worth while for the bad guys to have a go. So Mac software manufacturers (and Apple...) now have to apply a little more case-hardening to their code than before. No biggie. It's a testament to the success of the Mac in the marketplace. No data has been lost. No users have been inconvenienced -- they can open their files just as easily using an alternative method. No specifications have been reduced. No user functionality is removed. No impact -- at all -- other than to slow down the bad guys. Let's move on, shall we? Cheers On 18/05/08 12:46 PM, in article 170520082316022874%maser@umich.edu, "Steve Maser" <maser@umich.edu> wrote: >> Hi Scott/Steve: >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Steve SignatureDon't wait for your answer, click here: http://www.word.mvps.org/ Please reply in the group. Please do NOT email me unless I ask you to. John McGhie, Microsoft MVP, Word and Word:Mac Nhulunbuy, NT, Australia. mailto:john@mcghie.name Seriously, people. Having to use File | Open instead of double-click does not fit either of these analogies. It's like the city decided to close down the shortcut you always took to work, because it was only gravel instead of paved, and too many people speeding down the road was creating all kinds of potholes and destroying the road, and now you have to drive the long way around. (Maybe there was a school on the road.) > Effectively, they are misaddressing postal articles, and relying on the fact > that the Post Office will get the package to the right place by [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> It would be akin to saying Firefox 2.0.0 through 2.0.0.13 will allow >> you to visit all .com web sites, but 2.0.0.14 won't. PS. While in general I am not in favor of added inconvenience, I strongly feel that if someone using computers *doesn't* know that when double-click doesn't work, they should try another method such as File | Open, then they will really benefit by the lesson in basic computer literacy that MS has forced on them. Learning *where* attachments and downloads are stored on the hard drive is a slightly more advanced but equally beneficial lesson in computer literacy. In the long run, more computer literacy in the general population will benefit the whole world. > Seriously, people. Having to use File | Open instead of double-click > does not fit either of these analogies. It's like the city decided to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>> It would be akin to saying Firefox 2.0.0 through 2.0.0.13 will allow >>> you to visit all .com web sites, but 2.0.0.14 won't. > Hi Steve: > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Let's move on, shall we? Too many Steves... I think you’re right this debate has reached a point where it’s not going to be solved in m.p.m.o.w. This forum has established a workaround for the problem and now at least some users understand why they can no longer open Word files using the tried and trusted mechanism of double-clicking in the Finder. I suspect there are quite a few more users elsewhere who are still wondering what the hell is going on in the absence of a public statement that this point release will potentially introduce a limitation. I’ve read <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/952331/en-us> and MS08-026 but couldn’t see it there but may have misunderstood it or perhaps it’s elsewhere. I find the postal service analogy interesting but I would amend it slightly. It seems the postal service is now only delivering letters and parcels if the post code is 100% accurate. If this ain’t the case it won’t try to find you by reading the rest of the address it just dumps your parcel and walks away :o) Setting aside the issue of how a mis-typed file got onto your system, Word now sees a file that it now considers ‘wrong’ so refuses to open it despite it apparently being a Word document, albeit a very old one. Where is the end-user feedback to indicate why the file can no longer be opened? why is there no message in 12.1.0 to indicate that such old versions of Word files are now considered to be a threat and therefore should only be opened from within Word using ⌘-O. If I try to open non-Word documents in Word 2008 it tells me this is ‘The document might be in use or might not be a valid Word document’ but in the case of these Word documents there is no such warning. Thanks for all the help to understand the problem. SignatureCheers, Steve The reply-to email address is a spam trap. Email steve 'at' shodgson 'dot' org 'dot' uk Hi Steve Hodson: (Can't have too many Steve's, they're quality people!!) On 18/05/08 7:02 PM, in article 69abdhF31qc8mU1@mid.individual.net, "Steve Hodgson" <hamrun@gmail.com> wrote: > I find the postal service analogy interesting but I would amend it > slightly. It seems the postal service is now only delivering letters > and parcels if the post code is 100% accurate. If this ain’t the case > it won’t try to find you by reading the rest of the address it just > dumps your parcel and walks away :o) Yes, that's better... > Setting aside the issue of how a mis-typed file got onto your system, > Word now sees a file that it now considers ‘wrong’ so refuses to open > it despite it apparently being a Word document, albeit a very old one. Actually, it's not "Word" that is doing this. My understanding is that the change has been made in the Launch Services Database for the File Type/Creator Code pair concerned. Word is no longer advertising that it can handle those codes, so Apple OS X doesn't know where to send the double-clicks. Ideally, OS X would issue an error message like Windows does. You know: that irritating one I see at work all the time about "Windows cannot find a program to open this file, do you want to use the Internet to find one, or would you like to look yourself?" Which really means "The Network Nazis do not want you wasting time and bandwidth on YouTube, and have disabled the player software, now get back to work!!" > Where is the end-user feedback to indicate why the file can no longer > be opened? That would be a job for Apple. In the case of the deprecated file types, Word is never aware that anything has been clicked. > why is there no message in 12.1.0 to indicate that such old > versions of Word files are now considered to be a threat and therefore > should only be opened from within Word using ⌘-O. I understand there will be a Help topic on the subject, but they're still writing it. Microsoft believed that nobody would ever strike this error (except the bad guys...). They were unaware that some applications out there are still marking downloads with the old file type! > If I try to open > non-Word documents in Word 2008 it tells me this is ‘The document might > be in use or might not be a valid Word document’ but in the case of > these Word documents there is no such warning. Yes, you WILL get a warning if Word is ever handed the file. The reason you do not get an error is that Word is never passed the file by OS X. As some people have discovered, if you fiddle with the Launch Services Database (and provided you don't wreck your system doing that... :-)) you can send these files back to Word. If you do, you would just be giving the bad guys a free kick at your system with whatever they might want to try on. Which means you should then run the whole security catastrophe software suite on the Mac -- antivirus, anti-spyware, bi-directional firewall, least-privileged user login, and yada yada yada... I really think telling users "if it won't open on a double-click, use File>Open..." is a hell of a lot less work and irritation :-) Cheers SignatureDon't wait for your answer, click here: http://www.word.mvps.org/ Please reply in the group. Please do NOT email me unless I ask you to. John McGhie, Microsoft MVP, Word and Word:Mac Nhulunbuy, NT, Australia. mailto:john@mcghie.name > I understand there will be a Help topic on the subject, but they're still > writing it. Microsoft believed that nobody would ever strike this error > (except the bad guys...). They were unaware that some applications out > there are still marking downloads with the old file type! (First "Steve" here again...) Sure. I can buy Pegasus/Eudora/MailSmith, etc -- as "fringe" e-mail programs slipping under the radar for testing. I'll give them that. But Firefox 2.x? That's as common as dishwater around the world these days... (I would imagine Thunderbird 2.x has a similar problem? Somebody could chime in here.) I'm sure there are people that use Entourage, but I only hear that people use that who *have* to have some kind of Exchange compatibility. No reason *Firefox* shouldn't have been tested, nor should they have been "unaware" of that. If that's truly the case, they need to consider expanding their test base. What does MS expect? That IT admins push Firefox 3.0 (even RC1) and Thunderbird 3.0 *alpha 1* out to their end users to resolve the problem? (And FF 3.0, *does* set file types to "blank"...) Note, that MS did *not* decide to depreciate the old file formats in the Office 2004 11.4.2 update -- those still work. If MS is going to break everything everywhere, they should at least be consistent... - Steve > But Firefox 2.x? That's as common as dishwater around the world these > days... (I would imagine Thunderbird 2.x has a similar problem? > Somebody could chime in here.) I couldn't find a .doc received in Thunderbird 2.0.0.12, but an .xlsx file came up with a blank type/creator. An older .xls file came up XLS/XCEL, possibly old enough to have been downloaded before my last TB update. You can de-spam my address and send me a test .doc, if you want, and I'll let you know. > I'm sure there are people that use > Entourage, but I only hear that people use that who *have* to have some > kind of Exchange compatibility. > Nope. It's my main email/cal app, and I never touch exchange--I prefer the one-app approach. There are enough non-exchange questions on the Entourage ng to show that it's a healthy portion of the user base. > No reason *Firefox* shouldn't have been tested, nor should they have > been "unaware" of that. If that's truly the case, they need to > consider expanding their test base. > Agreed. Except it's not a matter of just expansion, so much as redirection---people who are interested in beta testing for Office are almost by definition people who use many pieces of it, no? and it's more efficient for MS to have it that way. Does Apple have grandmas who just use iPhoto beta-testing iLife? And I suspect many beta testers are not the type of people to use webmail access consistently enough to hit this problem via Firefox. Daiya >> But Firefox 2.x? That's as common as dishwater around the world these >> days... (I would imagine Thunderbird 2.x has a similar problem? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > XLS/XCEL, possibly old enough to have been downloaded before my last > TB update. FYI: Sent myself a .doc, created as W8BN, sent via Entourage, downloaded in Thunderbird 2.0.012, file type now set to WDBN. Try this text Create a document on a PC and convert it to a zip file. now send it to Mac computer and use Thunderbird or Firefox to download it But don't have either to post process the document just save it to a downloads folder. Now open that folder and double click on the zip file. then double click on the resultant file and see whether it opens the file. Or end me one using Office2007 as an docx, and zip it. send to me I'll open it in 2008 and see What happens. If it works then the files are getting mangled by mis configured servers in between. DOCX is so new there are probably many servers out in the world don't know it exist yet. >>> But Firefox 2.x? That's as common as dishwater around the world these >>> days... (I would imagine Thunderbird 2.x has a similar problem? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > FYI: Sent myself a .doc, created as W8BN, sent via Entourage, downloaded > in Thunderbird 2.0.012, file type now set to WDBN. Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phillip M. Jones, CET |LIFE MEMBER: VPEA ETA-I, NESDA, ISCET, Sterling 616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868 Martinsville Va 24112 |pjones@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailto:pjones@kimbanet.com <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm> <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm> <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html> <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm> <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm> <http://www.vpea.org> > If that's truly the case -- that file types will willy-nilly be > disabled with *zero* advanced notice No file types have been disabled. They can still be opened via File/Open. Only the *method* of opening files that indicate that they're of a type that hasn't been created by an MS application in the last 6+ years, has been disabled. > -- then there needs to be a written, public KB article indicating > this I agree - IMO it ought to say "we botched this fix in the initial release, but it's fixed now. Use File/Open." > and/or a free tool that will > convert file types accordingly and enough pre-testing/announcing needed > to indicate what web browsers/e-mail programs will be affected by this. Get it through your head - for users it doesn't much matter which web browsers/e-mail programs are used - they're not "affected by this" - they're the perpetrators! Even if you know which ones they are and avoid them, if anyone else touches the files with those apps anywhere along their travel to your machine, you'll see the problem. > > and/or a free tool that will > > convert file types accordingly and enough pre-testing/announcing needed [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > touches the files with those apps anywhere along their travel to your > machine, you'll see the problem. So, then -- what solution are you offering? Complete retraining of their customer base because of an automatic office *service pack*? Really? A service pack/update for a Word Processor should not be considered a reference X.0 release in terms of what affect it has on a end-user. - Steve > So, then -- what solution are you offering? Complete retraining of > their customer base because of an automatic office *service pack*? Gee, training in File/Open doesn't seem that egregious to me. I support over 1500 desks, and this is a *really* minor problem for the users I've contacted. If this constitutes "complete retraining" for your user base, I can understand your frustration and you have my deepest sympathy. > Really? A service pack/update for a Word Processor should not be > considered a reference X.0 release in terms of what affect it has on a > end-user. Perhaps - they screwed up by not including it in the initial 12.0 release. But I don't agree with your assertion that SP's shouldn't contain major fixes. At all. Now they've fixed whatever problem existed in the 12.0 version. Are you seriously arguing that they should have compounded the screw-up by leaving a vulnerability open until the next full version?? Really??? That would just be incredibly stupid. Especially when THEIR software doesn't cause the problem. Could they have handled it better? Absolutely, and a KB article will probably be coming out real soon now. Which will still be pretty lame, but at least it will be documentation. Frankly, I don't for a minute think that your objection has much to do with the change being released in a service pack - service packs nearly ALWAYS contain security and stability fixes that cause minor hiccups in how the software interacts with the OS. This one is a bigger one than most for *some* users. However, I suspect you'd be ranting just as much if they'd done it right and it had started happening in the initial roll-out. That's pure speculation, though. I could be wrong. > However, I suspect you'd be ranting just as much if they'd done it right > and it had started happening in the initial roll-out. That's pure > speculation, though. I could be wrong. Nope. Because as an admin, I can control who could have *access* to Office 2008. Office 2008 was held back here (for example) until the 12.0.1 update came out because Excel 2008 (12.0) was nowhere near stable enough to use for my users (including myself.) What I can't control (an entirely different thread) is who could install a service pack on a pre-existing installation. An entirely-and-utter-completely different can of worms. Adjustments could have been made/discovered/implemented *before* allowing Office 2008 to my user base (ie, "before we roll out the new office, we must give you a new e-mail program and web browser and then modify the file types on all your documents for the following reasons...") The 12.1 service pack is not "Office 13". - Steve > Where is the "official statement" from Microsoft on this? > Best you'll get for now: http://tinyurl.com/6qfyrt http://www.microsoft.com/mac/help.mspx?CTT=PageView&clr=99-0-0&target=0b9aa757-5 0ab-443b-8b0e-3a50ece1d5451033 I suspect something more is still coming, that's a fairly vague placeholder. To all the MVP's I never have sent a Word Doc or Excel xls (add x on end for 2008) directly. I always if I am sending to a Mac persons I send as a .sitx compressed file (if the have stuffit expander. Or I use OSX finder command to make a zip archive of the file. (Unlike PKZip it does not compress the file just encodes it as a zip file and send For my PC buddies I always send as a zip file. If you send that way doesn't that prevent this problem? >> Where is the "official statement" from Microsoft on this? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I suspect something more is still coming, that's a fairly vague > placeholder. Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phillip M. Jones, CET |LIFE MEMBER: VPEA ETA-I, NESDA, ISCET, Sterling 616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868 Martinsville Va 24112 |pjones@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailto:pjones@kimbanet.com <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm> <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm> <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html> <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm> <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm> <http://www.vpea.org> Possibly but not necessarily, Phillip. It should prevent the file type from getting garbled on that particular transfer (not quite able to test this). Depending on the history of the file, the file type could have been messed up at some other point in its life. Although, since some programs set the file type to blank, that would also undo any earlier errors. But Mac users sending documents doesn't seem to be the problem anyhow. > To all the MVP's > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > If you send that way doesn't that prevent this problem? Please note that it says "ISSUE" not "we designed it this way" Where are you folks getting the nerve to say it's security, or designed this way when the official site calls it an issue and posts a work-around? For those that see this rant as stupid, I suggest you don't support users - high-end users - in a large corporate environment. I do. This kind of this is a PITA for us. On 5/18/08 8:32 AM 5/18/08, in article uZbJixPuIHA.4716@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl, "Daiya Mitchell" <daiyaNOSPAM@mvps.org.INVALID> wrote: >> Where is the "official statement" from Microsoft on this? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I suspect something more is still coming, that's a fairly vague placeholder. Agreed - this is asinine! Who makes up this crap? Is this MS' MO? I surely hope someone is pulling **** outta their backside on this answer - this is completely unacceptable. Scott On 5/17/08 8:16 PM 5/17/08, in article 170520082316022874%maser@umich.edu, >> Hi Scott/Steve: >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Steve > This may have happened because the file was edited by an application other > than Word, or because the file was emailed by Lotus Notes, or because the > file was downloaded with one of a few (usually, older) applications that are > writing the wrong file type and creator code into the file on save. Just checked a Word file with Super Get Info and it has type code 'WDBN'. I understand this to be a Microsoft Word 4-5 document. If I remove the type code the document opens normally on double-click, presumably now forced to use the extension only to determine file type. I would agree with other comments regarding where the problem lies. Any attempt to implicate Mail applications for incorrect handling (regardless of whether this is correct or not) seems like legerdemain. SignatureCheers, Steve The reply-to email address is a spam trap. Email steve 'at' shodgson 'dot' org 'dot' uk > I would agree with other comments regarding where the problem lies. Any > attempt to implicate Mail applications for incorrect handling > (regardless of whether this is correct or not) seems like legerdemain. Yes--and for me at least it's not just files that have been e-mailed anyway but also files that have been downloaded with a browser from a Web site where they have been hosted (not Web mail). Charles Hi Steve - Is the capital M in "Mail applications" a typo or do you actually mean Apple's email client? If you mean the latter, I've not seen it implicated in the type-change issue in any way - in fact, it's pretty much been exempted. If the former is the case, let me get this straight... On 5/17/08 1:57 PM, in article 698kktF2vvp64U1@mid.individual.net, "Steve Hodgson" <hamrun@gmail.com> wrote: > I would agree with other comments regarding where the problem lies. Any > attempt to implicate Mail applications for incorrect handling > (regardless of whether this is correct or not) seems like legerdemain. IOW, It's perfectly acceptable for browsers & email clients to arbitrarily assign whatever type code they choose when decoding attachments - no matter how incorrect, inappropriate or archaic the code may be - to whatever files they wish. That ought to make for a very interesting future:-) I guess if "xyzmail" starts encoding FileMaker 8 attachments with PageMaker 1.2 type codes that would somehow be the fault of MS as well... May sound far-fetched, but it's just a logical extension of the argument:-) Regards |:>) Bob Jones [MVP] Office:Mac > Is the capital M in "Mail applications" a typo or do you actually mean > Apple's email client? If you mean the latter, I've not seen it implicated in > the type-change issue in any way - in fact, it's pretty much been exempted. Typing error. SignatureCheers, Steve The reply-to email address is a spam trap. Email steve 'at' shodgson 'dot' org 'dot' uk > On 5/17/08 1:57 PM, in article 698kktF2vvp64U1@mid.individual.net, "Steve > Hodgson" <hamrun@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 1.2 type codes that would somehow be the fault of MS as well... May sound > far-fetched, but it's just a logical extension of the argument:-) That's a huge leap surely. In this case the document was still identified as a Word document not a completely different type. The key point for me is these mail applications (and browsers) have been acting the same for a long time but Word has now changed suddenly and what used to work no longer does. SignatureCheers, Steve The reply-to email address is a spam trap. Email steve 'at' shodgson 'dot' org 'dot' uk Hi Steve - On 5/17/08 5:18 PM, in article 6990ckF2va18jU1@mid.individual.net, "Steve Hodgson" <hamrun@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 5/17/08 1:57 PM, in article 698kktF2vvp64U1@mid.individual.net, "Steve >> Hodgson" <hamrun@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > That's a huge leap surely. Not really - if the developer of that software is free to not use the correct file type they're free to use any file type. >In this case the document was still > identified as a Word document not a completely different type. Not so. That file type has not been used by MS in more than 10 years. It predates the format/file type adopted with the introduction of Office 97-98 and is at least 2 - if not 3 - generations removed from how the files should be should be encoded. By using the WDBN identifier they're basically making your Word 97-2003 & Word 2007/2008 documents appear to Word (and to the OS as well) look like Word 4/5 files... What happens if you dbl-click one of them? If your answer is something like "I don't know, I don't have any." that's exactly the point - you *shouldn't* - unless you happen to find a trunk in the attic with a collection of pre- OS 9 floppies:-) The active files that started out as that type have been brought along & updated version by version or should be *properly* handled to bring them up-to-date. Do you honestly think it's even excusable, let alone "OK", for a piece of freeware to send your docs on a trip via the WayBack Machine? > The key point for me is these mail applications (and browsers) have > been acting the same for a long time but Word has now changed suddenly > and what used to work no longer does. The key point for me is that just because these applications have gotten away with not being made current doesn't justify allowing them to continue being wrong. It's further quite possible for MS to have determined that there was a valid reason to not permit the practice to continue. The simple truth is that the issue would never have arisen if it weren't for the fact that those apps are assigning an archaic type to *any* Word document they handle, which just shouldn't happen. It's been fun:-) Regards |:>) Bob Jones [MVP] Office:Mac > Just checked a Word file with Super Get Info and it has type code > 'WDBN'. I understand this to be a Microsoft Word 4-5 document. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Any attempt to implicate Mail applications for incorrect handling > (regardless of whether this is correct or not) seems like legerdemain. I don't know what you mean by legerdemain. SP1 deprecated certain type codes from opening on double-click. Not from opening at all, just on double-click. It should only have hit very old documents, because SP1 deprecated old type codes. But it turns out some email/web apps are adding old type codes to documents, so the change in SP1 is inconveniencing lots of people instead of just the few people it ought to have hit. I have not yet installed SP1, but since it's all about File Types, I don't need to, to investigate the issue. I picked a .doc attachment I received recently, probably created on a windows machine because it came from the admin side of my university, sharing info that is only a few weeks old, from a person who only got hired a couple years back, so presumably pretty new. Word 10 at the earliest, I should think. I opened the attachment in Entourage. File Type BINA. I downloaded the attachment via webmail in Firefox. File Type WDBN. I downloaded the attachment via webmail in Safari. File Type and Creator Blank and a .dot added. I downloaded the attachment via webmail in Opera. File Type and Creator Blank. I repeated the tests with a .docX that I'm pretty sure my Windows-using chair typed up a few weeks ago. Basically the same results, including Firefox as WDBN. (For some reason, Opera changed .docx to .doc) I might be wrong about this, but it seems that only File Type of WDBN is causing a problem, or possibly most frequently--reports here seem to agree. A quick google tells me that WDBN was used for Word THREE, FOUR, and FIVE. We are now on Word TWELVE. DocX files only came into existence with Word 11. Assign your blame and implications however you want--those are the facts as I understand and have tested them. No sleight-of-hand anywhere. Daiya > It's *possible* these documents that aren't opening were created on > some version of WinWord With my setup at least, it is happening with documents created on a Mac also, included ones that were e-mailed to me years ago. (I didn't check ones that were downloaded years ago since I am not sure how to tell which ones those are.) The only common denominator seems to be that they were received by e-mail or downloaded with a browser. Charles > With my setup at least, it is happening with documents created on a Mac > also, included ones that were e-mailed to me years ago. (I didn't check [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The only common denominator seems to be that they were received by > e-mail or downloaded with a browser. Yup, MS has already identified this, though with more specificity. See http://www.officeformac.com/ProductForums/Office/1973 Like I said, I was able to fix on my Macs doing: Rebuild the launchservices database - a number of free utilities do this, I use "OnyX" Now after doing that and logging out/in (or reboot, but not needed) you need to find a doc of each Office type (.doc, .xls, .ppt) that won't open. It appears as though the ones causing troubles are generated (or changed/saved) by Office on the PC (don't know if it's a certain version or not) Get Info on the file that won't open and associate it to Excel 2008 on your Mac. I noticed the icon was off on the ones not working. Before closing, select "Change all" Now, all of the Office docs open on my Mac(s) but this is not something I plan on doing on the machines I support so I will not roll out this version until MS fixes this. Scott On 5/16/08 12:54 PM 5/16/08, in article jemcgimpsey-3B8865.13545116052008@news.microsoft.com, "JE McGimpsey" <jemcgimpsey@mvps.org> wrote: >> With my setup at least, it is happening with documents created on a Mac >> also, included ones that were e-mailed to me years ago. (I didn't check [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.officeformac.com/ProductForums/Office/1973 > Rebuild the launchservices database - a number of free utilities do this, I > use "OnyX" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Mac. I noticed the icon was off on the ones not working. > Before closing, select "Change all" Scott, Thank you for this tip, which I have tried but unfortunately with no success. Anyone else gotten this to work? Charles Sorry, Charles. I've done it on two Macs (Intel, 10.5.x and Office 12.1) In all seriousness, this is something MS has to fix, not us. Not sure why this has worked on mine, but at least I didn't install this on my client's Macs. I hope they fix soon. Another easy way around this for now is to make an alias of Word/Excel, etc on the desktop and drag the docs over it to open. Scott On 5/17/08 9:50 AM 5/17/08, in article NoSpam-79CFFC.09501517052008@sfo.news.speakeasy.net, "Charles" <NoSpam@NoSpam.tld> wrote: >> Rebuild the launchservices database - a number of free utilities do this, I >> use "OnyX" [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Charles > Another easy way around this for now is to make an alias of Word/Excel, etc > on the desktop and drag the docs over it to open. Unfortunately this doesn't work for me either. (It is essentially the same as dragging a file to an icon in the Dock, which was one of the first things I tried. Charles > > Another easy way around this for now is to make an alias of Word/Excel, etc > > on the desktop and drag the docs over it to open. > > Unfortunately this doesn't work for me either. (It is essentially the > same as dragging a file to an icon in the Dock, which was one of the > first things I tried. In playing around with this further I have found that dragging Excel files to the Dock now opens them. This does not work for Word files, though--my main interest--and I still can't get either Word or Excel files to open by dragging them to an alias on the Desktop. Charles PROBLEM: 12.1 version of Word 2008 will not open on my desktop. > PROBLEM: 12.1 version of Word 2008 will not open on my desktop. You've moved Word to the desktop? What happens if you move it back to the HD:Applications:Microsoft Office 2008 folder? > In article , > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > folder? Folks, I am not nearly as sharp as the tech responses posted, but has anyone come up with even a workaround on this? Double-clicking the icon of a .doc from the Internet or Lotus Notes intranet just gives me a blank document in Word, which is well-documented throughout this thread. However, I can't even command click and open the .doc with Word (which is already the default). I think I have looked carefully through the thread, but I have not seen an answer. Is there one as of yet? Thanks. Well, use File | Open instead is the workaround. That was in the first post. Summary of current knowledge is here: http://word.mvps.org/Mac/word2008Issues.html#doubleclick including a way to edit Lotus Notes to avoid the problem. HOWEVER, it looks like there is a 12.1.1 update (today!) that fixes this problem, according to the release notes: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/953822 It should be on AutoUpdate in a bit, or download it from here or the release notes: http://www.microsoft.com/mac/downloads.mspx > Folks, > I am not nearly as sharp as the tech responses posted, but has anyone come up with even a workaround on this? Double-clicking the icon of a .doc from the Internet or Lotus Notes intranet just gives me a blank document in Word, which is well-documented throughout this thread. However, I can't even command click and open the .doc with Word (which is already the default). I think I have looked carefully through the thread, but I have not seen an answer. Is there one as of yet? Thanks. > Folks, > I am not nearly as sharp as the tech responses posted, but has anyone come up [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > think I have looked carefully through the thread, but I have not seen an > answer. Is there one as of yet? Thanks. The just-released Office 12.1.1 updater seems to finally fix this... You can get it at mactopia.com - Steve > The just-released Office 12.1.1 updater seems to finally fix this... > Steve, have you already tested it? Because I'm finding the release notes very confusing: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/953822 "Word documents open correctly when you double-click the document or when you download the document from a Web site. This update fixes an issue that prevents Microsoft Word 2008 for Mac Service Pack 1 (SP1) from opening Word documents when you double-click the document or when you download the document from a Web site. For more information about blocked file types, click the following article number to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:" http://support.microsoft.com/kb/953266/ [the missing KB is back] Where WDBN is listed as a blocked file type--and it only talks about Word. Can you confirm one way or another? Daiya > > The just-released Office 12.1.1 updater seems to finally fix this... > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Daiya I tested my Word and Excel files that would not open via double-click under 12.1.0 They all open via double-click under 12.1.1 And they all still have their original file types (WDBN and XLS4). I don't really have any old PowerPoint files that would have had PPT3 (or whatever it was...) And my *really* old "W6BN" Word documents that have no .doc extension on them? They open too via double-click. pbbbt to all the apologists for something that was clearly a broken 12.1.0 release. ;-) - Steve Thanks much for the confirmation. >> Can you confirm one way or another? >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > - Steve |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.