File Mappings Revert with Every OS Update

On Oct 4, 2006, at 3:35 PM, davidson wrote:

> The release of Mac OS X 10.4.8 has reminded me of a pet peeve. The
> association between file name extensions and the default
> application that opens it always reverts back to Apple-standard as
> soon as I apply a (combo) OS update.

Not for me here.

> For example, I prefer to open PDF files in Acrobat Pro,

Well, maybe not for me here. I just double-clicked a .pdf which I
hadn't opened for a long time (probably through at least Mac OS X
updates) and it opened in Acrobat Reader (I don't have Pro, having no
need for it, but having need for the cash it represents).

This is on a PowerPC Mac. I can't be dogmatic about my Macbook--it
is opening .pdf files in Preview, but I'm not sure what it was doing
before the 10.4.8 update, as I don't open many PDFs on it (I prefer
the larger screen on my Mini, so I tend to "ship" PDFs over to the
Mini from the Macbook).

   --John

On 2006-10-05, at 15:14, johnbaxterlistsmac.com wrote:

> Well, maybe not for me here. I just double-clicked a .pdf which I
> hadn't opened for a long time (probably through at least Mac OS X
> updates) and it opened in Acrobat Reader (I don't have Pro, having no
> need for it, but having need for the cash it represents).

Maybe that particular file is associated via a type & creator code?

I always have my default associations (Get Info, Open With, Change
All) revert on an OS upgrade. Pain in the proverbial.

I have a 'configuration' folder with one document of each kind in
it. After an upgrade I run through all the documents and do a Change
All on each one.

Cheers

On 06 Oct 2006, at 12:51 , Tom Robinson wrote:
> I always have my default associations (Get Info, Open With, Change
> All) revert on an OS upgrade. Pain in the proverbial.

Very strange. .avi files have been associated with vlc for at least
the last year and have never changed with an OS update. not even once.

They did 'change' when I did a clean install<1> on my G4, but that's
to be expected.

<1> Bad experience with SISNHBRA<2>
<2> Software I Should Not Have Been Running Anyway.

--
You know, Calculus is sort of like measles. Once you've had it, you
probably won't get it again, and you're glad of it. -- W. Carr

On Oct 6, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Tom Robinson wrote:

> On 2006-10-05, at 15:14, johnbaxterlistsmac.com wrote:
>
>> Well, maybe not for me here. I just double-clicked a .pdf which I
>> hadn't opened for a long time (probably through at least Mac OS X
>> updates) and it opened in Acrobat Reader (I don't have Pro, having no
>> need for it, but having need for the cash it represents).
>
> Maybe that particular file is associated via a type & creator code?

Perhaps archaic vs modern files* would be the key. I don't think I
have any examples of Creator/Type-associated files for which I've
changed the default opening app.

* archaic = the old way with creator and type; modern = everyone
else's way with name extensions. I'm not going to defend that
definition either (and fully expect it to be attacked).

   --John

barefootguru wrote:

I always have my default associations (Get Info, Open With, Change All) revert on an OS upgrade. Pain in the proverbial.

I have a 'configuration' folder with one document of each kind in it. After an upgrade I run through all the documents and do a Change All on each one.

Glad it's not just me (always a danger with anything but a plain-vanilla configuration). Your idea of having a set of representative documents in one place to re-map the associations is a very good one. Thank you (now I'm off to create my own 'configuration' folder...)

- Steve

On 10/9/06 15:25, "johnbaxterlistsmac.com" <johnbaxterlistsmac.com> wrote:

>>> Well, maybe not for me here. I just double-clicked a .pdf which I
>>> hadn't opened for a long time (probably through at least Mac OS X
>>> updates) and it opened in Acrobat Reader (I don't have Pro, having no
>>> need for it, but having need for the cash it represents).
>>
>> Maybe that particular file is associated via a type & creator code?
>
> Perhaps archaic vs modern files* would be the key. I don't think I
> have any examples of Creator/Type-associated files for which I've
> changed the default opening app.
>
> * archaic = the old way with creator and type; modern = everyone
> else's way with name extensions. I'm not going to defend that
> definition either (and fully expect it to be attacked).

Both are archaic. The better way anymore is to use MIME-type and Launch
Services. MIME-Type travels well, and provides enough data to be as useful
as Creator Codes/File Types were, and Launch Services can use MIME-Types to
do it's thing. Neither rely on anything as fragile as the file name, nor as
limiting as FT/CC's.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

OK, how do we get MIME types usable in OS X? Should I call my friend, Steve?! ;-)

On 10/11/06 at 1:39 AM, xairbusdrivermac.com (Jim Chaffin) wrote:

> OK, how do we get MIME types usable in OS X? Should I call my friend,
> Steve?! ;-)

MIME typing also has limitations; as far as I know, for example, there's
no way to specify that some files of a given type open in one
application, and some in another (the big win of the old file
type/creator architecture).

In Tiger, Apple's apparently starting a switch to a new system called
Uniform Type Identifiers, or UTI's. From what I've heard about them so
far, they sound like a serious improvement over most file typing
systems, thought it appears they don't by default store creator
information along with type information. (Presumably, from reading
articles, you could handle the most obvious case where you need creator
information - where you have one standard file type, like TIFF, that
multiple applications can read but will manipulate in different ways -
by declaring a subtype of TIFF, such as tiff.corelpainter.)

John Siracusa's Tiger review has the best overview I've seen:
<http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/11>


Travis Butler
tbutlermac.com

...Cats are the proof of a higher purpose to the universe.

On 10/12/06 01:46, "Travis Butler" <tbutlerbirch.net> wrote:

>> OK, how do we get MIME types usable in OS X? Should I call my friend,
>> Steve?! ;-)
>
> MIME typing also has limitations; as far as I know, for example, there's
> no way to specify that some files of a given type open in one
> application, and some in another (the big win of the old file
> type/creator architecture).

actually, you can, depends on the MIME type. Some specify applications. But
that's not what they should be doing. Their job is to tell you what kind of
file you have, and let the OS determine how to handle it from there.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com