2004: so far, so good... Compatibility Report Issue: Phantom Font

[jlscwm]

Folks:

Office 2004 on 10.3.3 Sawtooth G4.

In use one day -- so far so good. I'm _very_ glad to see improved style
handling. (I'll need to check some particulars to comment further.) No
problem with Office 2004 install. No speed issues, either.

The compatibility checking is... interesting.

I saved a document. The dialog recommended doing a compatibility check,
which I did for the default setting, Word 97 through 2004.

(OK, I'm trying to recount what happened, but I can't switch into Entourage
without loosing the compatibility report -- it simply disappears when Word
goes out of focus. I don't think that is right. Yes, Grab --on the 10
second timer-- to the rescue.)

The compatibility results say:

1. Font substitution has occurred

And below explains:

A font used in this document is not installed. Word is substituting text
formatted in the font SA-1 with Times New Roman. To change your font
substitution settings, open the Font Substitution Dialog Box.

The utility helpfully locates one instance, and I can see what is going on
via the Formatting Palette. (Which also disappears when Word goes out of
focus -- but I caught it on the last Grab.) It tells me I've got a font
called SA-1.

The improved style management tells me the Current Style of the selected
text is

Normal + (Latin) SA-1

Interesting. I'll (Hooray -- Excellent Capability) select all like this.
Scrolling through about 10 pages, I see only one instance of an empty
paragraph --nowhere special, not in a table-- styled like this.

(Is there any way besides scrolling to find the next of a multi=selection?
"Find next of multiple" button somewhere? Doing a "find" on font SA-1, no
text, works but doing this requires some extra setup. Confirms a different
way that Word thinks a font called "SA-1" exists.)

But... Sorry to say, there is NO font named SA-1 on my system or in the font
menu. I'm very sure -- and it isn't exactly a standard font name.

But I recognize the text "SA-1". It's a designator that appears in exactly
once in this document. Once in a table cell, just some normal text:

SA-1: Legal Requirements for ...

styled, by the way, as "Table Contents" which is Arial 10 left. (The text
"SA-1" appears in exactly one place in another open document, but I don't
think that's relevant.)

It appears that Word defined a new font of thin air and gave it a name
randomly selected from my body text.

Ummm, I have no idea what this all means and what to do about it. I don't
know any way of defining a new font in Word, not even close, and I would
certainly not give it the name of a designator from my document text.

Is my document corrupt?

Sure, I can simply whack the single instance --that's easy enough to do with
the new style management mechanisms-- but I'm concerned that I'm going to be
spending time chasing down additional phantom fonts unless I figure out how
to prevent this from happening.

By the way, this document is brand new, not a copy of anything old, started
just before I got Word 2004, and I've put maybe 10 hours in to it using
fully updated Word X, with nothing at all sophisticated -- just footers and
six simple tables, 13 pages in all.

I've reduced this to a very short sample document, if anyone wants to take a
look.

Please advise,

Thanks,

Henry

(e-mail address removed) remove 'zzz'

 

[John McGhie]

Oh No... Henry's back too

(Is there any way besides scrolling to find the next of a multi=selection?

No. You tap the up arrow to go to the first or the down arrow to go to the
last. If you want them one-by-one, sorry, you have to eyeball them or use
Find.

It appears that Word defined a new font of thin air and gave it a name
randomly selected from my body text.

It appears to me that some of the pointers in that document are getting a
bit furry. It has picked up some scrap text where it expected a style name.

Is my document corrupt?

Yes. Round-trip it to HTML and back.

By the way, this document is brand new, not a copy of anything old, started
just before I got Word 2004, and I've put maybe 10 hours in to it using
fully updated Word X, with nothing at all sophisticated -- just footers and
six simple tables, 13 pages in all.

Close Word and re-name your Normal Template. When you installed, Word would
not replace your Normal Template, and that's probably getting a bit old by
now...

Hmmm... I just went to see where my Templates were located in Office 2004.
Damn! They're in the Applications Folder. They're supposed to be in the
MUD. I thought we fixed that before we shipped?? Oh, yeah, I know where
they are... The Pimply Youth's got 'em... Oh well, I have a backup

I've reduced this to a very short sample document, if anyone wants to take a
look.

Nup! Rename your Normal.dot and round-trip it to Web Page. That will fix
it.

Please advise,

Delighted! This is the first piece of advice from my new Apple...

Cheers

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia +61 4 1209 1410

 

[Henry]

Hullo John:

Thanks for your response on this thread:

Oh No... Henry's back too

You might want to consider what happens when a new release goes out. They
get the money and you get the ... well, you know what I mean.

No. You tap the up arrow to go to the first or the down arrow to go to the
last. If you want them one-by-one, sorry, you have to eyeball them or use
Find.

It would seem that none of the implementers have ever dealt with a document
of over a few pages, or they would certainly have provided
"find-next-in-multi-select" function.

Still I should be thankful to have "find all like this one".

It appears to me that some of the pointers in that document are getting a
bit furry. It has picked up some scrap text where it expected a style name.

Not a style, a font. But if Word is whacked (latest local slang) enough to
confuse body text for a style, then it could be whacked enough to confuse
body text for a font.

I just found out from a colleague this is possible: Defining a new font to
use just by typing into the font name box. You get a confirmation dialog
saying, "That isn't defined on this system, want to use it anyway?" I
might _possibly_ believe I might have mistakenly typed some body text into a
palette/toolbar, but not that I would have missed the confirmation dialog.
I'm not that befuddled (yet).

Yes. Round-trip it to HTML and back.

I did. No help, the incorrect font is still there, and some creative
reformatting of the document occurred, too, as a bonus: It put a column of
text alongside a table. I don't do stuff like that--I keep it very, very
simple. Right, change to text wrapping = none, fixes it up.

By a round-trip through HTML, I take it you want me to "save as" HTML. I'll
get a document "foo.htm". Simply save _that_ as "Word Document" with a
different name, right?

Close Word and re-name your Normal Template. When you installed, Word would
not replace your Normal Template, and that's probably getting a bit old by
now...

A bit old? I don't think so, see the following.

Hmmm... I just went to see where my Templates were located in Office 2004.
Damn! They're in the Applications Folder. They're supposed to be in the
MUD. I thought we fixed that before we shipped?? Oh, yeah, I know where
they are... The Pimply Youth's got 'em... Oh well, I have a backup

That's doubly strange, because a) I don't find _anything_ in
Applications:Microsoft Office 2004:My Templates, and b) there's a lovely
copy of "Normal" in Users:hen3ryocuments:Microsoft User Data. Quite
obviously "the" Normal, because Word updated it as I quit, and the time-date
stamp is from a moment ago.

I'm glad to see that Normal has been put in a place that's even easier to
find. If it corrupts so frequently, I guess that's a kind of solution to
making recovery a bit easier. (Need I mention that making it more robust
would be even better? Yes.)

Word 2004 would almost certainly have used this Normal, created (let me see)
yes, two days ago, precisely at install time. I hope that doesn't count as
"a bit old"

Anyway, I renamed it, restarted Word, made another roundtrip through HTML.
The mistaken font is still there, but perhaps my document is a bit more
stable.

Ummm, what could I have done to avoid this excursion? I've put in maybe 10
hours composing the document. Now maybe 2 hours more trying to track down
what you term "furry pointers". That's not an encouraging ratio.

Nup! Rename your Normal.dot and round-trip it to Web Page. That will fix
it.

I think you slipped into PC-talk. Shame!

But while I'm here... Why would a document authored on a Mac and never
moved require a compatibility check? I'm grateful for having such a
mechanism, to be sure, but I'm quickly getting to believe that its use may
be more in line with finding problems in documents in general, and that it
was given its name by Marketing.

Don't tempt me by requesting I suggest a more fitting name.

One more thing: Compatibility check, which found exactly 1 problem, has a
"fix" icon -- which in this case (before and after the round trip to HTML)
is dimmed. I would assume this means the document is _not_ broken -- or
maybe that it is unfixably broken.

Delighted! This is the first piece of advice from my new Apple...

Congratulations! I saw your story. My neighbor will be pleased. (No,
not Steve Jobs, the guy up the street who has survived an amazing number of
layoffs and restructurings at Apple.)

Thanks,

Henry

 

[Beth Rosengard]

Hi John,

Hmmm... I just went to see where my Templates were located in Office 2004.
Damn! They're in the Applications Folder. They're supposed to be in the
MUD. I thought we fixed that before we shipped??

For some inexplicable reason, only the Normal template is now in the MUD by
default. Seems to me they should have put the My Templates folder there as
well (if not the whole Templates folder). Doesn't really make sense to do
it halfway. Of course, they would have had to rewrite a bunch of the Help
but ...

--
Beth Rosengard
Mac MVP

Mac Word FAQ: <http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/WordMac/index.htm>
Entourage Help Page: <http://www.entourage.mvps.org>

 

[Beth Rosengard]

Hi Henry,

By a round-trip through HTML, I take it you want me to "save as" HTML. I'll
get a document "foo.htm". Simply save _that_ as "Word Document" with a
different name, right?

I'll tackle this part of your post anyway . Here's the procedure (coming
soon to word.mvps.org in a new article about corrupt documents):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Procedure #1: Save As Web Page

First line of defense for Word 2004. Second line of defense for Word X (try
Procedure #2 first).

1. Save as Web Page. CAUTION: make sure you choose "Save entire file into
HTML" and NOT "Save only display information into HTML". If you fail to
³Save entire file into HTML², fundamental things like headers, footers,
section breaks and page numbers that have no equivalents in HTML will be
stripped out.

2. Close the Word Document. If you do not, the Word Document version, with
its corruptions, remains the file in use. Word simply continues to use the
bad file instead of rebuilding a new file from the stored information in the
web page version.

3. Open the Web Page version.

4. Save as a new Word Document with a different file name.

How it works: This technique does not save the "Word Document", instead, it
saves the instructions for making a Word document. When you re-open the
file, Word builds a new document using the saved instructions. Because the
saved instructions cannot cause Word to make a corruption, the new document
is automatically not corrupt when it is re-created.

Procedure #2: Copy All But Last Paragraph Mark

First line of defense for Word X. Second line of defense for Word 2004 (try
Procedure #1 first).

1. Turn on Show/Hide formatting (click on the pilcrow ­ the ¶ symbol on your
toolbar).

2. Carefully copy all of your document except the last paragraph mark .

3. Paste into a blank new document.

4. Save as a Word Document with a different file name.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hope this helps.

--
Beth Rosengard
Mac MVP

Mac Word FAQ: <http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/WordMac/index.htm>
Entourage Help Page: <http://www.entourage.mvps.org>

 

[Henry]

Hullo Beth:

Thanks for your post on this thread:

Hi Henry,



I'll tackle this part of your post anyway . Here's the procedure (coming
soon to word.mvps.org in a new article about corrupt documents):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Procedure #1: Save As Web Page

First line of defense for Word 2004. Second line of defense for Word X (try
Procedure #2 first).

1. Save as Web Page. CAUTION: make sure you choose "Save entire file into
HTML" and NOT "Save only display information into HTML". If you fail to
³Save entire file into HTML², fundamental things like headers, footers,
section breaks and page numbers that have no equivalents in HTML will be
stripped out.

Yeah, no problem, that's the default and that's what I did.

2. Close the Word Document. If you do not, the Word Document version, with
its corruptions, remains the file in use. Word simply continues to use the
bad file instead of rebuilding a new file from the stored information in the
web page version.

3. Open the Web Page version.

4. Save as a new Word Document with a different file name.

Yes, I did that -- or the "save as" did that, I think.

Here is how I see it: If I start with only "foo1.doc" open and then save as
"foo.htm" the result is that I see only "foo.htm" open. I take that as
sufficient to assure that all Word knows about is the html-ified version.
If I then save as "foo2.doc" the only window remaining is "foo2.doc" and
that would seem to meet all requirements of round-tripping.

In other words, "save as" does this: saves the document to a file with a new
name --and, optionally, a new format-- and re-opens, then displays, that new
file. That's what "save as" does for me, in all other contexts, and the
only commensensical way it could work.

How it works: This technique does not save the "Word Document", instead, it
saves the instructions for making a Word document. When you re-open the
file, Word builds a new document using the saved instructions. Because the
saved instructions cannot cause Word to make a corruption, the new document
is automatically not corrupt when it is re-created.

Right, thanks, adding that explanation is very helpful and should be
included all the time.

Procedure #2: Copy All But Last Paragraph Mark

First line of defense for Word X. Second line of defense for Word 2004 (try
Procedure #1 first).

1. Turn on Show/Hide formatting (click on the pilcrow ­ the ¶ symbol on your
toolbar).

2. Carefully copy all of your document except the last paragraph mark .

3. Paste into a blank new document.

4. Save as a Word Document with a different file name.

Thanks, yes, I'm aware of this procedure. You didn't provide a helpful
explanation, so I'll contribute my version:

This works because a lot of information about the document as a whole is
stored "in" the final paragraph mark. If that information is corrupt or
inconsistent with information stored "in" other paragraph marks, you could
have problems. This method deletes the information stored in the last
paragraph mark. Word will simply re-build that information, guaranteeing
consistency with what's stored in individual paragraph marks, and producing
a fresh, clean version of the summary information.

Agreed?

My only question about this is: Is the information in the final paragraph
mark completely redundant with respect to what's stored in the other
paragraph mark? In other words, is anything lost by this procedure besides
the potential corruption/inconsistency?

I have absolutely no problem with storing redundant information. This
technique probably speeds up some operations, and _should_ result in more
robust files. Usually it's the application program that detects
inconsistencies and does something behind the scenes to correct them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hope this helps.

Yes, thanks.

Henry

(e-mail address removed) remove 'zzz'

 

[Beth Rosengard]

Hi Henry,

Most of your comments and questions are addressed in the rest of the article
(called "Document Corruption"). I'm sending it to you privately as an
attachment. If anyone else would like a copy (it won't be posted at
word.mvps.org for at least 2-3 weeks), reply to this message with a working
email address and I'll send it.

--
Beth Rosengard
Mac MVP

Mac Word FAQ: <http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/WordMac/index.htm>
Entourage Help Page: <http://www.entourage.mvps.org>

 

[Paul Berkowitz]

Hmmm... I just went to see where my Templates were located in Office 2004.
Damn! They're in the Applications Folder. They're supposed to be in the
MUD. I thought we fixed that before we shipped?? Oh, yeah, I know where
they are... The Pimply Youth's got 'em... Oh well, I have a backup

Normal (the new one) is in the MUD. All other templates are still in
Microsoft Office 2004, unless you move them out of there and replace the My
Templates (or even Templates) folder with an alias or symlink - until the
next Office install, We couldn't get them to move more than Normal this time
round. Not Startup folder either...

--
Paul Berkowitz
MVP Entourage
Entourage FAQ Page: <http://www.entourage.mvps.org/toc.html>
AppleScripts for Entourage: <http://macscripter.net/scriptbuilders/>

Please "Reply To Newsgroup" to reply to this message. Emails will be
ignored.

PLEASE always state which version of Entourage you are using - **2004**, X
or 2001. It's often impossible to answer your questions otherwise.

 

[Elliott Roper]

Normal (the new one) is in the MUD. All other templates are still in
Microsoft Office 2004, unless you move them out of there and replace the My
Templates (or even Templates) folder with an alias or symlink - until the
next Office install, We couldn't get them to move more than Normal this time
round. Not Startup folder either...

Why was there ever a question of *not* putting all that in per-user
space? I guess all the users could have a little Applescript to fling
the other guys symlinks about, and they could all have admin privs.
Yep, no problem to the average person sharing a machine.

 

[Henry]

Elliot:

Thanks for your post on this thread:

Why was there ever a question of *not* putting all that in per-user
space? I guess all the users could have a little Applescript to fling
the other guys symlinks about, and they could all have admin privs.
Yep, no problem to the average person sharing a machine.

Why was there ever a question of *not* putting all that in per-user space?

Agreed!

Are we talking about "templates" as in "sample documents in which you can
change some text and use as your own"? Or about "templates" as in
"Normal"? (I still want to know where "Abnormal" is!) Or about both?

I can find plenty of examples of sample documents in Microsoft Office
2004:Templates, as they should be -- these are effectively read-only
documents. Word apparently automagically sets a default directory of
Microsoft Office 2004:Templates:My Templates when I go to save one of these,
a choice with which I strongly disagree. All in all: the installation
directory should be completely off limits for user modification, except of
course for install and de-install. The bigger the (logical) distance
between program code and user data, the safer and more stable things are.
Simplifies backups, too.

I can't find any of the moral judgment type of template (like "Abnormal")
anywhere in that folder, though it is a bit difficult to tell.

Since Normal seems so fragile, all-in-all, it's nice that its located in a
place that's a bit more convenient. It would be nicer stillif it were less
fragile.

Thanks,

Henry

(e-mail address removed) remove 'zzz'

 

[Elliott Roper]

Elliot:

Thanks for your post on this thread:



Why was there ever a question of *not* putting all that in per-user space?

Agreed!

Are we talking about "templates" as in "sample documents in which you can
change some text and use as your own"? Or about "templates" as in
"Normal"? (I still want to know where "Abnormal" is!) Or about both?

Well, m..mm..most of mine are pretty sub-normal, but they work just the
same as normal. Templates are quite a decent idea, even if they hide on
the wrong place.

I can find plenty of examples of sample documents in Microsoft Office
2004:Templates, as they should be -- these are effectively read-only
documents. Word apparently automagically sets a default directory of
Microsoft Office 2004:Templates:My Templates when I go to save one of these,
a choice with which I strongly disagree. All in all: the installation
directory should be completely off limits for user modification, except of
course for install and de-install. The bigger the (logical) distance
between program code and user data, the safer and more stable things are.
Simplifies backups, too.

Yep. It is pity.

I can't find any of the moral judgment type of template (like "Abnormal")
anywhere in that folder, though it is a bit difficult to tell.

Since Normal seems so fragile, all-in-all, it's nice that its located in a
place that's a bit more convenient. It would be nicer stillif it were less
fragile.

There are lots of reasons for only using Normal by mistake. ;-)

 

[Beth Rosengard]

Hi Henry,

Are we talking about "templates" as in "sample documents in which you can
change some text and use as your own"? Or about "templates" as in
"Normal"? (I still want to know where "Abnormal" is!) Or about both?

Normal is a global template that is a bit of a special case in that, as John
has explained many times, Word uses it as a sort of scratch pad to keep
track of things. The constant writing to Normal is what makes it more
vulnerable to corruption.

Other than Normal, a template is a template is a template.

I can find plenty of examples of sample documents in Microsoft Office
2004:Templates, as they should be -- these are effectively read-only
documents.

No they aren't! But you must access them (like any custom template) via the
Project Gallery. Select one, create a document from it, and customize it to
your heart's content. Every element in those templates can be changed or
replaced. They're composed entirely of text boxes and drawing objects.

Word apparently automagically sets a default directory of Microsoft Office
2004:Templates:My Templates when I go to save one of these, a choice with
which I strongly disagree.

Wrong again. Word does not set a default directory for a *document* created
from one of these templates. It sets a default directory for a *template*
created from one of these templates, which is what you've apparently been
doing. When you open one of these templates by navigating to the Templates
folder, you *cannot* create anything except another template. You have to
access them from the Project Gallery in order to create a document.

Once you create a document from a template and then save it, the save dialog
will default to whatever location you last had open ... the same way it does
for any other document.

Since Normal seems so fragile, all-in-all, it's nice that its located in a
place that's a bit more convenient. It would be nicer still if it were less
fragile.

Agreed.

--
Beth Rosengard
Mac MVP

Mac Word FAQ: <http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/WordMac/index.htm>
Entourage Help Page: <http://www.entourage.mvps.org>

 

[John McGhie]

Hi Henry:

You might want to consider what happens when a new release goes out. They
get the money and you get the ... well, you know what I mean.

If I was to mention all the names in here who worked on the beta and
consider that we "own" Word 2004 as much as "they" do, I would have to 'out'
half the group

It would seem that none of the implementers have ever dealt with a document
of over a few pages, or they would certainly have provided
"find-next-in-multi-select" function.

Yes they did, I sent them mine

I just found out from a colleague this is possible: Defining a new font to
use just by typing into the font name box. You get a confirmation dialog
saying, "That isn't defined on this system, want to use it anyway?" I
might _possibly_ believe I might have mistakenly typed some body text into a
palette/toolbar, but not that I would have missed the confirmation dialog.
I'm not that befuddled (yet).

That's new: I will have to try that one myself...

By a round-trip through HTML, I take it you want me to "save as" HTML. I'll
get a document "foo.htm". Simply save _that_ as "Word Document" with a
different name, right?
Yes.

That's doubly strange, because a) I don't find _anything_ in
Applications:Microsoft Office 2004:My Templates, and b) there's a lovely
copy of "Normal" in Users:hen3ryocuments:Microsoft User Data. Quite
obviously "the" Normal, because Word updated it as I quit, and the time-date
stamp is from a moment ago.

That's where it is supposed to be: in the MUD. That's the new location, but
I have since found out that it applies only to Normal template.

Ummm, what could I have done to avoid this excursion? I've put in maybe 10
hours composing the document. Now maybe 2 hours more trying to track down
what you term "furry pointers". That's not an encouraging ratio.

You do the excursion if you think you have a problem. If the problem goes
away, you had a problem. If it doesn't, you didn't have a problem or you
didn't have 'that' problem

I think you slipped into PC-talk. Shame!

Yeah, well I had an irritating bug on my mind at the time. Since the
pimply-faced youth walked out with my templates, I had to import another
copy from the PC. Having done this I discovered that Word 2004 *still* will
not recognise a Normal template unless you remove the ".dot" extension from
the file-name. This causes havoc in a corporate managed environment. I
have already bugged this twice.

The good news is that my PC macros now compile correctly (sans Enums) so I
can use my proper macros in Word 2004.

But while I'm here... Why would a document authored on a Mac and never
moved require a compatibility check?

The guts of the compatibility check is between Word versions. This is nor
PC compatibility they're checking for: PC compatibility is total. It's
"Which Word version are we using" compatibility. The compatibility check is
triggered if you save as a version other than the current one.

Personally, I always set to the current version each time I see the
Compatibility Check, and that way, I never see it again (and I know that
everything I see on the screen I will see on the printer...)

One more thing: Compatibility check, which found exactly 1 problem, has a
"fix" icon -- which in this case (before and after the round trip to HTML)
is dimmed. I would assume this means the document is _not_ broken -- or
maybe that it is unfixably broken.
Unbroken.

Congratulations! I saw your story. My neighbor will be pleased. (No,
not Steve Jobs, the guy up the street who has survived an amazing number of
layoffs and restructurings at Apple.)

Tell him to give his in-store salesmen an arrogance-ectomy and he might
survive another one

Cheers

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia +61 4 1209 1410

 

[John McGhie]

Hi Elliott:

Why was there ever a question of *not* putting all that in per-user
space?

Yeah. Debate raged. The templates are customized for language on install.
If we have only one instance on the computer, we save disk space. If we
have one for each user, users can have different languages on the same box.

Multi-user boxes are rare. Multi-box users are not

Then again, if we have the templates in the Admin tree, we can lock the end
users out of them (the corporate IS Manager smiles). If we try that, the
knowledgeable end-user will copy the lot and customize them (the IS Manager
looks for a new job...).

If they're all in one place, and we know where they are, Microsoft and the
Corporation can update them without having to "find" them. If they're all
in one place and we know where they are, the end user will make a copy and
hide them so we "can't" update them

We wasted quite a lot of bandwidth on this one. Eventually, we got Normal
in the MUD and everything else in Applications. I wanted everything in the
MUD.

Cheers

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia +61 4 1209 1410

 

[Elliott Roper]

Hi Elliott:



Yeah. Debate raged.

We wasted quite a lot of bandwidth on this one. Eventually, we got Normal
in the MUD and everything else in Applications. I wanted everything in the
MUD.

Thanks for trying. ;-)

Next time, they could do it the way Apple do fonts (forgetting a
'classic' template folder of course) There could have been a
'corporate' switch to disable creation of templates and ACLs in
~/Library/Application Support/yadda.

 

[John McGhie]

Hi Elliott:

Hmmm.... I wonder if there is? On the PC, you create an Administrative
Install, and there are tools in the Office Resource Kit that enable you to
do that.

Very few corporate system admins know how, and even fewer ever bother, but
you can create your own .msi (Microsoft Software Install) script that
enables you to put everything exactly where you want it.

I suspect you could do the same thing on the Mac. I wonder...

Cheers

Thanks for trying. ;-)

Next time, they could do it the way Apple do fonts (forgetting a
'classic' template folder of course) There could have been a
'corporate' switch to disable creation of templates and ACLs in
~/Library/Application Support/yadda.

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia +61 4 1209 1410