About File "types" and Office 12.1 Service Pack and double-clicking

[Steve Maser]

New Thread!

OK -- the argument that some MVPs have been making is that the classic
"WDBN" Word file type has been depreciated from being
double-click-opened in Office 12.1 because of some as-yet-unannounced
security issue.

Fine.

"Security problems" are nice stop signs to throw up at people to get
their attention. You have mine. ;-)


This unilateral action begs the following questions:

1) Why is the file type of "WDBN" not a security issue for Word 2004?
Which, because of the lack of VBA in Excel -- is probably going to make
Office 2004 the default Office system for quite some time...

It's not (yet?) been made clear what the double-click-opening issue
with "WDBN" file types are that it only affects Office 2008, but not
2004. If this is an OOXML issue, will it (eventually?) hurt Office
2004 whenever the long-delayed translator for 2004 is released?


2) If the argument is that certain web browsers/mail programs are
doing things "wrong" about putting "old" file types on
downloaded/decoded attachments and should be leaving this *blank* and
relying on "extension" only (rather than updating for a more current
file type)...

Then why does Word 12.1:

A) Allow me to save/edit/open a word document with no extension,
without throwing up a red stop sign?

B) Still put a "W8BN" file type on documents it saves? If they
want to lead by example, why is this not blank as well (a type is added
if I save the document with or withouth an extension.)

C) Not allow "extensions" to override file types? -- Which would
resolve the problem (likely) for the vast amount of users.
(Admittedly, I can see why this might be considered a bad idea, but...)


Why is there not internal logic in the program that says something like
"well, it's "WDBN", but it has a ".doc" extension, so we'll open it
anyway...")

I would surmise "B" is being done because "A" is allowed. But,
according to the MVPs defending this results of applying the 12.1
service pack, neither "A" nor "B" should be done. "Extensions only"
from this point on to open files via double-click, right? :-/

- Steve

 

[Daiya Mitchell]

Steve, what is the point of asking these questions in this forum? To
argue that MVPs (which includes me) are wrong to not get all heated up
about it?

Feel free to tell MS their logic is inconsistent by using Help | Send
Feedback in any office app.

Daiya

 

[Daiya Mitchell]

Hi Steve,

Some misinterpretation messed up your logic--

2) If the argument is that certain web browsers/mail programs are
doing things "wrong" about putting "old" file types on
downloaded/decoded attachments and should be leaving this *blank* and
relying on "extension" only (rather than updating for a more current
file type)...

No, that's not the argument. The argument is that email/browers should
not apply old file types. I don't think anyone said that browsers/email
clients ought to leave file type blank, or that file types should no
longer be used, or that only extensions ought to be important from now
on. (Feel free to prove me wrong with a link)

Daiya

 

[William Smith]

I'm personally finding this a very interesting discussion. I can't
answer all your questions and Word is not my forté. I'm sharing my
observations not as an MVP but as someone who does technical support for
a living.

New Thread!

OK -- the argument that some MVPs have been making is that the classic
"WDBN" Word file type has been depreciated from being
double-click-opened in Office 12.1 because of some as-yet-unannounced
security issue.

Fine.

I suspect this move in 12.1.0 is one of many predecessors to the return
of VBA, which was recently announced. They've removed WDBN, which means
they don't want others taking advantage of that file type and allowing a
malicious file to launch Word.

1) Why is the file type of "WDBN" not a security issue for Word 2004?
Which, because of the lack of VBA in Excel -- is probably going to make
Office 2004 the default Office system for quite some time...

Who knows? We may see that changed too in an update. But I doubt it. We
have to keep in mind Microsoft's support life-cycle.

Office 2004 is marketed as a product that will work on Mac OS X 10.2.8
(IIRC) and higher. That means it still needs to work for older versions
of the Mac OS where file type and creator are more important.

Office 2008, however, is supported only on 10.4.9 and higher. Office
2008 can begin closing old security issues, which have probably been
around for quite a while. I suspect this is one of them. And Apple has
long been promising that file type and creator codes would be going
away. I see this move as housekeeping and a predecessor for more to come.

It's not (yet?) been made clear what the double-click-opening issue
with "WDBN" file types are that it only affects Office 2008, but not
2004. If this is an OOXML issue, will it (eventually?) hurt Office
2004 whenever the long-delayed translator for 2004 is released?

Again, I suspect this move is in preparation for something farther in
the future. And we should expect more. No idea on the Office 2004
converters patch.

2) If the argument is that certain web browsers/mail programs are
doing things "wrong" about putting "old" file types on
downloaded/decoded attachments and should be leaving this *blank* and
relying on "extension" only (rather than updating for a more current
file type)...

Then why does Word 12.1:

A) Allow me to save/edit/open a word document with no extension,
without throwing up a red stop sign?

I think you can assume something like this is coming. When? I don't know.

B) Still put a "W8BN" file type on documents it saves? If they
want to lead by example, why is this not blank as well (a type is added
if I save the document with or withouth an extension.)

Probably coming too. Although Apple deprecated file type and creator
codes some time ago, they still haven't removed support for them. Until
that happens then Microsoft should leave this support.

However, in the meantime, Microsoft should certainly do everything it
can to move its users away from what's deprecated and into what will be
supported. We're in a transition period. I wouldn't expect everything to
move quickly. They'll certainly want to make this as painless as possible.

C) Not allow "extensions" to override file types? -- Which would
resolve the problem (likely) for the vast amount of users.
(Admittedly, I can see why this might be considered a bad idea, but...)


Why is there not internal logic in the program that says something like
"well, it's "WDBN", but it has a ".doc" extension, so we'll open it
anyway...")

Deciding which application opens which file is the Finder's
responsibility. Word can't incorporate this logic. I believe that by
default the Finder *still* uses type and creator codes before file
extensions. That's an Apple decision and I suspect they have a time
frame for changing this behavior.

So, just to restate my thoughts:

1. Expect more and similar changes.
2. Expect a *transition* and not a sudden change in behavior.
3. Expect that this is for the long term.

--

bill

William M. Smith, Microsoft Interop MVP - Mac/Windows
Entourage Help Page <http://entourage.mvps.org/>
Entourage Help Blog <http://blog.entourage.mvps.org/>

 

[Daiya Mitchell]

I'm personally finding this a very interesting discussion.

<snip>

You putting it in the context of how Word relates to the OS makes it far
more interesting.

Office 2008, however, is supported only on 10.4.9 and higher. Office
2008 can begin closing old security issues, which have probably been
around for quite a while. I suspect this is one of them. And Apple has
long been promising that file type and creator codes would be going
away. I see this move as housekeeping and a predecessor for more to come.

Daiya

 

[Phillip Jones]

I'm personally finding this a very interesting discussion. I can't
answer all your questions and Word is not my forté. I'm sharing my
observations not as an MVP but as someone who does technical support for
a living.



I suspect this move in 12.1.0 is one of many predecessors to the return
of VBA, which was recently announced. They've removed WDBN, which means
they don't want others taking advantage of that file type and allowing a
malicious file to launch Word.


Who knows? We may see that changed too in an update. But I doubt it. We
have to keep in mind Microsoft's support life-cycle.

Office 2004 is marketed as a product that will work on Mac OS X 10.2.8
(IIRC) and higher. That means it still needs to work for older versions
of the Mac OS where file type and creator are more important.

Office 2008, however, is supported only on 10.4.9 and higher. Office
2008 can begin closing old security issues, which have probably been
around for quite a while. I suspect this is one of them. And Apple has
long been promising that file type and creator codes would be going
away. I see this move as housekeeping and a predecessor for more to come.


Again, I suspect this move is in preparation for something farther in
the future. And we should expect more. No idea on the Office 2004
converters patch.


I think you can assume something like this is coming. When? I don't know.


Probably coming too. Although Apple deprecated file type and creator
codes some time ago, they still haven't removed support for them. Until
that happens then Microsoft should leave this support.

However, in the meantime, Microsoft should certainly do everything it
can to move its users away from what's deprecated and into what will be
supported. We're in a transition period. I wouldn't expect everything to
move quickly. They'll certainly want to make this as painless as possible.


Deciding which application opens which file is the Finder's
responsibility. Word can't incorporate this logic. I believe that by
default the Finder *still* uses type and creator codes before file
extensions. That's an Apple decision and I suspect they have a time
frame for changing this behavior.

So, just to restate my thoughts:

1. Expect more and similar changes.
2. Expect a *transition* and not a sudden change in behavior.
3. Expect that this is for the long term.

I see a problem with Extension only support.

Often times web and mails servers all over the US and the world Mis
configure servers in such a way that a File say that is a wma/wmv file
comes out as a Mov file or a dat file.

I run into this all the time where someone send a music or video file
that won't open because its mislabeled. Problem is it starts off right
but get chewed up somewhere in the middle.

Apple for Years in fact since at least OSX.3 is capable of reading
either by Type and Creator, or by UNIX method of extension only.

One thing that can help to make sure that the correct extension is shown
is when you choose to save any document the first time in any
application tick the box in the lower left corner of the window that
comes up. *show extensions*

No other applications for mac have the problem and Office2008 didn't
until the SP1 (12.10) upgrade. So that speaks for itself. ('nother case
of MS blaming Mac for something after MS did an update.

Of course I never ever send an office file directly I alway make a zip
archive of it or sitx compressed file of it to send off. Usually if you
do this all web/email servers pass them through with out alteration.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 |[email protected], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto[email protected]

<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>

 

[William Smith]

No other applications for mac have the problem and Office2008 didn't
until the SP1 (12.10) upgrade. So that speaks for itself. ('nother case
of MS blaming Mac for something after MS did an update.

I guess I missed where Microsoft is blaming Apple for something. Where
was that?

--

bill

William M. Smith, Microsoft Interop MVP - Mac/Windows
Entourage Help Page <http://entourage.mvps.org/>
Entourage Help Blog <http://blog.entourage.mvps.org/>

 

[Phillip Jones]

let's see:

"Probably coming too. Although Apple deprecated file type and creator
codes some time ago, they still haven't removed support for them. Until
that happens then Microsoft should leave this support."

and

"Deciding which application opens which file is the Finder's
responsibility. Word can't incorporate this logic. I believe that by
default the Finder *still* uses type and creator codes before file
extensions. That's an Apple decision and I suspect they have a time
frame for changing this behavior."
--------

And you were state those while wearing the MVP hat. ;-)

I guess I missed where Microsoft is blaming Apple for something. Where
was that?

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 |[email protected], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto[email protected]

<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>

 

[Steve Maser]

Steve, what is the point of asking these questions in this forum? To
argue that MVPs (which includes me) are wrong to not get all heated up
about it?

Not aimed at you directly, but don't MVPs have a better "reporting
channel" to Microsoft than does the average user who tosses up
something in the feedback open in the app? Or do you have no better
access than the rest of us?

Just curious (which should probably be a new thread, but...)

- Steve

 

[William Smith]

"Deciding which application opens which file is the Finder's
responsibility. Word can't incorporate this logic. I believe that by
default the Finder *still* uses type and creator codes before file
extensions. That's an Apple decision and I suspect they have a time
frame for changing this behavior."

This is a statement of fact, not blame.

And you were state those while wearing the MVP hat. ;-)

I think you've confused who we are. My MVP hat does not make me
Microsoft and I can not speak for them. I am an unpaid volunteer here
with a day job completely unrelated to Microsoft. No MVP is employed by
Microsoft.

For more information about MVPs, please have a look at this page on
Microsoft's website <http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/>. If you have any
questions about MVPs, feel free to ask.

--

bill

William M. Smith, Microsoft Interop MVP - Mac/Windows
Entourage Help Page <http://entourage.mvps.org/>
Entourage Help Blog <http://blog.entourage.mvps.org/>

 

[JE McGimpsey]

I guess I missed where Microsoft is blaming Apple for something. Where
was that?

...

And you were state those (sic) while wearing the MVP hat. ;-)[/QUOTE]

MVP's are awardees. They never have, and never will, speak for MS.

 

[JE McGimpsey]

Not aimed at you directly, but don't MVPs have a better "reporting
channel" to Microsoft than does the average user who tosses up
something in the feedback open in the app? Or do you have no better
access than the rest of us?

Just curious (which should probably be a new thread, but...)

MVPs do have additional channels, including, for some of us, ones that
come from developing relationships with developers.

BUT, rather than being "better", that often means that what MVPs report
is deprecated.

We're often thought of as power users who utterly fail to represent the
vast majority of the customer base.

Sometimes, based on our presence in the newsgroups, we're recognized as
providing valuable feedback on emerging problems. Sometimes we're
recognized as whiny bastards that focus on minutia and don't understand
the big picture.

So what MVP's have to say is often valued, and often disregarded.

But EVERY use of Help/Send Feedback is logged and tracked, since it's
direct feedback from "real" users.

 

[Phillip Jones, CET]

Not aimed at you directly, but don't MVPs have a better "reporting
channel" to Microsoft than does the average user who tosses up
something in the feedback open in the app? Or do you have no better
access than the rest of us?

Just curious (which should probably be a new thread, but...)

- Steve

Most MVP's (MicroSoft Valuable Person's) Have their day jobs in other
parts of the computer industry, Graphics Design, IT experts, have some
type of advisement business related to Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Book
authors, Report Authors.

They are what amounts to *Super User* that have better access to
Microsoft, more advanced warning about upcoming changes and therefore
have to sign Non disclosure agreements. But as for their Clout, only
about 5 or 10 points above the average Joe or Susie. If they mention to
MS something the MS may or may not perk up their ears. While if average
Joe or Susie does so MS they might the *bird*.
------
In a Business setting it would be equivalent to us being the Janitor's
and Day Maids, and they being the people in the 4 by 4 cubicles doing
grunt work. ;-)

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 |[email protected], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto[email protected]

<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>

 

[Phillip Jones, CET]

This is a statement of fact, not blame.


I think you've confused who we are. My MVP hat does not make me
Microsoft and I can not speak for them. I am an unpaid volunteer here
with a day job completely unrelated to Microsoft. No MVP is employed by
Microsoft.

For more information about MVP's, please have a look at this page on
Microsoft's website <http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/>. If you have any
questions about MVP's, feel free to ask.

I know you are a MVP but when you use that title and put on that hat you
represent Microsoft whether paid or not. Unless you are giving tips you
being a *super user*. But when you give an opinion as to why MS did this
and apple didn't do this you are representing MS the company paid or not.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 |[email protected], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto[email protected]

<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>

 

[William Smith]

I know you are a MVP but when you use that title and put on that hat you
represent Microsoft whether paid or not. Unless you are giving tips you
being a *super user*. But when you give an opinion as to why MS did this
and apple didn't do this you are representing MS the company paid or not.

Absolutely *not* do I represent Microsoft.

I add "Microsoft MVP" to my signature as a means of identifying my
expertise and contributions to this community. I'm also an MCSE
(Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer) and a Microsoft customer but
neither of those make me a Microsoft representative.

The opinions I present are my own and I endeavor to base them in facts
that anyone can verify publicly. Feel free to disagree with my opinions
and challenge what I present as fact but do not insinuate that I present
any of this on Microsoft's behalf unless I explicitly say so.

--

bill

William M. Smith, Microsoft Interop MVP - Mac/Windows
Entourage Help Page <http://entourage.mvps.org/>
Entourage Help Blog <http://blog.entourage.mvps.org/>

 

[John McGhie]

Hi Steve:

Not aimed at you directly, but don't MVPs have a better "reporting
channel" to Microsoft than does the average user who tosses up
something in the feedback open in the app? Or do you have no better
access than the rest of us?

Worse! They ignore our whinging because they figure we're big boys and
girls who can "cope" because we're power users.

And they suspect us of doing cruel and unusual things to their nice software
that breaks it. Which is quite often true...

And they know that if an MVP is not complaining, you should check to make
sure he or she is still breathing...

They keep forgetting that an MVP paid them a compliment for a job well done.
Once. Early last year. We took him out the back for a "discussion" about
his attitude...

When normal end-users get problems, that's treated as more serious than when
we do

Cheers

--

Don'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:[email protected]

 

[John McGhie]

Hi Steve:

1) Why is the file type of "WDBN" not a security issue for Word 2004?

Completely different code running in Word 2004. There is almost NO code
re-used between Office 2004 and Office 208. In Word 2004, they have had ten
years to test that code against all manner of unlikely exploits.

But taking a wild guess here, I would say they have decided that it's not
worth spending the money to subject the Office 2008 code to the same level
of testing for exploits, in a file format that nobody is actually using.

Note: Just because the file contains a WDBN type code, does NOT mean the
file is actually in the old format. If Microsoft Word:Mac wrote the code,
then you know it's a Word 4, 5 or 6 file. But if some other application
wrote it, all you know is that it is NOT in the NEW format

It's not (yet?) been made clear what the double-click-opening issue
with "WDBN" file types are that it only affects Office 2008, but not
2004. If this is an OOXML issue, will it (eventually?) hurt Office
2004 whenever the long-delayed translator for 2004 is released?

The OXML translator is basically the active ingredients of Office 2008 with
the user interface cut off. But I would guess "no", because the translator
becomes involved ONLY if the file type is OXML.

Nobody has said that there IS a security issue with the old file format.

This may seem counter-intuitive unless you have some experience in the
security software industry. I worked in the software testing department of
one of the world's larger banks, so I can make a few guesses...

I suspect that nobody has found any security issues with the old format
running with the new Office 2008 code base. I suppose it could be possible
that they have predicted a "theoretical" exposure. But it is more likely
that they simply "don't know".

Remember that when you are Microsoft and you are selling to the Defence
Department, "We do not think there is a problem" is not the right answer.
You have to be able to say "We can prove that there is no problem."

The cost of finding out for sure can be seriously high (We spent a month
with two highly-expensive specialist consultants, two test engineers and
four high-powered workstations, running a suite of penetration and attack
tests against a much, much smaller application than Microsoft Office).
We're talking about spending nearly half a million testing a relatively tiny
application: Microsoft Office is a "huge" application.

So as a wild guess, I would say that rather than jack up the price of
Microsoft Office to cover the cost of testing for any possible combination
of codes in every Microsoft Word format that has ever existed, they decided
to rule a line and say "We do not think this list of formats is still in
use, so rather than leave them hanging around where they may cause a problem
years in the future, we will simply disable them now."

This strategy dramatically reduces the "attack surface" an application
exposes. It means that no bad guy can come along years in the future and
use your application to fire "pinball attacks" around the system. A
"Pinball Attack" is where you bounce code off one application, causing it to
call another application, causing that to call yet another application, that
"might" have a vulnerability.

Pinball attacks are almost impossible to test for, because the
application(s) in the middle may not even exist yet.

2) If the argument is that certain web browsers/mail programs are
doing things "wrong" about putting "old" file types on
downloaded/decoded attachments and should be leaving this *blank* and
relying on "extension" only (rather than updating for a more current
file type)...

I don't think that's the argument. I think the argument is that an external
applications should either write the correct type code into the file, or
leave it unchanged if it does not know what the type code should be.

If the file type is blank, Word will assume the extension is correct and try
that.

Then why does Word 12.1:

A) Allow me to save/edit/open a word document with no extension,
without throwing up a red stop sign?

It won't. When you ask Word to open a file, it scans the file internally,
looking for type information. As well as the file type and creator code,
there are two other indicators that I know of, plus two more if the file is
in XML. This information is stored in ANSI text in the first 500 bytes of
the data fork of the file.

If Word finds a type it knows about in there, it will try to interpret the
file content using the converter with its parameters set for that file type.
If the result doesn't make sense, THEN it will go red in the face and spit
the dummy on you.

B) Still put a "W8BN" file type on documents it saves? If they
want to lead by example, why is this not blank as well (a type is added
if I save the document with or withouth an extension.)

W8BN is a valid type. It indicates that the file content is expressed in
16-bit Unicode (as opposed to 8-bit ANSI).

C) Not allow "extensions" to override file types? -- Which would
resolve the problem (likely) for the vast amount of users.
(Admittedly, I can see why this might be considered a bad idea, but...)

Again, you are assuming that Word is making this decision. I do not think
it is. I believe the decision is being made by Apple OS X in the Launch
Services module. It sees the old type code and thinks "I don't know where
to send that, none of my applications have declared any interest in that."

If you use File>Open, Word can then look inside the file and say "Ah hah! I
know what this is..."

Why is there not internal logic in the program that says something like
"well, it's "WDBN", but it has a ".doc" extension, so we'll open it
anyway...")

There is. But the call from the Finder from a double-click never gets that
far. The Finder sends it to Launch Services, and Launch Services says
"Dunno". Word never comes into play.

I would surmise "B" is being done because "A" is allowed. But,
according to the MVPs defending this results of applying the 12.1
service pack, neither "A" nor "B" should be done. "Extensions only"
from this point on to open files via double-click, right? :-/

Which MVP said that? I didn't see that? However it does sorta tend to be a
Unix convention Not using file extensions is a silly idea that came in
from Windows. Windows files do not have a resource fork to tell the OS what
kind of data the file contains: the extension is supposed to do that.

Some idiot decided that that was all too hard for the poor little users, and
created a module in Windows that reads the front of the file and tries to
"guess" what it is if there is no extension.

So, of course Mac had to copy that.

Then the bad guys started playing around with the file extensions, lying
about what was in their files. So Microsoft and Apple and a few other
vendors started to treat the file extension as "suspect" and look inside to
see what was really there.

But if we want to be good Unix citizens, we EITHER put an extension on the
file, OR the content is assumed to be ANSI plain text with Unix line-enders


Cheers

--

Don'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:[email protected]

 

[John McGhie]

Hi Phillip:

They are what amounts to *Super User* that have better access to
Microsoft, more advanced warning about upcoming changes and therefore
have to sign Non disclosure agreements. But as for their Clout, only
about 5 or 10 points above the average Joe or Susie. If they mention to
MS something the MS may or may not perk up their ears. While if average
Joe or Susie does so MS they might the *bird*.

An MVP is far, far more likely to get the bird than an ordinary user.
Please trust me on this point

I have been the recipient of many, many, "birds". When I heard about the
VBA decision I had to build a new aviary to hold them all

Cheers

--

Don'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:[email protected]

 

[Steve Maser]

Again, you are assuming that Word is making this decision. I do not think
it is. I believe the decision is being made by Apple OS X in the Launch
Services module. It sees the old type code and thinks "I don't know where
to send that, none of my applications have declared any interest in that."

If you use File>Open, Word can then look inside the file and say "Ah hah! I
know what this is..."


There is. But the call from the Finder from a double-click never gets that
far. The Finder sends it to Launch Services, and Launch Services says
"Dunno". Word never comes into play.

Then where does the "play" come in if I remove Office 2008 and I
double-click on a word file and it opens in Office 2004?

The only change being Office 2008 (12.1 version). Same LaunchServices
database, no? If not, then the installation of 12.1 must be modifying
the launchservices database when installed/removed.

Or are you implying that Apple has blocked WDBN from opening in Word
12.1 -- and this block has always been in place -- just waiting for
Word 12.1 to be released?

- Steve

 

[Phillip Jones]

Hi Steve:



Worse! They ignore our whinging because they figure we're big boys and
girls who can "cope" because we're power users.

And they suspect us of doing cruel and unusual things to their nice software
that breaks it. Which is quite often true...

And they know that if an MVP is not complaining, you should check to make
sure he or she is still breathing...

They keep forgetting that an MVP paid them a compliment for a job well done.
Once. Early last year. We took him out the back for a "discussion" about
his attitude...

I guess it was an attitude adjustment as the Hank Williams Jr song says. ;-)

When normal end-users get problems, that's treated as more serious than when
we do

Cheers

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 |[email protected], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto[email protected]

<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>