What you don't know WILL hurt you!

[Xairbusdriver]

Some of you may remember the "TYPE" and "CREATOR" codes that came with all files back in pre-OS X days. Some may not. Many probably don't care. Anyway, what these codes meant was that any app could create a file (a text file, for example) that could then be opened by any other app that could open such files. Great! But, double-clicking on that file icon would automatically open the file in the original app. Even better! That's what most people would want and expect.

Some of you may know that Windows never used this approach. Some may not. Many probably don't care. Windows (and DOS, and most other OSs) simply used a three or four letter suffix to the files name, separated by a period. For example, a text file would be titled "MyGreatTreatise.txt" OK, you say. So what, you say. Well, the point is, that file now has no "owner!" Well, not exactly...behind the scenes, the OS has a database and decides what app will open which file "suffix." Problem solved, you say. Well, not exactly...

Suppose you create a text file in BBEdit (that's all an html, CSS, XML, etc.) file is, anyway. But you used BBEdit explicitly because it is designed for this purpose and has hundreds of features/functions that makes it easy and efficient. But now, when that file is double-clicked, it will be opened by whatever the OS decides should open it! Whoa! What happened to "user-friendliness" or "user-control?"

Don't use BBEdit? How about Photoshop? Or Graphicconverter? Say you create a jpeg image. It gets a ".jpg" suffix. Now, double-click it tomorrow. Which app will open it? Probably neither PS or GC! At least not in Snow Leopard! Instead, Preview will grab it and display it! Obviously not suitable if what you wanted to do was make a few edits!

Actually, OS X prior to SL applied certain rules to files and still maintained and allowed apps to create TYPE and CREATOR codes in their files. And the OS would acknowledge their use and allow the creator app to open them. Apple has claimed that this capability was at its own discretion and could be changed at any time. Well, they did it in SL, without notice, without concern for developers and worst of all, users, IMHO.

"Inside" sources claim that "management" forced this change on "engineering." This suggests that public complaints may be more effective than the normal bug reporting process since 'engineering' must simply reply that "it works as designed."

For more detailed information, see this <TidBITS article>. It describes a work-around that will be tedious at best and very difficult, if even possible, at worst!

[kimmer]

Wow. I wonder what "management" was thinking? Or where they?

[Xairbusdriver]

I can only assume that "management" means people from NeXT. The TYPE CREATOR code business was only used by Apple, AFAIK. This makes it more 'standard.' And, IMHO, much less capable and friendly. But, what do I know. According to the article, this is a method that Unix can use, but it is optional, not required. It may be used in every variant of Unix around, I don't know, but this probably makes OS X more acceptable to certain niche users, a.k.a. 'Businesses.'

[krissel]

I don't like this for text files but I do for image files. I get ticked off when PS opens for a simple jpeg. I've gotten in the habit of dragging files onto the dock icons to prevent an unwanted app from opening a file.

This makes it appear that the functionality could be ingrained in the application itself in the future.

QUOTE

"You, the user, can use Get Info to mark a specific file with a preferred application binding, but as far as I know there's no way for an _application_ to do that."

We reverse-engineered the Get Info functionality and implemented it in Fetch. We let users say, for example, that downloaded .html files should open in TextWrangler (and not in Safari, which is probably the default .html opener).

A command line tool to associate file types with apps...

http://duti.sourceforge.net/

[gunug]

I think the way the XP does things isn't a bad idea.  Right click on a file and you get a choice of things to do with it including "open with" which gives you the known choices of software installed that will open a give file.  Double-clicking to just open generally gives you the default program which is the mostly recently installed program or the most pushy!

[Xairbusdriver]

Well, you can right-click on the Mac, also. But that is an unnecessary and extra step that defeats the whole purpose of an application creating a file, in the first place. There simply aren't enough three letter 'codes; available for the thousands of apps now in use. And just because the OS is capable of opening one of them is no excuse for over riding the users preference or the creating apps functionality. I use DefaultApp X to assign these kinds of tasks, but it may become moot once I get SL.

Millions of Mac (and even Windows) users have been taught to double-click a file to open it. Such a change to the GUI is not to be taken lightly and with seemingly no input from users. I suspect a third-party developer will soon arrive to correct this assault on the user and the effort of other developers to use the guidelines set up by Apple to enable a graceful, efficient and effective means of opening files created by a specific app. It became broken when later version of X came into being. It now appears to be completely gone and replaced by the will of "management" for no better reason than to 'encourage' the use of Apple's products.

...but what do I care...

And, of course, this change won't actually hurt anyone physically, but it surely can cause stress and frustration until everyone forgets "how it used to be."

QUOTE

This makes it appear that the functionality could be ingrained in the application itself in the future.

Unfortunately, opening a file is a function of the OS. But Apple kindly made the two other codes available (and required their registration with the company, BTW) and even created rules in the OS to use them. So it was a collaboration between the developers and Apple that made the whole thing possible. This OS functionality made the Mac easier to use and, IMHO, better. There has been talk for many years about this capability being "non-standard." But, since when did "non-standard" become bad for everything! If the goal of mankind was to avoid being "non-standard" we would still be throwing spears and roasting meat over a fire! And I dare say the Mac would never have been conceived. Other than that, 'standardization' is great! And this capability never affected other OSs, it simply made the Mac OS better and more capable and easier to...never mind, I already said all that...

I think we might as well get rid of Plug 'n Play, it seems hard for many other OSs to get that right, anyway...