PROBLEM: 12.1 version of Word 2008 will not open WinWord .doc files?

[John McGhie]

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

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

--

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 Hodgson]

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?
--
Cheers,

Steve

The reply-to email address is a spam trap.
Email steve 'at' shodgson 'dot' org 'dot' uk

 

[Scott Boettcher]

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

 

[Charles]

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"

Scott,

Thank you for this tip, which I have tried but unfortunately with no
success.

Anyone else gotten this to work?

Charles

 

[Scott Boettcher]

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

 

[Steve Hodgson]

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.
--
Cheers,

Steve

The reply-to email address is a spam trap.
Email steve 'at' shodgson 'dot' org 'dot' uk

 

[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

 

[Charles]

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

 

[Charles]

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

 

[CyberTaz]

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...

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

 

[Steve Hodgson]

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.
--
Cheers,

Steve

The reply-to email address is a spam trap.
Email steve 'at' shodgson 'dot' org 'dot' uk

 

[Steve Hodgson]

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

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.
--
Cheers,

Steve

The reply-to email address is a spam trap.
Email steve 'at' shodgson 'dot' org 'dot' uk

 

[JE McGimpsey]

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.

 

[CyberTaz]

Hi Steve -

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

 

[Daiya Mitchell]

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.

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

 

[John McGhie]

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

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

--

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]

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

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

 

[John McGhie]

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

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

--

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]

 

[Daiya Mitchell]

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.)

 

[Daiya Mitchell]

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.