Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: _xx files

Expand Messages
  • John Rethorst
    I get a number of xx files as I work, usually well into a session after the named documents have been open for a while. After excluding Spotlight s indexing
    Message 1 of 13 , Jul 15, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I get a number of xx files as I work, usually well into a
      session after the named documents have been open for
      a while.

      After excluding Spotlight's indexing for the work area
      (tried this with the desktop and also with the user
      directory), no more xx files appeared.

      Geoff's report that this was worse under Panther makes
      me wonder whether Panther's contents indexing had a
      similar auto-updating function that would produce the
      same result. But his finding that xx files can be more
      recent than the named file doesn't happen here. There
      may be two problems with similar symptoms.

      IAC I've emailed Gero to ask whether, in a future update
      to the WP Importer, files with the "WP_xx…" naming
      protocol can be excluded from indexing.
    • John Rethorst
      ... The problem I m getting is cosmetic and trivial - just sweep up xx files at the end of a session. The problem Geoff s getting is non-trivial, since an xx
      Message 2 of 13 , Jul 15, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, "Randall C. Wilson"
        <rwilson@i...> wrote:

        > I would rather not install an OS upgrade that is going
        > to interfere with one of my most frequently used programs.

        The problem I'm getting is cosmetic and trivial - just sweep
        up xx files at the end of a session. The problem Geoff's
        getting is non-trivial, since an xx file can contain more
        recent data than the named file. Burton found that changes
        were not being written to the named file, just to the xx file.

        An extension or third-party app conflict is not out of the
        question. I'll test for that. Any further observations would
        be welcome.
      • Geoff Gilbert
        John Any of your files have footnotes? It s more likely that the xx files will be newer if there are footnotes and that was the last thing i was working on -
        Message 3 of 13 , Jul 15, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          John

          Any of your files have footnotes? It's more likely that the xx files
          will be newer if there are footnotes and that was the last thing i
          was working on - as if closing the footnote window somehow updates
          the xx file, but not the proper file.

          Geoff


          >--- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, "Randall C. Wilson"
          ><rwilson@i...> wrote:
          >
          >> I would rather not install an OS upgrade that is going
          >> to interfere with one of my most frequently used programs.
          >
          >The problem I'm getting is cosmetic and trivial - just sweep
          >up xx files at the end of a session. The problem Geoff's
          >getting is non-trivial, since an xx file can contain more
          >recent data than the named file. Burton found that changes
          >were not being written to the named file, just to the xx file.
          >
          >An extension or third-party app conflict is not out of the
          >question. I'll test for that. Any further observations would
          >be welcome.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • ICLUF Legal Director Randall C. Wilson
          I do not have the problem, but neither are my work folders indexed, so indexing could somehow be involved. ... -- /s/ Randall C. Wilson, Esq. Legal Director
          Message 4 of 13 , Jul 15, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            I do not have the problem, but neither are my work folders indexed,
            so indexing could somehow be involved.

            >John
            >
            >Any of your files have footnotes? It's more likely that the xx files
            >will be newer if there are footnotes and that was the last thing i
            >was working on - as if closing the footnote window somehow updates
            >the xx file, but not the proper file.
            >
            >Geoff
            >
            >
            >>--- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, "Randall C. Wilson"
            >><rwilson@i...> wrote:
            >>
            >>> I would rather not install an OS upgrade that is going
            >>> to interfere with one of my most frequently used programs.
            >>
            >>The problem I'm getting is cosmetic and trivial - just sweep
            >>up xx files at the end of a session. The problem Geoff's
            >>getting is non-trivial, since an xx file can contain more
            >>recent data than the named file. Burton found that changes
            >>were not being written to the named file, just to the xx file.
            >>
            >>An extension or third-party app conflict is not out of the
            >>question. I'll test for that. Any further observations would
            >>be welcome.
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>Yahoo! Groups Links
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
            >
            > Visit your group
            >"<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wordperfectmac>wordperfectmac" on
            >the web.
            >
            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            >
            ><mailto:wordperfectmac-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>wordperfectmac-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
            ><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.


            --
            /s/ Randall C. Wilson, Esq.
            Legal Director
            Iowa Civil Liberties Union Foundation

            mailto:rwilson@...



            Ph: (515) 243 4032
            Fax: (515) 243 8506 (call first)

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • John Rethorst
            ... I tried a file with footnotes, with no change. But another thing I did was reindex, and it improved the problem significantly, although it didn t fix it.
            Message 5 of 13 , Jul 16, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, Geoff Gilbert <Geoff@e...>
              wrote:

              > Any of your files have footnotes? It's more likely that the xx
              > files will be newer if there are footnotes and that was the last
              > thing i was working on - as if closing the footnote window
              > somehow updates the xx file, but not the proper file.

              I tried a file with footnotes, with no change. But another thing I did
              was reindex, and it improved the problem significantly, although it
              didn't fix it.

              My entire startup disk is indexed, and nothing else. I went to
              System Prefs > Spotlight > Privacy and dragged the icon of my
              startup disk into the exclusion pane. I waited five seconds, then
              deleted the icon from the pane with the minus button at the
              bottom. This deletes the index for that disk, and causes a
              reindex from scratch. I think that, especially with a new
              technology, this beats revising an existing index. Sorta like
              the OS 9 desktop database.

              I've also asked Gero whether an update to the plugin could possibly
              just exclude WP files with names including "WP_xx" from indexing.
              If, when WP updates its temp file, Spotlight sees that and grabs the
              file to index, this could be at least part of the problem.

              John R.
            • John Rethorst
              I moved the WP Importer file out of /Library/Spotlight, reindexed, and the _xx files disappeared. I moved the importer back where it was, let the index update,
              Message 6 of 13 , Jul 19, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                I moved the WP Importer file out of /Library/Spotlight,
                reindexed, and the _xx files disappeared. I moved the
                importer back where it was, let the index update, and
                the problem resurfaced - although it took several
                saves among a few open documents before the _xx
                files returned.

                If Panther used a similar structure to notice saved
                changes and update its contents index, then indexing
                could be the reason. IAC I sent Gero an email with
                these findings. I don't know if the importer API
                supports exclusion based on file names though.

                John R.
              • Geoff Gilbert
                I am using 10.4.11 on a G5. When saving WP files under Classic, the temp file (XX) is being preserved and is more up-to-date than the proper file. I have run
                Message 7 of 13 , Nov 16, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  I am using 10.4.11 on a G5. When saving WP files under Classic, the
                  temp file (XX) is being preserved and is more up-to-date than the
                  proper file. I have run mdimport -r
                  /Library/Spotlight/WordPerfect.mdimporter in Terminal, but to no
                  effect.

                  Any thoughts?

                  Geoff
                • Daryl Chinn
                  Geoff, In my original versions of WP 3.0 and 3.5 (perhaps before also), when I typed
                  Message 8 of 13 , Nov 16, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Geoff, In my original versions of
                    WP 3.0 and 3.5 (perhaps before also), when I typed
                    <Apple-S), it saved both the old file (under the file
                    name) and the new file(under a numbered name). The WP
                    3.5e (Rethorst) doesn't do that on my late PB G4 PPC
                    Classic/10.4.11 as well as Titanium
                    PB/10.4.11/Classic) and hasn't ever done that. I've
                    never figured out why (I never found a Preference, for
                    instance, or a way to re-set or change this) either
                    version does what it does. I still have both on my
                    computer and they both act as they always have (see
                    above). I can't suggest a change, just offer
                    commiseration and hope someone can explain or help
                    change
                    this. Daryl ---
                    Geoff Gilbert <Geoff@...>
                    wrote: > I am using 10.4.11 on a
                    G5. When saving WP files > under Classic, the
                    > temp file (XX) is being preserved and is
                    more > up-to-date than the > proper
                    file. I have run mdimport -r >
                    /Library/Spotlight/WordPerfect.mdimporter
                    in > Terminal, but to no >
                    effect. > > Any
                    thoughts? > > Geoff >
                  • John Rethorst
                    ... I ve just updated to 10.4.11 on a G4. No change noticed. John R.
                    Message 9 of 13 , Nov 16, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In wordperfectmac@yahoogroups.com, Geoff Gilbert <Geoff@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > I am using 10.4.11 on a G5. When saving WP files under Classic, the
                      > temp file (XX) is being preserved and is more up-to-date than the
                      > proper file.

                      I've just updated to 10.4.11 on a G4. No change noticed.

                      John R.
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.