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

Re: _xx files

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.