John Siracusa, over at Ars Technica, discusses the ongoing debate over Creator Codes. He also offers up suggestions on how Apple could have phased out the creator codes in favor of UTIs (rather than just dump them altogether, with nothing effective to take their place).
Monthly Archives: September 2009
Creator Codes Gone in Snow Leopard
This is something I hadn’t noticed, but am completely disappointed to find out about: Snow Leopard disregards files’ creator codes.
Ugh. WHY?
If you don’t know what creator codes are, they are four byte codes that tell the operating system what application created a file. The OS uses the code to determine what application to open the file with (there is also a “type” code, that takes the place of file extensions – which can also help determine what application can open a particular file). These codes can be used to make sure certain files of a specific type open in certain applications, and other files of that type open with a different application. By default, the application used to create the file will automatically open it when the file is double-clicked. This is useful if you have different applications that handle the same file types. A good example of this is if you are doing web development, you’ll likely want the .html files you are working on to open in the editor you created them with, instead of your web browser.
Well, with Snow Leopard, that is no longer true. New files created in any application will open with whatever the default application for that file type is. So, if you create an .html file in BBEdit, then try to open it later by double-clicking on it, the file will open in Safari. This is bad behavior. This is Windows behavior.
You can still bind a file to a certain application in the “Get Info” window in the Finder (which uses a different method than creator codes), but this forces users to take an extra step to accomplish what used to be the default. Nobody is going to want to do this for every single file they are working on.
I can see how, for some people, this may be the preferred behavior. For example, if I’m working in Photoshop, and I want to create a .jpg (or .png, or whatever), I select “Save for web and devices” to do that, and keep my working project file as a Photoshop .psd document. In this case, when I double-click the resulting .jpg file, I prefer that it open in Preview, rather than launch Photoshop, since I’m not planning on editing that .jpg, but would rather go back to the original .psd file to make any changes, then re-save using the above method.
That is, however, the only example I can think of where I would want a file to open with a different app than the one I created it with.
Also, I can see that most “average” computer users won’t be affected by this at all. Here, I’m talking about people who are using their computers to surf the web, check their email, work with Office files, use iTunes, iPhoto, etc. These people are never going to notice this behavior. But, at the same time, keeping the creator codes is not going to affect them in the slightest, either.
So why do it, Apple? Why get rid of one of the (simple) things that lifted the Macintosh experience above that of other operating systems? If it’s something that the average user isn’t going to notice in the first place, but “power” users will, what is the point in doing it? It should at least be an option that power users could turn on or off.
I really hope enough people make a stink about this for Apple to reconsider, and reinstate creator codes in a Snow Leopard update. If you are one of the people who thinks this might affect you, let Apple know about it:
Read more about this issue:
Ross Carter – Snow Leopard’s Giant Step Backward
TidBITS – Snow Leopard Snubs Document Creator Codes
via Daring Fireball
Automated Reply Customer Support Emails
I do not understand the logic behind automatic replies for customer support emails. Of course, these are usually used by companies that don’t list a customer support phone number on their web site, and the only way to contact them is through a form on their site (they also usually don’t even list an email address).
I have never, ever received an automated response that was in anyway useful. Maybe this is because I’m more advanced than the typical user, and I’ve already tried all the troubleshooting steps that any automated reply would list. But maybe, just maybe, it’s because automated reply emails are completely useless!!
What’s worse is, not only do they not achieve anything, but they invariably will end up pissing people off. It’s just a impediment in the way of getting actual help for your problem. I find nothing more annoying than typing in a detailed account of a very specific problem, only to get a response that has nothing to do with the problem described.
So, why in the world would a company subject their customers to this? Are they really cutting down, in any major way, the number of support tickets they have to actually deal with by doing this? And, even if they are, is not interfacing directly with your customers really worth it? Is the number of customers you’re surely going to anger really worth not having to deal with those few who are actually going to be helped by the automated response?
I just don’t get it.
So Long, and Thanks for All the Pie Charts
As you may or may not have heard, Mint.com is being bought by Intuit. Oh, well. It was good while it lasted.
I gave up on using Intuit products years ago, but I’ve still had to support their lousy software for clients (until my current job). I’m not at all looking forward to what they’re going to do to Mint. Mint was by no means perfect, but it had tons of potential, and was certainly better than anything Intuit had to offer. Now, they’ll never get a chance to achieve the greatness that the site might have become.
Everything I’ve read online about this news has been complete dissapointment. It seems no one thinks Intuit will do anything other than completely ruin Mint. (See Consumerist.com for some fine examples.)
I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I am not optimistic. As Blueoysterjoe put it (if you follow the previous link):
“What, Intuit will buy Mint and suddenly have great ideas about how to run a personal finance website? No. Intuit will apply its crappy ideas to Mint and turn Mint into crap.”
That pretty much sums up what I’m expecting to happen. Then, once they turn it to crap, they’ll start charging for it. No thanks.
New Posters
I’ve updated the Posters page to reflect some new posters that I’ve required within the past year. They are from a My Morning Jacket concert we went to last year, a poster Phish released to honor the The Clifford Ball DVD release, and an Allman Brothers Band/Widespread Panic poster from the show earlier this week. There are still several older posters that have yet to be added, though. Maybe I should just include the rest as list at the bottom of the page?
Also, I changed the icon and graphic for the Matt Groening “Networking in Hell” poster to reflect that I sold it earlier this year. It’s the only poster from my collection I ever sold. It wasn’t sold to a collector, but to someone whom the poster held personal meaning (I won’t say who). If it was a collector who had contacted me, I wouldn’t have sold it (I have been contacted in the past about other posters).
Anyway, click on over and check ‘em out!
Yep, this sums it up pretty well:
I have a LinkedIn account, and I can honestly say the only time I ever login to it is when someone sends me an invite.
Food in Real Life
A website dedicated to showing the difference in advertisement photos and the actual food being advertised:
On a side note, I once worked at a certain well know fast food restaurant. The restaurant I happened to work at was brand new and (at the time) state of the art. That being the case, it was used to film one of the national TV commercials. Even though someone (corporate? the marketing company? the production company? – I have no idea) offered to reimburse the location for lost revenues and payroll to close for the day, the manager decided to keep the drive through open, so we could still service customers. So, lucky me, I got to work that day. (Which was a pain, because the director kept insisting that we be quite when we were trying to take and assemble the orders.) You’d would be surprised how long it takes to film a 30 second commercial.
Anyway, the point of all this is that I can attest to how much time is spent preparing the food for the camera. They brought in all of their own food (fries, buns, everything) and prepared it themselves. Then, it was meticulously arranged. I saw someone with a pair of tweezers arranging the fries in the little cardboard cup-thing they come in. It was borderline surreal.
So, having witnessed that sort of thing, I always get a kick out of these types of comparisons.
-
Flickr Photos
More Photos
