Re: is there a reason not to change "Applications (Mac OS 9)"
Re: is there a reason not to change "Applications (Mac OS 9)"
- Subject: Re: is there a reason not to change "Applications (Mac OS 9)"
- From: Bill Cheeseman <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:49:15 -0400
on 6/12/01 1:13 PM, Michael Turner at email@hidden wrote:
>
Is there a reason not to change the folder named "Applications (Mac OS 9)"
>
to just "Applications", which is my preferred name for that folder? I am
>
running Mac OS 9.1. They have made it "difficult" to change the name, so I
>
wondered if there is a reason. I changed it with an AppleScript. Otherwise,
>
I couldn't...
Here are a couple of thoughts.
1. Apple's system installers and updaters have become increasingly finicky
about folder names and locations over the last few years. If you change the
name of something as basic as this folder's name, I would guess you are
likely to discover at the next system upgrade that you miss out on upgrades
to things inside it, like the important "Apple Extras" and other things that
come with the system.
2. If you install Mac OS X on the same partition (as I have done on my
machines), you will probably have trouble if you have renamed it
"Applications". Mac OS X installs an "Applications" folder of its own at the
root level and populates it with Mac OS X applications. I believe people had
trouble installing Public Beta over DP4 when they already had a folder named
"Applications". Even if you don't have installation problems, I find it
convenient during the transition period to have all my Mac OS X apps in an
"Applications" folder and all my Classic apps in an "Applications (Mac OS
9)" folder. As Mac OS 9 apps become Carbonized, I move them from the latter
to the former; eventually, I will be able to discard the latter.
--
Bill Cheeseman - email@hidden
Quechee Software, Quechee, Vermont, USA
The AppleScript Sourcebook - www.AppleScriptSourcebook.com
Vermont Recipes - www.stepwise.com/Articles/VermontRecipes