Mac OS X and FAT 32 (Updated)

UPDATED - 02-23-03 From my recent experience when you copy things to a FAT 32 formatted Zip disk and then view those files you get TWO copies of every file. you get one called ._somefile.psd and somefile.psd. the one that starts with ._ is either zero K or very low kb in size compared to the "real" file. Mac OS X does not understand the NTFS format, so I have to use FAT 32 to format my zip disks so i can use them cross platform.
the ._ files do not show up until I put the Zip into the PC, but then when I put the Zip back into the Mac the ._ show up on the Mac as well. I don't understand this at all. this behaviour is very annoying. Interesting is that if I boot into OS 9 and copy files to a FAT 32 Zip disk this does not happen. I cannot attribute this ._ stuff to Windows, as when transfering files from Windows to Mac nothing like this happens. Also the files dont show up on the disk until I put the disk into the PC. they are not hidden to the Mac OS X Finder I checked that. So it seems that this is a resource fork thing. well I am glad that Mac OS X apps are doing away with resource forks. there are some good arguments for resourse forks, John Siracusa of Arstechnica has discussed Mac OS X metadata before. i do agree with it to some extent. but losing the resource fork is a good move for OS X IMO.

Comments (2)

http://www.experts-exchange.com/Networking/Macintosh_Networking/Q_20425674.html

Don't know if that helps at all, but really: Why are you using zip files to move files between a Mac and a PC? They play nice, generally, if you know how to set them up, you can get a file share between them easily.

Zip Disks not Zip Files. it is faster and cheaper to copy stuff to a zip than burn a CD. and i aint got my lynksys router setup so i can just share the two HDs. i been a bit busy - meancode

saint.duo:

The file that begins in ._file is a data representation of the file's resource fork. This is done in Mac OS X so that when moving files over a network and such the resource fork does not get lost, damaged, or removed. Mac OS 9 did no such thing, and usually, the resource fork would end up getting removed. Resource forks were used much more in 9 than in X, as they held icons, the creater and resource codes, version information, and such.

yes resource forks is one thing i am glad to see starting to leave OS X. there is good argument for OS X metadata, but all in all i like the fact that OS X is getting away from them. thanks a lot! - meancode

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Warning: include(/home/meancode/public_html/breakingwindows/footer.php): failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/breaking/public_html/2003/02/mac_os_x_and_fat_32_updated.php on line 211

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/home/meancode/public_html/breakingwindows/footer.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/breaking/public_html/2003/02/mac_os_x_and_fat_32_updated.php on line 211

Blogcritics Magazine

Social Networking

Mac Headlines

Read up-to-date headlines on everything Mac.

Content provided by prMac.

ESRB Search

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Enhanced with Snapshots