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.
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
Posted by Jake Ortman | February 23, 2003 1:39 PM
Posted on February 23, 2003 13:39
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
Posted by saint.duo | February 24, 2003 1:09 PM
Posted on February 24, 2003 13:09