Re: Data fork
- From: Warren Oates <warren.oates@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 07:19:12 -0500
In article <m2slt8qjlp.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, shamino@xxxxxxxxxx (David C.)
wrote:
> Macintosh files (going all the way back to the very first model
> Macs) are more complex than files on other systems.
Just for the sake of pedantry, I should point out that Windows NT had
the equivalent of a "resource fork," although I've forgotten what it was
called, but I played with it some. I could never get Mac resources into
the NT files, but then I didn't try very hard, and I'm not a very apt
geek. Anyway, the NT equivalent was specifically designed to network
Macs and NT machines nicely; I don't think MS had a use for it other
than that. And then the world moved on.
--
W. Oates
"I thought I was the last son of Krypton,
but you people keep popping up." -- Clark Kent
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Data fork
- From: David C.
- Re: Data fork
- From: Gregory Weston
- Re: Data fork
- References:
- Data fork
- From: Stewy
- Re: Data fork
- From: David C.
- Data fork
- Prev by Date: Re: Secure delete.
- Next by Date: Re: Data fork
- Previous by thread: Re: Data fork
- Next by thread: Re: Data fork
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|