Just copying a load of files from an NT4 box to a Win2K box and got this message:
<IMG SRC="http://194.131.85.139/steve/streams.jpg">
<IMG SRC="http://194.131.85.139/steve/streams.jpg">
-
-
Wow! I get that too following these simple instructions!!
-
Ahh!! I understand now
Comment
-
*shrug*
It's a real OS. It keeps information about files separate from the actual file. At least it isn't a Mac where there's no way to SEE that data, or even know that it's there, until such time as it gets corrupted - which is 500% more likely, since it's a multi-forked file.
- GurmThe Internet - where men are men, women are men, and teenage girls are FBI agents!
I'm the least you could do
If only life were as easy as you
I'm the least you could do, oh yeah
If only life were as easy as you
I would still get screwedComment
-
multi-forked? as in multi-fcuked?
Comment
-
WTF as in fcuked?!Originally posted by SteveC
multi-forked? as in multi-fcuked?
LawrenceComment
-
The Mac FS supports multi-forked files now? I thought traditionally that they were a single fork. When did this change (its been ages since I worked on a Mac)?<TABLE BGCOLOR=Red><TR><TD><Font-weight="+1"><font COLOR=Black>The world just changed, Sep. 11, 2001</font></Font-weight></TR></TD></TABLE>Comment
-
You only got a resource fork and a data fork.Main: Dual Xeon LV2.4Ghz@3.1Ghz | 3X21" | NVidia 6800 | 2Gb DDR | SCSI
Second: Dual PIII 1GHz | 21" Monitor | G200MMS + Quadro 2 Pro | 512MB ECC SDRAM | SCSI
Third: Apple G4 450Mhz | 21" Monitor | Radeon 8500 | 1,5Gb SDRAM | SCSIComment
-
That's historically been the case but Gurm seems to be implying more than two branches. I probably just mis-interpreted his use of the term multi-fork.Originally posted by KeiFront
You only got a resource fork and a data fork.Last edited by xortam; 26 June 2002, 13:42.<TABLE BGCOLOR=Red><TR><TD><Font-weight="+1"><font COLOR=Black>The world just changed, Sep. 11, 2001</font></Font-weight></TR></TD></TABLE>Comment
Comment