- Time
- Post link
M.A.C. vs Real Computers
- Time
- Post link
M.A.C. vs Real Computers
Sure, I’ll allow it.
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)
MAC or PC — Page 7
- Time
- Post link
This thread is one big embarrassment… MAC is a PC, you idiots.
No shit, but it’s a convenient way to separate Mac from decent machines whether they run Windows or Linux. Nobody is going to type out “MAC or Windows-or-Linux-Operating-System-Based-Personal-Computers.”
For example, “MAC and non-MAC” is short and it doesn’t make you look stupid.
真実
- Time
- Post link
This thread is one big embarrassment… MAC is a PC, you idiots.
No shit, but it’s a convenient way to separate Mac from decent machines whether they run Windows or Linux. Nobody is going to type out “MAC or Windows-or-Linux-Operating-System-Based-Personal-Computers.”
For example, “MAC and non-MAC” is short and it doesn’t make you look stupid.
Non-MAC makes you look like a fucking idiot…or as I like to say, like an impscum.
- Time
- Post link
This thread is one big embarrassment… MAC is a PC, you idiots.
No shit, but it’s a convenient way to separate Mac from decent machines whether they run Windows or Linux. Nobody is going to type out “MAC or Windows-or-Linux-Operating-System-Based-Personal-Computers.”
For example, “MAC and non-MAC” is short and it doesn’t make you look stupid.
Real Computers shouldn’t be classified in terms of Macs.
Don’t embarrass yourself, dude.
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)
- Time
- Post link
Okay. I will let you guys be wrong.
真実
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
M.A.C. vs Real Computers
Shit, I just outed myself as a dirty MiniFrink.
Don’t do drugs, unless you’re with me.
- Time
- Post link
This thread is one big embarrassment… MAC is a PC, you idiots.
Yeah, we all know that. We’re using PC in a more specific sense.
And Mac is never, never in all caps.
- Time
- Post link
M.A.C. vs Real Computers
Shit, I just outed myself as a dirty MiniFrink.
No, other way around, yours came first.
- Time
- Post link
M.A.C.
If you could do that again in the correct way, I would like your comment more.
Sorry I know you hate abbreviations. Macintosh Apple Computer. Better?
No. Mac is an accepted abbreviation.
- Time
- Post link
This thread is one big embarrassment… MAC is a PC, you idiots.
A shitty PC…
It’s only shitty at being a shitty Windows PC.
- Time
- Post link
Hopefully I’ll get to discuss why file name extensions are stupid.
I think you’re confused on the meaning of “hopefully.”
It’s really interesting, I promise.
Sounds fishy.
Back in the day, Macs had a unique way to identify file types: Type/Creator codes. In the resource fork of a file, the OS would store the type of file (basically the file name extension) and the creator of the file (the application you used to create the file). This system has many advantages, including the most important one (to me, at least): You can name the file whatever you want, and it’ll still open correctly.
The impossibility of this is what makes file name extensions terrible: You can’t give the user control of their data. Coding the file type in the file name is a fundamentally bad idea. Would you put the date created in the file name? Size? Metadata? You’d probably say no. These are all file metadata that are as important as the file type. But, no, file type is a-ok because that’s how it’s always been outside of the Mac world! That’s just how things are, isn’t it?
It is, but it doesn’t have to be this way.
Apple solved the problem again eleven years ago with Uniform Type Identifiers. This system has solves many major problems with type/creator codes, file name extensions, and MIME types. It first solves specificity problems: Type/Creator codes are limited to four characters, which is small enough to have collisions with other file types. (This is also a problem with file name extensions, as file name extensions can theoretically be as long as possible, Microsoft & Co. refuse to break from the EIGHT.THREE file naming convention of yesteryear) It also doesn’t need a registration with a standards committee, which is a problem with MIME types. There’s also many more benefits and intricacies to Uniform Type Identifiers, which you’ll have to see the link I linked above to get all the juicy details on.
Now, Apple has been far from perfect in this arena. Back around the transition from Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X (Windows users: Think of the transition from Windows 9x to XP, but much bigger), Apple basically abandoned Type/Creator codes, making file name extensions the required form of file type identification. This lasts until today, which many Apple users (such as myself) are grumbly about. (Along with the lack of a new file system — but that’s on the way!)
I don’t know why you posted this, given the fact that there was no way I’d ever read it.
It’s not that full of technical jargon. The only problem is that it’s a few paragraphs long, which seems to be beyond your attention span.
My attention span only cares about things that matter.
File name extensions do matter! Don’t you want to name files whatever you want without having that pesky three character identifier at the end?
No.
I don’t get how you can’t care. That limitation is technically offensive to me.
I’m not you, despite your attempts to be a MiniFrink.
I DO NOT attempt to be a MiniFrink. That is just a blatantly wrong misconception.
File name extensions are anti-consumer. You are a consumer. You should be against this.
- Time
- Post link
This thread is one big embarrassment… MAC is a PC, you idiots.
Yeah, we all know that. We’re using PC in a more specific sense.
And Mac is never, never in all caps.
MAC
So how did I do that?
- Time
- Post link
Hopefully I’ll get to discuss why file name extensions are stupid.
I think you’re confused on the meaning of “hopefully.”
It’s really interesting, I promise.
Sounds fishy.
Back in the day, Macs had a unique way to identify file types: Type/Creator codes. In the resource fork of a file, the OS would store the type of file (basically the file name extension) and the creator of the file (the application you used to create the file). This system has many advantages, including the most important one (to me, at least): You can name the file whatever you want, and it’ll still open correctly.
The impossibility of this is what makes file name extensions terrible: You can’t give the user control of their data. Coding the file type in the file name is a fundamentally bad idea. Would you put the date created in the file name? Size? Metadata? You’d probably say no. These are all file metadata that are as important as the file type. But, no, file type is a-ok because that’s how it’s always been outside of the Mac world! That’s just how things are, isn’t it?
It is, but it doesn’t have to be this way.
Apple solved the problem again eleven years ago with Uniform Type Identifiers. This system has solves many major problems with type/creator codes, file name extensions, and MIME types. It first solves specificity problems: Type/Creator codes are limited to four characters, which is small enough to have collisions with other file types. (This is also a problem with file name extensions, as file name extensions can theoretically be as long as possible, Microsoft & Co. refuse to break from the EIGHT.THREE file naming convention of yesteryear) It also doesn’t need a registration with a standards committee, which is a problem with MIME types. There’s also many more benefits and intricacies to Uniform Type Identifiers, which you’ll have to see the link I linked above to get all the juicy details on.
Now, Apple has been far from perfect in this arena. Back around the transition from Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X (Windows users: Think of the transition from Windows 9x to XP, but much bigger), Apple basically abandoned Type/Creator codes, making file name extensions the required form of file type identification. This lasts until today, which many Apple users (such as myself) are grumbly about. (Along with the lack of a new file system — but that’s on the way!)
I don’t know why you posted this, given the fact that there was no way I’d ever read it.
It’s not that full of technical jargon. The only problem is that it’s a few paragraphs long, which seems to be beyond your attention span.
My attention span only cares about things that matter.
File name extensions do matter! Don’t you want to name files whatever you want without having that pesky three character identifier at the end?
No.
I don’t get how you can’t care. That limitation is technically offensive to me.
I’m not you, despite your attempts to be a MiniFrink.
I DO NOT attempt to be a MiniFrink. That is just a blatantly wrong misconception.
File name extensions are anti-consumer. You are a consumer. You should be against this.
Consumers suck.
- Time
- Post link
This separation of Macs and “decent” or “real” machines is silly.
- Time
- Post link
Hopefully I’ll get to discuss why file name extensions are stupid.
I think you’re confused on the meaning of “hopefully.”
It’s really interesting, I promise.
Sounds fishy.
Back in the day, Macs had a unique way to identify file types: Type/Creator codes. In the resource fork of a file, the OS would store the type of file (basically the file name extension) and the creator of the file (the application you used to create the file). This system has many advantages, including the most important one (to me, at least): You can name the file whatever you want, and it’ll still open correctly.
The impossibility of this is what makes file name extensions terrible: You can’t give the user control of their data. Coding the file type in the file name is a fundamentally bad idea. Would you put the date created in the file name? Size? Metadata? You’d probably say no. These are all file metadata that are as important as the file type. But, no, file type is a-ok because that’s how it’s always been outside of the Mac world! That’s just how things are, isn’t it?
It is, but it doesn’t have to be this way.
Apple solved the problem again eleven years ago with Uniform Type Identifiers. This system has solves many major problems with type/creator codes, file name extensions, and MIME types. It first solves specificity problems: Type/Creator codes are limited to four characters, which is small enough to have collisions with other file types. (This is also a problem with file name extensions, as file name extensions can theoretically be as long as possible, Microsoft & Co. refuse to break from the EIGHT.THREE file naming convention of yesteryear) It also doesn’t need a registration with a standards committee, which is a problem with MIME types. There’s also many more benefits and intricacies to Uniform Type Identifiers, which you’ll have to see the link I linked above to get all the juicy details on.
Now, Apple has been far from perfect in this arena. Back around the transition from Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X (Windows users: Think of the transition from Windows 9x to XP, but much bigger), Apple basically abandoned Type/Creator codes, making file name extensions the required form of file type identification. This lasts until today, which many Apple users (such as myself) are grumbly about. (Along with the lack of a new file system — but that’s on the way!)
I don’t know why you posted this, given the fact that there was no way I’d ever read it.
It’s not that full of technical jargon. The only problem is that it’s a few paragraphs long, which seems to be beyond your attention span.
My attention span only cares about things that matter.
File name extensions do matter! Don’t you want to name files whatever you want without having that pesky three character identifier at the end?
No.
I don’t get how you can’t care. That limitation is technically offensive to me.
I’m not you, despite your attempts to be a MiniFrink.
I DO NOT attempt to be a MiniFrink. That is just a blatantly wrong misconception.
File name extensions are anti-consumer. You are a consumer. You should be against this.
So why does Apple use file name extensions now, if the old system was so much better?
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)
- Time
- Post link
Hopefully I’ll get to discuss why file name extensions are stupid.
I think you’re confused on the meaning of “hopefully.”
It’s really interesting, I promise.
Sounds fishy.
Back in the day, Macs had a unique way to identify file types: Type/Creator codes. In the resource fork of a file, the OS would store the type of file (basically the file name extension) and the creator of the file (the application you used to create the file). This system has many advantages, including the most important one (to me, at least): You can name the file whatever you want, and it’ll still open correctly.
The impossibility of this is what makes file name extensions terrible: You can’t give the user control of their data. Coding the file type in the file name is a fundamentally bad idea. Would you put the date created in the file name? Size? Metadata? You’d probably say no. These are all file metadata that are as important as the file type. But, no, file type is a-ok because that’s how it’s always been outside of the Mac world! That’s just how things are, isn’t it?
It is, but it doesn’t have to be this way.
Apple solved the problem again eleven years ago with Uniform Type Identifiers. This system has solves many major problems with type/creator codes, file name extensions, and MIME types. It first solves specificity problems: Type/Creator codes are limited to four characters, which is small enough to have collisions with other file types. (This is also a problem with file name extensions, as file name extensions can theoretically be as long as possible, Microsoft & Co. refuse to break from the EIGHT.THREE file naming convention of yesteryear) It also doesn’t need a registration with a standards committee, which is a problem with MIME types. There’s also many more benefits and intricacies to Uniform Type Identifiers, which you’ll have to see the link I linked above to get all the juicy details on.
Now, Apple has been far from perfect in this arena. Back around the transition from Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X (Windows users: Think of the transition from Windows 9x to XP, but much bigger), Apple basically abandoned Type/Creator codes, making file name extensions the required form of file type identification. This lasts until today, which many Apple users (such as myself) are grumbly about. (Along with the lack of a new file system — but that’s on the way!)
I don’t know why you posted this, given the fact that there was no way I’d ever read it.
It’s not that full of technical jargon. The only problem is that it’s a few paragraphs long, which seems to be beyond your attention span.
My attention span only cares about things that matter.
File name extensions do matter! Don’t you want to name files whatever you want without having that pesky three character identifier at the end?
What’s wrong with file name extensions? You can still name the file whatever you want (pretty much), there’s just a period followed by the file type afterward. What’s wrong with being able to see the file type? What’s “pesky” about it?
My point is that file metadata should never, ever come into contact with the user space that is the file name, and that includes file types.
And you do realize that the file name extensions can be turned off, right?
They’re still there. It’s just a shoving under the rug, which is not a solution.
- Time
- Post link
Hopefully I’ll get to discuss why file name extensions are stupid.
I think you’re confused on the meaning of “hopefully.”
It’s really interesting, I promise.
Sounds fishy.
Back in the day, Macs had a unique way to identify file types: Type/Creator codes. In the resource fork of a file, the OS would store the type of file (basically the file name extension) and the creator of the file (the application you used to create the file). This system has many advantages, including the most important one (to me, at least): You can name the file whatever you want, and it’ll still open correctly.
The impossibility of this is what makes file name extensions terrible: You can’t give the user control of their data. Coding the file type in the file name is a fundamentally bad idea. Would you put the date created in the file name? Size? Metadata? You’d probably say no. These are all file metadata that are as important as the file type. But, no, file type is a-ok because that’s how it’s always been outside of the Mac world! That’s just how things are, isn’t it?
It is, but it doesn’t have to be this way.
Apple solved the problem again eleven years ago with Uniform Type Identifiers. This system has solves many major problems with type/creator codes, file name extensions, and MIME types. It first solves specificity problems: Type/Creator codes are limited to four characters, which is small enough to have collisions with other file types. (This is also a problem with file name extensions, as file name extensions can theoretically be as long as possible, Microsoft & Co. refuse to break from the EIGHT.THREE file naming convention of yesteryear) It also doesn’t need a registration with a standards committee, which is a problem with MIME types. There’s also many more benefits and intricacies to Uniform Type Identifiers, which you’ll have to see the link I linked above to get all the juicy details on.
Now, Apple has been far from perfect in this arena. Back around the transition from Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X (Windows users: Think of the transition from Windows 9x to XP, but much bigger), Apple basically abandoned Type/Creator codes, making file name extensions the required form of file type identification. This lasts until today, which many Apple users (such as myself) are grumbly about. (Along with the lack of a new file system — but that’s on the way!)
I don’t know why you posted this, given the fact that there was no way I’d ever read it.
It’s not that full of technical jargon. The only problem is that it’s a few paragraphs long, which seems to be beyond your attention span.
My attention span only cares about things that matter.
File name extensions do matter! Don’t you want to name files whatever you want without having that pesky three character identifier at the end?
No.
I don’t get how you can’t care. That limitation is technically offensive to me.
I’m not you, despite your attempts to be a MiniFrink.
I DO NOT attempt to be a MiniFrink. That is just a blatantly wrong misconception.
File name extensions are anti-consumer. You are a consumer. You should be against this.
So why does Apple use file name extensions now, if the old system was so much better?
DON’T ASK HIM QUESTIONS OR ELSE HE’LL ANSWER THEM!!!
- Time
- Post link
Hopefully I’ll get to discuss why file name extensions are stupid.
I think you’re confused on the meaning of “hopefully.”
It’s really interesting, I promise.
Sounds fishy.
Back in the day, Macs had a unique way to identify file types: Type/Creator codes. In the resource fork of a file, the OS would store the type of file (basically the file name extension) and the creator of the file (the application you used to create the file). This system has many advantages, including the most important one (to me, at least): You can name the file whatever you want, and it’ll still open correctly.
The impossibility of this is what makes file name extensions terrible: You can’t give the user control of their data. Coding the file type in the file name is a fundamentally bad idea. Would you put the date created in the file name? Size? Metadata? You’d probably say no. These are all file metadata that are as important as the file type. But, no, file type is a-ok because that’s how it’s always been outside of the Mac world! That’s just how things are, isn’t it?
It is, but it doesn’t have to be this way.
Apple solved the problem again eleven years ago with Uniform Type Identifiers. This system has solves many major problems with type/creator codes, file name extensions, and MIME types. It first solves specificity problems: Type/Creator codes are limited to four characters, which is small enough to have collisions with other file types. (This is also a problem with file name extensions, as file name extensions can theoretically be as long as possible, Microsoft & Co. refuse to break from the EIGHT.THREE file naming convention of yesteryear) It also doesn’t need a registration with a standards committee, which is a problem with MIME types. There’s also many more benefits and intricacies to Uniform Type Identifiers, which you’ll have to see the link I linked above to get all the juicy details on.
Now, Apple has been far from perfect in this arena. Back around the transition from Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X (Windows users: Think of the transition from Windows 9x to XP, but much bigger), Apple basically abandoned Type/Creator codes, making file name extensions the required form of file type identification. This lasts until today, which many Apple users (such as myself) are grumbly about. (Along with the lack of a new file system — but that’s on the way!)
I don’t know why you posted this, given the fact that there was no way I’d ever read it.
It’s not that full of technical jargon. The only problem is that it’s a few paragraphs long, which seems to be beyond your attention span.
My attention span only cares about things that matter.
File name extensions do matter! Don’t you want to name files whatever you want without having that pesky three character identifier at the end?
What’s wrong with file name extensions? You can still name the file whatever you want (pretty much), there’s just a period followed by the file type afterward. What’s wrong with being able to see the file type? What’s “pesky” about it?
My point is that file metadata should never, ever come into contact with the user space that is the file name, and that includes file types.
And you do realize that the file name extensions can be turned off, right?
They’re still there. It’s just a shoving under the rug, which is not a solution.
Once the ignore function comes back, people can shove your posts under a rug, even though they’re still there.
SOLUTION!
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Hopefully I’ll get to discuss why file name extensions are stupid.
I think you’re confused on the meaning of “hopefully.”
It’s really interesting, I promise.
Sounds fishy.
Back in the day, Macs had a unique way to identify file types: Type/Creator codes. In the resource fork of a file, the OS would store the type of file (basically the file name extension) and the creator of the file (the application you used to create the file). This system has many advantages, including the most important one (to me, at least): You can name the file whatever you want, and it’ll still open correctly.
The impossibility of this is what makes file name extensions terrible: You can’t give the user control of their data. Coding the file type in the file name is a fundamentally bad idea. Would you put the date created in the file name? Size? Metadata? You’d probably say no. These are all file metadata that are as important as the file type. But, no, file type is a-ok because that’s how it’s always been outside of the Mac world! That’s just how things are, isn’t it?
It is, but it doesn’t have to be this way.
Apple solved the problem again eleven years ago with Uniform Type Identifiers. This system has solves many major problems with type/creator codes, file name extensions, and MIME types. It first solves specificity problems: Type/Creator codes are limited to four characters, which is small enough to have collisions with other file types. (This is also a problem with file name extensions, as file name extensions can theoretically be as long as possible, Microsoft & Co. refuse to break from the EIGHT.THREE file naming convention of yesteryear) It also doesn’t need a registration with a standards committee, which is a problem with MIME types. There’s also many more benefits and intricacies to Uniform Type Identifiers, which you’ll have to see the link I linked above to get all the juicy details on.
Now, Apple has been far from perfect in this arena. Back around the transition from Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X (Windows users: Think of the transition from Windows 9x to XP, but much bigger), Apple basically abandoned Type/Creator codes, making file name extensions the required form of file type identification. This lasts until today, which many Apple users (such as myself) are grumbly about. (Along with the lack of a new file system — but that’s on the way!)
I don’t know why you posted this, given the fact that there was no way I’d ever read it.
It’s not that full of technical jargon. The only problem is that it’s a few paragraphs long, which seems to be beyond your attention span.
My attention span only cares about things that matter.
File name extensions do matter! Don’t you want to name files whatever you want without having that pesky three character identifier at the end?
No.
I don’t get how you can’t care. That limitation is technically offensive to me.
I’m not you, despite your attempts to be a MiniFrink.
I DO NOT attempt to be a MiniFrink. That is just a blatantly wrong misconception.
File name extensions are anti-consumer. You are a consumer. You should be against this.
So why does Apple use file name extensions now, if the old system was so much better?
Apple bought Next in 1997, though it was more of a reverse takeover. The Next side was much more on the side of file name extensions, which is why Apple uses them today.
- Time
- Post link
M.A.C.
If you could do that again in the correct way, I would like your comment more.
Sorry I know you hate abbreviations. Macintosh Apple Computer. Better?
No. Mac is an accepted abbreviation.
“Mac” is a shortening of “Macintosh”. “MAC” (or M.A.C. or M*A*C) is an abbreviation of the phrase “Macintosh Apple Computer.”
There.
Army of Darkness: The Medieval Deadit | The Terminator - Color Regrade | The Wrong Trousers - Audio Preservation
SONIC RACES THROUGH THE GREEN FIELDS.
THE SUN RACES THROUGH A BLUE SKY FILLED WITH WHITE CLOUDS.
THE WAYS OF HIS HEART ARE MUCH LIKE THE SUN. SONIC RUNS AND RESTS; THE SUN RISES AND SETS.
DON’T GIVE UP ON THE SUN. DON’T MAKE THE SUN LAUGH AT YOU.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
M*A*C was a really overrated tv show.
- Time
- Post link
M.A.C. vs Real Computers
Shit, I just outed myself as a dirty MiniFrink.
No, other way around, yours came first.
Whoa whoa wait. Are you telling me you’re a MiniNeg?
Scanners gif
Don’t do drugs, unless you’re with me.
- Time
- Post link
M.A.C.
If you could do that again in the correct way, I would like your comment more.
Sorry I know you hate abbreviations. Macintosh Apple Computer. Better?
No. Mac is an accepted abbreviation.
“Mac” is a shortening of “Macintosh”. “MAC” (or M.A.C. or M*A*C) is an abbreviation of the phrase “Macintosh Apple Computer.”
There.
No, it is not. None of your post is true. MAC is never accepted anywhere in the Apple community.
- Time
- Post link
Hopefully I’ll get to discuss why file name extensions are stupid.
I think you’re confused on the meaning of “hopefully.”
It’s really interesting, I promise.
Sounds fishy.
Back in the day, Macs had a unique way to identify file types: Type/Creator codes. In the resource fork of a file, the OS would store the type of file (basically the file name extension) and the creator of the file (the application you used to create the file). This system has many advantages, including the most important one (to me, at least): You can name the file whatever you want, and it’ll still open correctly.
The impossibility of this is what makes file name extensions terrible: You can’t give the user control of their data. Coding the file type in the file name is a fundamentally bad idea. Would you put the date created in the file name? Size? Metadata? You’d probably say no. These are all file metadata that are as important as the file type. But, no, file type is a-ok because that’s how it’s always been outside of the Mac world! That’s just how things are, isn’t it?
It is, but it doesn’t have to be this way.
Apple solved the problem again eleven years ago with Uniform Type Identifiers. This system has solves many major problems with type/creator codes, file name extensions, and MIME types. It first solves specificity problems: Type/Creator codes are limited to four characters, which is small enough to have collisions with other file types. (This is also a problem with file name extensions, as file name extensions can theoretically be as long as possible, Microsoft & Co. refuse to break from the EIGHT.THREE file naming convention of yesteryear) It also doesn’t need a registration with a standards committee, which is a problem with MIME types. There’s also many more benefits and intricacies to Uniform Type Identifiers, which you’ll have to see the link I linked above to get all the juicy details on.
Now, Apple has been far from perfect in this arena. Back around the transition from Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X (Windows users: Think of the transition from Windows 9x to XP, but much bigger), Apple basically abandoned Type/Creator codes, making file name extensions the required form of file type identification. This lasts until today, which many Apple users (such as myself) are grumbly about. (Along with the lack of a new file system — but that’s on the way!)
I don’t know why you posted this, given the fact that there was no way I’d ever read it.
It’s not that full of technical jargon. The only problem is that it’s a few paragraphs long, which seems to be beyond your attention span.
My attention span only cares about things that matter.
File name extensions do matter! Don’t you want to name files whatever you want without having that pesky three character identifier at the end?
What’s wrong with file name extensions? You can still name the file whatever you want (pretty much), there’s just a period followed by the file type afterward. What’s wrong with being able to see the file type? What’s “pesky” about it?
My point is that file metadata should never, ever come into contact with the user space that is the file name, and that includes file types.
Why?
Hopefully I’ll get to discuss why file name extensions are stupid.
I think you’re confused on the meaning of “hopefully.”
It’s really interesting, I promise.
Sounds fishy.
Back in the day, Macs had a unique way to identify file types: Type/Creator codes. In the resource fork of a file, the OS would store the type of file (basically the file name extension) and the creator of the file (the application you used to create the file). This system has many advantages, including the most important one (to me, at least): You can name the file whatever you want, and it’ll still open correctly.
The impossibility of this is what makes file name extensions terrible: You can’t give the user control of their data. Coding the file type in the file name is a fundamentally bad idea. Would you put the date created in the file name? Size? Metadata? You’d probably say no. These are all file metadata that are as important as the file type. But, no, file type is a-ok because that’s how it’s always been outside of the Mac world! That’s just how things are, isn’t it?
It is, but it doesn’t have to be this way.
Apple solved the problem again eleven years ago with Uniform Type Identifiers. This system has solves many major problems with type/creator codes, file name extensions, and MIME types. It first solves specificity problems: Type/Creator codes are limited to four characters, which is small enough to have collisions with other file types. (This is also a problem with file name extensions, as file name extensions can theoretically be as long as possible, Microsoft & Co. refuse to break from the EIGHT.THREE file naming convention of yesteryear) It also doesn’t need a registration with a standards committee, which is a problem with MIME types. There’s also many more benefits and intricacies to Uniform Type Identifiers, which you’ll have to see the link I linked above to get all the juicy details on.
Now, Apple has been far from perfect in this arena. Back around the transition from Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X (Windows users: Think of the transition from Windows 9x to XP, but much bigger), Apple basically abandoned Type/Creator codes, making file name extensions the required form of file type identification. This lasts until today, which many Apple users (such as myself) are grumbly about. (Along with the lack of a new file system — but that’s on the way!)
I don’t know why you posted this, given the fact that there was no way I’d ever read it.
It’s not that full of technical jargon. The only problem is that it’s a few paragraphs long, which seems to be beyond your attention span.
My attention span only cares about things that matter.
File name extensions do matter! Don’t you want to name files whatever you want without having that pesky three character identifier at the end?
No.
I don’t get how you can’t care. That limitation is technically offensive to me.
I’m not you, despite your attempts to be a MiniFrink.
I DO NOT attempt to be a MiniFrink. That is just a blatantly wrong misconception.
File name extensions are anti-consumer. You are a consumer. You should be against this.
So why does Apple use file name extensions now, if the old system was so much better?
DON’T ASK HIM QUESTIONS OR ELSE HE’LL ANSWER THEM!!!
I can’t help it!
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)