Famous Mac user complains about stability

JB · Jan 2, 2000

"I've got a suspicion that an 8-billion dollar company with senior partners bitching about all the new problems they face trying to get a proposal out has thought of this."Hmmm, you might be surprised by how many haven't. Ever hear of a "paper" MCSE? Quite a number of fellows out there with substandard education in managing machines and networks. "Incidentally, Apple is using OpenStep to create OS X. The web was invented on OpenStep machines. The first commercial OOP system was OpenStep. The first visual programming tools were, too, and much more. The "Classic" MacOS bore the first APIs. Invention isn't something Apple lacks. PCish management almost killed them, but that's over now."You forgot to add; the moon, the sun and the stars. Xerox gets credit for the GUI and the mouse, maybe we should all stop what we are doing and let them catch back up so they can show us the way? Or should I only buy Xerox OS's and Xerox mouse's? What PC type managment? Microsoft? Intel? Creative? Id? Dell? Gateway? Compac? HP? IBM? As one looks over the computer landscape and sees the dominace of x86 machines I'm sure you'll find a failure out there to label as failed "PCish managmement"."What the hell is MS good for?"This is such a statement of unbridled arrogance or unmatched ignorance that it take would take Herculean efforts to overcome either with any objective analysis. [This message has been edited by JB (edited January 02, 2000).]

IMarshal · Jan 2, 2000

Billium: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I also know it's a distiction without a difference, since I need the shell to make the OS do my bidding. The difference in perspective is that of a person getting some work done vs. a person rhapsodizing about technicalities.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm afraid this is a position of ignorance, because it hinders understanding. If on this forum you consider reasoning about technicalities to be useless, I wonder what you're doing here at all.Furthermore, the shell / OS distinction is an important one. Without this distinction you will be forever wondering why it is that the MacOS has been declared obsolete even by its creators. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Yes, well, I remember Win3.1 pretty fondly, too. You used some old, poorly maintained Macs (think I've never seen a university lab?) for word processing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There are two problems with your analogy: one is that technically the MacOS of then (7.x, early 8.x) is almost identical to the MacOS of now, so its stability properties are similar. Windows 3.x is completely unlike Windows 9x or NT, so your Win3.x experience is meaningless today.(Note the importance of the shell/OS distinction here, without which it would be impossible to reason effectively on this level.)The second is that even in those days, Word processing was alright. It was software development (and to a lesser degree web browsing) that was hopeless. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>"Do yourself a favor and enable DMA on your IDE hard drives. PIO modes are painful on all systems." I've got a suspicion that an 8-billion dollar company with senior partners bitching about all the new problems they face trying to get a proposal out has thought of this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL, so was DMA enabled or not? Or were you intentionally crippling your own work machine? "I have things to do", indeed. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Your cheerleading aside, most rational people don't suggest NT for anything but professionally maintained, MS Office-only machines. Not PC Week. Not InfoWorld. Not any other trade resource I've seen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is a trivially stupid statement. The PC rags you mention are written for the clueless. NT and W2K are being used and will be used in places far beyond professional environments. There are probably more home Mac users than home NT users, but I don't think the difference between the two totals is that large.Oh, and here's an interesting question: which platform is better for gaming: NT or the Mac? It's pretty close, actually.I noticed you forgot to explain what win.ini had to do with NT font management, BTW. Unintentional slip or intentional misinformation? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>To quote you: "why would they have invested so much money and time creating an OS with real VM?" MS is hoping one day that NT will be generally useful. It isn't there yet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh, please. In your little niche NT is catching up to the MacOS, so you feel inclined to disparage it. In the world at large, private and public, there are far more NT users than Mac users and NT boxes perform more useful work than Macintoshes.If NT isn't generally useful, the Mac is useless by the same metric. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>" _what_ 'PC assumptions' and 'PC perspectives' make Macintoshes crash"Assumptions like that an MS network client must be good. Assumtions like that if the server doesn't show it must be a DLL [...]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is too funny; Billium, how can assumptions like these make your beloved Macintoshes crash? Are you implying that the Macintosh isn't intuituve, easy to learn and use and a cinch to troubleshoot? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Your Linux enthusiam is especially amusing<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm no Linux advocate; Linux has many problems, but I do recognize the OS's merits. However, in this case too the market has deemed this "good, but modest" OS to be more generally useful than the MacOS. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>"We invented everything..." What the hell is MS good for?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You need to get out more. There is more to the world of computing than Apple and Adobe. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>"Isn't PS output a function of application and drivers, not the OS?No. Font management in the age of APIs--that is, the age of the Mac--relies upon the OS to keep track of fonts, including the PostScript vector versions the ouput device will need. And the PostScript driver is authored by MS and Adobe together in the last few years, just as the Mac PS driver is authored by Apple and Adobe together and always has been.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In other words, yes, it's a driver function. Shame on Adobe for not producing a quality Windows PS driver. Just like they fail to produce quality Windows applications. How surprising.To conclude, your posts indicate to me that you're in one of the few niches in the world of computing that Apple's solutions are actually good for, and you've come to think of them as the bread and butter of computing because their products meet your needs. That's great. But there's a lot more to the world than the publishing industry, and in most other areas Apple is a joke.I suspect you feel the evil PC empire creeping toward your door, given your obvious hostility to all things PC. My advice would be to relax and maybe learn something about other platforms; you may need those skills later on in life. So when your boss comes to you and says "hey, can you use Windows 2001's Colortron technology", instead of having a cow, you'll be able to calmly say "sure, I can use any platform to produce excellent publications; I don't need a Mac for that".[This message has been edited by IMarshal (edited January 02, 2000).]

Venture · Jan 3, 2000

resteves said:"From what I can tell, you fall into the same trap that many PC users do, they expect Mac's to operate like Windows, and when it doesn't, they blame the Mac."Yeah, I expected the Mac to be as stable as Windows, and when it couldn't achieve anything like that stability, I blamed the Mac.Mea Culpa. I see the error of my ways. I should simply lower my expectations of the Mac.

Venture · Jan 3, 2000

Billium said:"Also for the record, installing a large number of fonts in the Fonts folder will cause a Mac difficulties, but nobody even tries that with Win."I have hit the Mac font limit; it's 279 or somesuch number. When you try to add fonts there is no warning message to say you've hit the limit - you have to figure it out for yourself.Windows takes over 1,000 fonts at any one time.In both platforms you will see a performance hit with large numbers of fonts.

Venture · Jan 3, 2000

billium said:"A Macs can tell teh difference between a PhotoShop EPS and an Illustrator EPS and a FreeHand EPS, etc."Yeah. Just what you want. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to tell the Mac that a Freehand TIFF is just the same as an Illustrator TIFF. What's the point of industry-standard file formats if the Mac behaves as though every file can only be opened by its creating application?If you want to distinguish between creating applications on the PC, you can name files thus:filename.ps.epsfilename.fh.epsfilename.ai.epsSo you can identify the creator but still have no problems opening the file by double-clicking on its icon if you have a compatible application.

xwred1 · Jan 3, 2000

The only way the MacOS can tell the difference between the diff EPS files is because of that resource fork crap. Technically, Linux could too since it has the ability to scan the first few bits of a file, compare it to the magic file, and then report to the requesting app what kinda file it is. Of course, in windows, you probably would use something other than .eps on every file. I thought a virtue of a Mac was that it wasn't bound at all by file extensions, so just give Windows file different extensions for the different eps apps.Also, i don't see how NT can be said to be not useful? It can run any win32 app that Win9x does, barring low level apps like disk scanners and virus scanners. The only reason Millenium exists at all is for those backwards simpletons that need legacy support.

Venture · Jan 3, 2000

Billium said:"It remains true, to, that Macs constitute--overall--about 90% of the print market and about 75% of commercial web design and multimedia. And you still pay extra for film output from PCs at most service bureaus, who are in business to make money and are genetically abhorent to alienating any customer."I think I can stop laughing long enough to answer this. *If* you talk about 4-color work and *if* you rule out almost all in-house graphics people and *if* people haven't deserted the Mac in the last three or four years, you can say that around 80 percent of print is produced on Macs.I don't know which service bureaus you frequent, but the two biggest ones in Ars-land do not charge a premium for PC work. Maybe that's how they got to be the biggest?The last survey I saw on web design from a reputable independent source (hey, Apple quoted them so they must be independent) was from a now-defunct subscription-only web weekly. They surveyed companies which had designed a Fortune 500 company's web page (presumably this could include some itty-bitty subsiduary of a Fortune 500 company). Of the companies they contacted, 49 percent used Macs.I spoke to the webmistress of Lotus two years ago, and she told me that the site had over 70,000 pages - all created in-house. That alone was probably more than all the pages that the 70 surveyed outside design companies had created, and Lotus pales against many other huge sites like MS. "There is an independant study by one of those big accounting firms (which I suppose I could look up if pressed) that concluded that it was a "breach of fiduciary duty" to use PCs for graphic arts work because Macs were so much more productive."Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. I know where this came from, and no big accounting firm said it. It was uttered by the surveys manager of Gistics, who by using extraordinary spin managed to come up with the idea that Mac graphics users were more productive than PC graphics users. The guy said at a press conference that they could see no reason why Mac users of Excel would not be as productive compared to PC users, and that not using Macs for accounting could be called a breach of fidiary responsibility.The survey itself was not funded by any outside company (supposedly). It was never seriously sold, yet it involved over 22,000 graphics people in small companies (with an average of six or seven people in each company). Anyone who has done any survey work will tell you that just finding 22,000 professional people is an incredible expense, because most people will just throw letters in the trash.Then these 22,000 people were supposed to fill in timesheets and mail them back to Gistics. You need to have a pretty powerful incentive (read: $$$) to get most people to take the time to complete timesheets. Add to that the cost of collating these timesheets and the cost of promoting those results on the pro PR mailing services, and you have a massive cost - maybe a million dollars.All of this work produced only one result - that artists who used Macs were more productive than artists who used PCs. That was trumpeted in the press releases, so essentially there was nothing left to sell. Seems odd to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in getting the raw materials for a report and then have no way of making money from that report.Although Gistics was not shy about getting the news into the press (including flying the boss of Gistics from California to MacWorld Australia to announce the news) two thing were never made public. That included the proportion of Windows users in the survey, and the number of years experience they had. It seems to me that because artists used Macs when PCs didn't have the apps, the people using PCs might be new to the business and hadn't built up the client roster of longer-established companies. If there's not much work, people aren't going to be doing many billable hours, no matter what the platform.

DrPizza · Jan 3, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>who are in business to make money and are genetically abhorent to alienating any customer<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If only that were true. Print shops IME have the most zealotous Mac users I've ever met.They don't care that many formats are cross-platform *standards*. If I give 'em a TIFF file on an ISO9660 CD-R (they call it a 'PC CD-ROM'. I normally refrain from pointing out that there's no such thing as a 'PC CD-ROM'; there's 'CD-ROM' and there's "Apple's fucked up notion of a CD-based filing system (HFS -- OK, Makkies, use it on your hard disks, but please, *not* on CDs. They should be ISO9660, or, at a pinch, Joliet (which I think is backwards compatible) or UDF)) they complain, because they/their Macs are too retarded to open it. If they give me files (which they do) they generally have to burn two CDs because their first CD is HFS. I say "That's no good" and have to explain over the 'phone how to make Toast burn an ISO9660 CD.If you're wondering why print shops give _me_ files, rather than the other way around, it's because a number of the people I've done web-sites for don't have good (hi-res, correctly coloured) copies of the images/logos/logotypes that they've already used in their printed materials; the print shops do, however (because they've printed them), and they're generally a useful source of such information).

dent · Jan 3, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>they complain, because they/their Macs are too retarded to open it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm sure this is obvious, but it's clear that it is "they" who are too retarded to open the files. Ignorant computer users are ignorant regardless of the platform they happen to use. The print/publishing world is a dual-platform one and if the employees at the company you referred to are too stupid to be able to output PC files on a Mac (or *gasp* a PC), or too stupid to give you the files you requested on the CD format you requested, then they clearly do not deserve to get your business.

hhcccchh-PTOOEY · Jan 3, 2000

Venture said: "What's the point of industry-standard file formats if the Mac behaves as though every file can only be opened by its creating application?"You probably didn't mean this to sound like the mac requires the specific creation-app to open a particular file, but for the sake of clarity I'll just quickly say that the mac defaults to looking for the creation-app and if it's not present a dialogue asks which app you would like to use. If the app IS present it will use this if you double click the file... sometimes this is not what you want (eg wanting to open an Illustrator file in p'shop), in which case you just open the file from within the desired (and compatible) app OR drag and drop the file onto the appropriate app... Popup and spring loaded folders make this latter choice very easy to accomplish with one click and drag through various levels of folders... of course nothing else can go on whilst the mouse button is pressed, so, ahem, moving right along: "If you want to distinguish between creating applications on the PC, you can name files thus: filename.ps.eps filename.fh.eps filename.ai.eps So you can identify the creator but still have no problems opening the file by double-clicking on its icon if you have a compatible application."This is scarcely a window-specific trait! It also doesn't help you unless people actually do it. Naming conventions are a great idea, but all too rare in the real world. If you want to lay the blame (or at least part of it) at the foot of Apple, this would not be entirely without basis in fact. By removing the requirement that a file be appropriatly extensionised, Apple made it all too easy for the undisciplined to type all sorts of file names... and create confusion if a PC had to subsequently work with the file. It could be argued that this is more the PC's fault that the macs, seeing as it is the PC that has no idea what to do with the file until an appropriate extension is applied, but I admit it's naive in a windows-centric world to insist that the PC world adapt to mac and not visa versa... but I like the mac system better.

hhcccchh-PTOOEY · Jan 3, 2000

PeterB says :"I normally refrain from pointing out that there's no such thing as a 'PC CD-ROM"I know I'm slightly out of context with this quote, bit perchance this explains (at least partially) why you are given discs that you can't work with... if you are dealing with graphics there is every chance that the bureau will assume that you have a mac... kinda like how every where else people assume you have a PC... Apple responded by building PCexchange into the OS years ago (I seem to remember this works fine with "PC-CD ROMS" as well so I don't understand their difficulties with your CDs), maybe MS could reciprocate the favour one day and make all our lives easier...Don't get me wrong, the people sending the disc should make sure they understand your requirements up front, it's still their responsibilty to understand your needs...they do sound a bit low wattage...

John Campbell · Jan 3, 2000

The thing is, there is no such thing as a "PC CD-ROM". There are Mac CD-ROMs, and there are CD-ROMs that follow the ISO-9660 standard used, AFAIK, by every other OS in the world.

Akula · Jan 3, 2000

hhcccchh-PTOOEY said: "Apple responded by building PCexchange into the OS years ago (I seem to remember this works fine with "PC-CD ROMS" as well so I don't understand their difficulties with your CDs), maybe MS could reciprocate the favour one day and make all our lives easier..."I disagree, I say APPLE should drop their current standard and go with the standard. Apple should be supporting the ISO 9660 L1 & L3 standard only...Could make life a little easier.

a blindmouse · Jan 3, 2000

WHOA...How would Apple discontinuing support for HFS CD-ROM's make *anyone's* life easier? When has support for a format that you don't HAVE TO USE been a problem? In fact, it's because of this support that it's so easy to make Mac-bootable CD-ROMS's, etc.I hope they'll support UFS in Mac OS X too.

John Campbell · Jan 3, 2000

When it encourages people to use that format on removable media, at the expense of cross-platform portability. CDs should be ISO-9660. If they are, everyone can use them, regardless of OS. If they're HFS, only Macs (and the rare Linux machine) can use them. If the Mac needs resource forks and all that crap on the CD, it should have extensions to the ISO-9660 standard, similar to the Joliet and Rock Ridge extensions Windows and Unix use. On the other hand, Linux is capable of using any filesystem it supports (which is basically all of them) on CDs. You don't see ext2 CDs, though. That's because Linux users know what a standard is, and why you should follow them...

Akula · Jan 3, 2000

Mouse:Making ISO 9660 bootables isn't exactly a challenge either...I mean, all you have to do is check a box or two in Adaptec's Easy CD Creator and it'll make one for you...

JB · Jan 3, 2000

The point is that tracking corporate trends doesn't say much about anything except IT departments, which are so infamously arrogent that Dilbert cartoons are an office staple." The survey that I quoted is from the August issue of Publish. According to the article the survey was done:"Source: IDG Research Services, May 1999, from a random sample of Publish readers."[This message has been edited by JB (edited January 03, 2000).]

DrPizza · Jan 3, 2000

hccPtooey:Like I said originally, and has been pointed out to you, there's no such thing as a 'PC CD-ROM'. There are 'CD-ROMs' and there are "Fucked up HFS-formatted CD-ROMs'. But no 'PC CD-ROMs'. When someone says that they'll burn me a CD, that necessarily means 'ISO9660', because that's the only *standard* that can be used to burn CDs.If a Makkie burns me CD with HFS on it, they haven't made me a valid CD. Because Toast defaults to HFS, and because the Mac isn't very helpful with ISO9660 CDs, Apple (and Adaptec, tho' Adaptec prolly only did it _because_ the Mac isn't very good with non-HFS discs) have tried to usurp the *standard*.

hhcccchh-PTOOEY · Jan 4, 2000

For PeterB: I put "PC CD ROMS" in quotation marks in my post to show that I was quoting the term that you provided... sorry for the confusion.and Akula's comments about standards: A) as has been pointed out there are options for avoiding HFS if you want too (and I thought all PC advocates were into choice!) and it's a bit hard after Apple supports PC formats for someone to say, "not good enough, you also have to ditch your own formats!" don't you think? B) those formats you mentioned... are they not supported by mac? Where are they used? I don't know much about these things, so any info greatfully absorbed.

DrPizza · Jan 4, 2000

If you read all of what I wrote, the only reason I used the term 'PC CD-ROM' was to say that there's no such thing... that's what bugs me about Apple people -- they think there is, because Apple/they have no notion of what a standard constitutes.And the fact is, PC Exchange doesn't work well enough for most Mac people to manage it. They just sit there lamely, and say that they can't open the file.And I've come across situations where it doesn't seem to help anyway; I can't remember what it was; I think it was trying to put a TIFF file (w/o resource fork) into a Quark document -- in spite of the fact that the Mac could recognize TIFFs as images (suitable for loading into Photoshop), Quark didn't believe anything of the sort, and wouldn't let us select the file; it had to be loaded into Photoshop and then resaved. Dumb.

MasonMcD · Jan 4, 2000

Is it just me, or does anybody else's mac have an extension called ISO9660?

hhcccchh-PTOOEY · Jan 4, 2000

"If you read all of what I wrote, the only reason I used the term 'PC CD-ROM' was to say that there's no such thing..." ...and hence my quotation marks! You know, when you want to make it clear that you are just repeating someone elses words... I was agreeing with you that it is not a real concept by using quotation marks to emphasise the term... as in: Macintoshes can in fact "multi-task" but... or Windows is now "plug and play" and yet..."that's what bugs me about Apple people -- they think there is, because Apple/they have no notion of what a standard constitutes."Apple have often pushed there own standards because they are frequently superior to "cheapest possible option" that is one of the draw backs of the PCs high levels of competition, as when they settled on SCSI for so many years rather than the cheaper IDE, or if USB2 ever gets off the ground Apple will (I hope) stick with the superior firewire technology they developed. As for their users, well if some need to know more you could always tell them... politely, of course."And the fact is, PC Exchange doesn't work well enough for most Mac people to manage it. They just sit there lamely, and say that they can't open the file."PC exchange doesn't work as a file transaltor as such, it just allows the mac to read and format DOS based discs. It generally works invisibly in the background."And I've come across situations where it doesn't seem to help anyway; I can't remember what it was; I think it was trying to put a TIFF file (w/o resource fork) into a Quark document -- in spite of the fact that the Mac could recognize TIFFs as images (suitable for loading into Photoshop), Quark didn't believe anything of the sort, and wouldn't let us select the file; it had to be loaded into Photoshop and then resaved. Dumb."well, thats got nothing to do with PCexchange, that was just letting you read the disc/file... P'shop has an option when you save TIFFs to save in either PC or Mac variants, and if you knew the file was destined for a mac, you could have done just this. Of course, you may not have known that the file was macwards bound, but then "how was I to know" is pretty much the defense that those "brainless mac users" (note quotation marks!) use to justify themselves on this whole cross platform format standards dispute... not that the mac can't do it, but the mac-users, like you with the TIFF, didn't understand what was required. A mere moment to quietly explain is all it takes before you go off getting all outraged.

DrPizza · Jan 4, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>well, thats got nothing to do with PCexchange, that was just letting you read the disc/file...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which is kinda my point. In the past, I've had it suggested to me that Macs _can_ cope with resource-fork-less files just fine, thanks to PCExchange. My point is, it doesn't go anything like far enough. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>P'shop has an option when you save TIFFs to save in either PC or Mac variants, and if you knew the file was destined for a mac, you could have done just this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Irrelevent -- I didn't create the TIFF in Photoshop; the reason that Quark couldn't find it was because of the lack of resource fork. It couldn't identify the file, in spite of it having a .tif extension, and in spite of the file being a TIFF file. From which I surmise that Macs cannot use ISO9660 CDs properly, which is a failing. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Of course, you may not have known that the file was macwards bound,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The file was destined for use on multiple platforms in multiple programs. The problem was the lack of resource fork, not the variant of the file format, because resaving in Photoshop on the Mac -- in the same file variant -- to put a proper resource fork in place was all that needed to be done. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>but then "how was I to know" is pretty much the defense that those "brainless mac users" (note quotation marks!) use to justify themselves on this whole cross platform format standards dispute... not that the mac can't do it, but the mac-users, like you with the TIFF, didn't understand what was required. A mere moment to quietly explain is all it takes before you go off getting all outraged.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But you've missed the problem. It wasn't that the TIFF was a Mac or a PC TIFF (tho' of course, the PC doesn't seem to have any problem with either...), it was that it was a Mac TIFF without a resource fork because it had been transported on a standard CD-R.

a blindmouse · Jan 4, 2000

Okay, let's set one thing straight. Try and open a TIFF file in ResEdit. Or a text file (almost any kind). Or any quicktime movie file that has been made "cross-platform". You'll notice something very quickly: NONE of these files have resource forks. But you can double-click them perfectly, and everything is cool. Most documents (not applications) don't have resource forks: Mac file type/creator codes are separate pieces of meta info. Don't get them confused. That's why you *can* in fact stick in any ISO CD and double click .tiff's and see them in all their glory (if you can't, all you have to do is drag the file's icon to the application you want to view it in, and voila, c'est un tiff).In fact, you can do that with a file that does have that meta info - if I want to open my photoshop PSD in QuickTime's image viewer (for example), i just drag the file to the app's icon. It opens.HFS/ISO hybrids are mostly needed for applications to function - like installers, or director projectors, or whatever. And they can still share files between the two "partitions" - I do this all the time. It's easy, and cross platform. Apple *does* have full support for ISO (and UDF, etc.)

a blindmouse · Jan 4, 2000

P.S. - All that PC Exchange does is "give" these meta tags for creator & type to files on non-HFS partitions based on info you provide. You have to tell PC Exchange what apps to use for which kinds of files - that may be why ppl have had problems.

resteves · Jan 5, 2000

peterB <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But you've missed the problem. It wasn't that the TIFF was a Mac or a PC TIFF (tho' of course, the PC doesn't seem to have any problem with either...), it was that it was a Mac TIFF without a resource fork because it had been transported on a standard CD-R. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I believe you are mistaken. Gifs, jpgs, etc are the same on the Mac and PC. Tiffs, however are in fact different. I don't remember why, or who changed what. But in the case of Tiffs, there are mac tiffs and pc tiffs.And as was stated, Mac files don't all have (nor need) resource forks. I can get files (jpg's, mp3, etc.) from PC's into the Mac without a problem.

Famous Mac user complains about stability

Ars Praefectus

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Praefectus

Ars Legatus Legionis

Well-known member

Smack-Fu Master, in training

Seniorius Lurkius

Seniorius Lurkius

Ars Praefectus

Well-known member

Ars Centurion

Ars Praefectus

Well-known member

Ars Praefectus

Well-known member

Seniorius Lurkius

Well-known member

Ars Tribunus Militum

Seniorius Lurkius

Well-known member

Ars Centurion

Ars Centurion

Ars Tribunus Militum

nproxy.org