[missing-sync-pocketpc-talk] File transfer problems

[Olivier Scherler]

> anyways all these cards are viewed on the standard PPC2002 using File
> Explorer with "show hidden files" selected.  Also vanilla 98SE and XP
> Home does not display these files on FAT16 formatted cards or FAT32
> drives.

OK.

> Surely a PC would show ._xyx files on Windows.

Right. Now I remember hearing that they do.

> Also, I have never heard of other cross-platform users
> (Macwindows.com) having to deal with every single file having a ghost
> duplicate file on their MS-DOS (FAT 32) drive.

I have, a colleague who has an USB memory disk, see below.

> Nor ever on CD's burned on a Mac for ISO9660 or Toast's Dual format.

I don't know how Toast handles resource forks. I'll make a test once.

> Sooo, either I'm out of my mind or there is faulty thinking and
> conclusions that these files are normal, to be accepted as some part
> of cross-platform computing, and will have to be individually erased.
> 
> It certainly seems to me that my news is good news, unless overly
> complicated somehow ranks higher here.

I'd say "that these files are normal, to be accepted as some part
of cross-platform computing" and yes, it's "overly complicated somehow" :-)

I made a quick test. I created a DOS disk image using Disk Copy and tried to
copy files to it with the 10.2.6 Finder. Then I listed the files using the
Terminal, which shows all files (using ls -al).

- If I copy a file without a resource fork, e.g. a TextEdit file or an MP3 from
iTunes, I get no ._ file.
- If I copy a file with a resource fork, e.g. a BBEdit file with a saved state,
a Classic application, a screen shot taken with Command-Shift-3 or a Mac Word
document, I get a ._ file.

It looks like you only copied files without resources. I admit files with
resources are less common than in the days of OS 9. I ahd to think twice to find
some for my tests.

A colleague bought an USB memory drive. To be able to share files with PC users,
he formatted it as DOS. On PCs, Word files show the duplicate ._xyz. They can
safely be ignored as Word Windows doesn't need them, but it's annoying to see
them.

In this case, we don't want the Mac to put this file. But if we copy a Classic
application (or another Mac specific file that needs its resource fork) to give
to another Mac user, ignoring the resource fork would render the application (or
the file) useless. It's a guess the OS cannot easily make.

By the way, I have yet to understand why Word files have a resource fork, as
zapping it doesn't seem to have any effect.

Olivier