._file ._Trashes ._pissedOff

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
Why does the Mac put these files on my w2k machine? Whenever I access a folder it puts this crap in there, when I copy files I get the file and a ._file to go with it.



If I copy 100 files, I get 200 things in my folder. Yeah, I can go erase the 100 ._files but, it's pissing me off.



Can I avoid this in anyway?
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 25
    No, you can't turn off the dot files.



    To answer your "why?" question, though, the '._' files are the resource forks to the files you moved over. The same happens if you use a UFS-formatted drive with OS X. Remember: HFS+ uses data and resource forks whereas files on NTFS, FAT32, and UFS are not forked. Mac OS X moves the resource fork of a file into a '._' file so the file will properly survive the transfer across drives of different formats. When you copy from the other drive back to an HFS+ drive, Mac OS X recombines the two files into the single dual-forked file.



    By deleting the '._' files, you are actually potentially destroying data from those files. QuickTime movies, for example, that aren't flattened will not play if you strip them of the resource fork. Any Classic application will be permanently damaged and refuse to launch if the resource fork is stripped.



    Mac OS X also creates .DS_Store files in each folder to store pseduometadata for that folder -- things like icon position, view type, and window position.



    [ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
  • Reply 2 of 25
    [quote]Originally posted by starfleetX:

    <strong>No, you can't turn off the dot files.



    To answer your "why?" question, though, the '._' files are the resource forks to the files you moved over. The same happens if you use a UFS-formatted drive with OS X. Remember: HFS+ uses data and resource forks whereas files on NTFS, FAT32, and UFS are not forked. Mac OS X moves the resource fork of a file into a '._' file so the file will properly survive the transfer across drives of different formats. When you copy from the other drive back to an HFS+ drive, Mac OS X recombines the two files into the single dual-forked file.



    [ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    This is horrible, terrible news. I use Windows to program and Macs for art. i can't have two copies of every art file. I have hundreds of files per project. I can't live with it. I thought Macs finally did away with these damn resource files and meta data and all that crap.



    *** If I re-format my HFS+ drives as UFS will this solve the problem? Do I need HFS for anything? An OS9 partition maybe and that's it? If I can't kill these ._files, that may be the end of Macs in my art shop.



    Does anybody use Macs to do work, or just view porn? I just started using OSX to replace OS9, and so far, between SMB being near worthless, the interface being visually fat and slow, the finder refusing to do simple things like refresh folder views with current data, and now I have these ._duplicate files polluting my servers.



    This is just the first week or so. What else am I going to find out the hard way?







    [ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: sodamnregistered ]</p>
  • Reply 3 of 25
    You know, I was going to post a serious response until I read this:

    [quote]Does anybody use Macs to do work, or just view porn?<hr></blockquote> Right. That's an excellent tactic to use when asking for help.
  • Reply 4 of 25
    [quote]Originally posted by starfleetX:

    <strong>You know, I was going to post a serious response until I read this:

    Right. That's an excellent tactic to use when asking for help.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I just mean, it seems like people would have been freaked out by these problems already. I waited until 10.1.3 to start using OSX. I kinda thought I could transfer files by now.



    My 11Gb file transfer has gone from 2 to 3 to 4 hours and now I don't know if the file will even transfer by sun-up and I still have to compress it.



    I admit I'm a little frustrated by some of the problems OSX is giving me, but if switching to UFS "solve" one of my complaints, great.



    If you want to be a prissy liitle infohoarding brat about it, go stroke it - pornstar.
  • Reply 5 of 25
    lundylundy Posts: 4,466member
    [quote]Originally posted by sodamnregistered:

    I use Windows to program and Macs for art.



    that may be the end of Macs in my art shop.



    Does anybody use Macs to do work, or just view porn? Inow I have these ._duplicate files polluting my servers.



    <hr></blockquote>



    ***Yawn***



    Send me the dualies. I know how to use 'em.
  • Reply 6 of 25
    what problems are you having with smb?
  • Reply 7 of 25
    [quote]Originally posted by THE FLOOR:

    <strong>what problems are you having with smb?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Extremely slow for copying large files.



    1MB/sec instead of 5-7MB/sec



    Watching it, it stutters and stalls and gets going again. It's just not fast at all for large files. My other thread is on this very problem.
  • Reply 8 of 25
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    sdr: The SMB issue is known, and independent of the ._ file issue...



    The ._ files are to get around a really braindead limitation of the filesystems used on Windows. Sorry, but it's the reality of the situation. :/



    The Mac has traditionally had a strong support for metadata, and despite some stuttering currently getting it implemented in a more network and platform agnostic way, it's here to stay. More and more OSs are starting to get the clue, BTW, so if you hate metadata, you may as well bail out of computers all together at this point, or stick with Win98 indefinitely.



    On the Mac, there were two forks to every file: data, and resources. (Rather like the forks that are just now making their way into NTFS... Hey, MS finally saw the light, 15 years later...) FAT32, et al, can't support this, so when moving a file to this system, they have to create two files, one for data, one for resources. The resource fork is given a ._ prefix to hide it from normal view when seen from the Mac. (All files prefixed with a period are invisible by default.) The Finder knows what to do with the extra file though, and you should never see it when you are on the Mac.



    When you're on the Windows machine, however, you'll see them. Just... ignore them. It's really not a big deal. Or, you could convince MS to support multi-forked file systems correctly and join the rest of the world. You *don't* have two copies of every file, BTW, you have the data file, and what is generally a very small resource file. There is no waste, the two combined take up the same amount of room as they do on the Mac.



    The only situation I can see you getting into that would actually cause problems is if the Mac app and the Windows app expect different things from the file... Many graphics apps on the Mac have an option for saving as flat files, no resource fork, for precisely this sort of cross platform work.



    What kind of files are you moving, and what apps are you using to create them?



    (BTW, it's generally considered impolite to insult the group you're trying to get help from... you twit. )



    [ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>
  • Reply 9 of 25
    slosiflslosifl Posts: 3member
    Actually, NTFS supports multiple file streams for exactly this purpose. When used as a file server for Mac (apparently &lt; X) files, the resource fork is maintained when copied to or from an NTFS based server. For example, you can copy a Classic app to a WinNT/2k/XP server (running Services for Macintosh) over the network, and actually run it off the server. The resource fork is still intact in the named stream ":AFP_Resource".



    BTW, Kickaha, "forks" are not just now making their way into NTFS. Multiple file streams have been supported for some time now.



    [ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: SLOSifl ]</p>
  • Reply 10 of 25
    aslanaslan Posts: 97member
    [quote]Does anybody use Macs to do work, or just view porn?<hr></blockquote>



    Attempt to be cute? Horrible failure at said attempt? YOU DECIDE!



    Really now, in addition to being rather inappropriate to insult the people you are relying upon for help, do you think it is rather silly to get so upset because you use a PC?



    That certain isn't our fault, now is it?



    Seriously though, why are you using WINDOWS to program. Isn't that akin to shooting oneself in the foot?



    Not sure what you are "programming", but I find development on PCs a nightmare compared to software development on OS X.... Ah well... just my 2¢...
  • Reply 11 of 25
    slosiflslosifl Posts: 3member
    [quote]Originally posted by Aslan:

    <strong>

    Not sure what you are "programming", but I find development on PCs a nightmare compared to software development on OS X.... Ah well... just my 2¢...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Obviously you've never seen the wonder of Visual Studio.NET.



    <a href="http://www.nerdrage.net/pub/vsnet.jpg"; target="_blank"></a>
  • Reply 12 of 25
    Moan, moan, moan-- I tell ya.



    I got decent speed with plain SMB, but right now I'm using DAVE. I can copy a 600MB file in a little over 5 minutes on a 10/100Mb network. However, copying 2-3 GB took forever (3hours+) due to the large number of files. However, I didn't seem to have the same problem copying these same files Mac-to-Mac.



    I guess mileages vary.
  • Reply 13 of 25
    [quote]Originally posted by Aslan:

    <strong>

    Seriously though, why are you using WINDOWS to program. Isn't that akin to shooting oneself in the foot?



    Not sure what you are "programming", but I find development on PCs a nightmare compared to software development on OS X.... Ah well... just my 2¢...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Your reply is completely off-topic. Please go back and delete it or add something useful.



    I program, script, actually, Director for Fortune500 clients who don't even think Apple is still in business. Since my end product goes to Windows users, I use Director for Windows, however, I'm noticing that "cross-platform" development is still rough, and when I copy a folder full of .png files, I get the file and a ._file to go with it. ie twice as many files, and this gets into the hundreds very quickly. Makes asset management that much harder.



    So when I go into the art folder on my w2k box, I have twice as many files to sort through to find the actual art file. This is tedious, and was not a problem before, under OS9.



    It's also going to make my CD-ROMs messy underneath, since my assets folders will be full of the meta data yuck. I have w2k machines, big bad Macs (duals with =&gt;1GB ram) and Linux servers, I aim to use the best computer for the job.



    I find your Mac fananatic anti-windows stance to be closed minded. Yeah, M$ sucks as bad as any entity can suck, but I did not create this world, I just try to deal with it as presented to me.



    Comprende?
  • Reply 14 of 25
    soopadrivesoopadrive Posts: 182member
    If you're having such difficulties with transferring your files from your peecee to your Macs running OS X, then maybe you should reboot them into OS 9, or did they not come with 9? There's no way of avoiding the ._ files, at least not that I know of. I deal with that stuff all the time at my school. You just need to be patient, and I know that's not a word PC users are familiar to. Besides transferring files to Windows, OS X is a very nice OS. Who knows, maybe Apple will release an update that will change the whole file transfer problem, but for now, you'll just have to tough it out and be a man about it.

    Anyway, these people who are trying to help you are right. The best advice I can give to you is if you want help, don't piss them off with remarks such as those you made above, it really turns them off and only leads to fighting.

    Comprende?
  • Reply 15 of 25
    serranoserrano Posts: 1,806member
    [quote]Originally posted by sodamnregistered:

    <strong>



    Your reply is completely off-topic. Please go back and delete it or add something useful.



    I find your Mac fananatic anti-windows stance to be closed minded. Yeah, M$ sucks as bad as any entity can suck, but I did not create this world, I just try to deal with it as presented to me.



    Comprende?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    what a ****head.



    and to think all this shit could have been avoided if you'd been civil in your posts.
  • Reply 16 of 25
    graphitemangraphiteman Posts: 428member
    If you want to avoid the ._ files, tell your graphics program to save the files without resource forks. Most can do that.



    BTW, I would not format your disk as UFS as 99% of programs will *not* run on it because they use the Resource Fork to store data.



    Oh, and why don't you just use List view in Windoze and sort by name? All of the ._ files should float at the top of the view, and the data files at the bottom, seperated.
  • Reply 17 of 25
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    [quote]Originally posted by SLOSifl:

    <strong>

    BTW, Kickaha, "forks" are not just now making their way into NTFS. Multiple file streams have been supported for some time now.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    True, but have they ever been *used*? Not that I can think of, until recently (being the last couple of years). An unused technology may as well not be there, you know? :/ I misspoke. I should have said that forks were only now becoming a somewhat seen occurrance on the Wintel side.



    sdr... Um... some of us here *are* trying to help you out. As I was trying to point out earlier, and graphiteman explicitly said, have your Mac apps save the files without resource forks. Done.



    (And I really have to wonder why the ._ files are such a pain to work around... as pointed out, the list view is one solution. As for burning to CD, can't you set up a list of 'ignore' files, and just state '._*', which would skip all those?)



    This isn't a huge problem, there are workarounds on either side, which are simple.



    Is it optimal? Nope. You never actually stated what filesystem the Win2K setup has under it, but if it's FAT32, this is as good as it's going to get, because the Mac has to work around the limitations of the filesystem. If it's NTFS, then it *should* be using the forks natively, and I'd consider it a bug in the MacOS X Finder, which should be reported to Apple.



    And, sorry, but I have to add:



    [quote]

    I program, script, actually, Director for Fortune500 clients who don't even think Apple is still in business<hr></blockquote>



    So basically you're saying you work for people with little to no touch with reality. Sounds like upper management, alright.



    [ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>
  • Reply 18 of 25
    rogue27rogue27 Posts: 607member
    Why does the number of files matter to you? They don't take up any more space on your disk, so it shouldn't really be a problem. Or you can always go into the command line for a moment and type del ._*
  • Reply 19 of 25
    mac gurumac guru Posts: 367member
    You have been such a nuisance since you arrived here. You post requests for help and then bitch out the people helping you.. SMART.



    [quote] Does anybody use Macs to do work <hr></blockquote>

    Ummm yes, I do. I use Mac OS X 10.1.4 as my only OS and I am a Graphic Designer. I have lots of work I do all day and without ONE complaint. My OS doesn't crash or hang or anything, it's like a dream come true.



    [quote] What else am I going to find out the hard way? <hr></blockquote>

    That disrespect for the people you ask for help gets you no where? Just my guess.



    [quote] If you want to be a prissy liitle infohoarding brat about it, go stroke it - pornstar. <hr></blockquote>



    This is exactly what I mean... your post was really nice and well put and then you stand up and shout "I'm an immature 5 year old that doesn't know how to get along with others" GROW UP.



    Oh and booting into OS 9 won't totally solve your dilema. In OS 9 &gt; PC transfers you get lots of DesktopDB, etc. files. It's just a reality you have to live with. Don't like it? Go cry to someone who gives a crap and stop insulting us.



    Mac Guru



    [ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: Mac Guru ]</p>
  • Reply 20 of 25
    pevepeve Posts: 518member
    this guy deserves a peecee.



    i'm a (web)design, webpublishing guy. and i'm working in a mixed network with nt- and sun-servers, a bunch of printers since macos x 10.1.

    no problems!
Sign In or Register to comment.