3 ms·
It's been a long time, but I don't think that's exactly true. The resource fork simply became optional, assisted by later versions of MacOS, which let applicati
by LeoPanthera 3y ago
It's been a long time, but I don't think that's exactly true. The resource fork simply became optional, assisted by later versions of MacOS, which let applications open files which didn't have one.
- amatecha 3y agoAhh hmm OK, I'll have to check into this some time. I feel like the filesize would stay the same (suggesting no loss of data), but it's totally possible I'm misremembering considering how long it has been, hahah :)
- LeoPanthera 3y agoIt's quite plausible that the "file size" simply didn't include the resource fork.