Although I always thought the dot-three naming convention was a little over simplistic, since only one application could control any one file type.
File extensions were around *long* before Bill Gates was shaving. They came into existence with UNIX.Why exactly do you think I wouldn't know that? That's hardly ground breaking news. I'm not blaming Bill Gates for anything or trying to start a platform war just stating my opinion of the dot-three naming convention.
And to be fair on Mac you generally have only one app that handles one filetype as well, but it's based in creator/type strings attached to the program rather than file extensions.Mostly you see it with text files. Most read me files default to Simple Text because a Mac is guaranteed to have it. Then you'll have text files associated with your actual text editor-since Simple Text probably isn't your real app of choice for writing anything over five lines. Then you can have more specialized text files like html files linked to a text editor and others linked to a browser because your a web designer and that's more convenient, or whatever your situation may be.
One of the most glaring problems I've found when I worked on an NT station was dealing with video files. I had Quicktime, Media Player, and Real Player all installed and they all seemed to be constantly fighting over which documents they controlled. There was probably a way to avoid that, but I couldn't find it. It drove me quite mad.
It's a flavor of BSD UNIX. I'm not sure how "close" to Be they could have got it; starting with a stable open 'nix release really was a better decision, I think, rather than trying to reverse engineer someone else's software entirely.I don't think anyone was recommending reverse engineering--just listing Be as a precedent for a robust file system. Apple had an opportunity in creating an OS from the ground up (albeit Frankenstein style with BSD, NexT, and Rhapsody) to create a modern powerful file system. It was kind of a disappointment that they elected to just stick with the two existing methods and not adding anything truly innovative like Be apparently did. Again I'm happy with the current system, and if creating a new system would have delayed OS X any longer it's definitely better that they didn't--I'm just saying it's been done and it would have been a nice addition.
I'm still wondering when there'll be a Quartz/Aqua port to Intel. Heh heh.Rumor has it that it exists--code named Marklar. It will probably never see daylight though. There was a program (skin) for Windows that made XP look like Aqua, but they got the old cease and desist from Apple legal.
But that doesn't even equal their mark-up on the RAM each time they sell a Power Mac.Umm, doesn't apple make most of its money off of the hardware, which allows
it to create great software for a low price (iTunes, iPhoto, etc)? They
would be shooting themselves in the foot?
Maybe. They also make $130 for every new copy of OSX they sell.
later,
kyle
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
