Talk:.nfo

Not an easy solution

Many tools in the "Platform independent" are not viewers but converters. This is way too complex for this page. Soon they will start to add all kind of unrelated tools. Also many "programs" are not quite programs but pieces of PHP code. A regular user who barely knows what a NFO file is will not be able to install his PHP server to run that script. I propose this section for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedra (talk • contribs) 11:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Promotional language

Please don't use words like "popular" and "tip" to promote your software. Let other to decide if your software is popular, not yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedra (talk • contribs) 11:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Encoding

"Instead of using the old code page 437 extended ASCII characters, modern ASCII art uses the current de-facto web standard ISO-8859-1/ISO-8859-15 or Unicode UTF-8 characters." Never seen that in my wanders. Infact anything outside CP437 has a tendecny to be a crap NFO, including trademark and register symbols. You can convert nfo to unicode correct but I haven't seen any of those in pre'd stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.89.238 (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro is wrong

"The purpose of an NFO file is similar to that of the FILE ID.DIZ which can be found in many ZIP archives today and during the era of the BBS." Umm, no it's not. The DIZ file is just a descriptor that gives the name of the archive, and file count. An NFO provides release notes. 0Day groups have been packing NFOs and DIZs together for years, because they serve a completely different purpose. 153.111.226.201 00:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct sir! — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 12:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I second that, whoever wrote the stuff about a new defacto standard is wrong. Only a handful of groups do this, most likely due to ignorance. 158.39.124.101 (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

NFO Tools

Can another editor come by and take a look at the edit dispute between me and anon over the NFO tools? Im afraid of running over 3rr. Copysan 06:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the anon. I think links to programs that work with NFO files is fine. As I noted back in July, a collection of links to sites encouraging the breaking of copyright is something that we can just do without. But then you just reverted me with no discussions here. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 12:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How do NFO files encourage violating copyright? In that case, we should remove links on the page for isonews and/or nforce and the link to the "first" nfo file. Plus I was trying to avoid advertising by linking to the defacto list of tools, which includes all the tools already listed and more. Copysan 00:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Now comes the link spam. THis is what we reap for allowing some nfo tools. Now everybdoy feels their iteration of nfo viewers is improtant. Copysan 21:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The best NFO editor is? (IMHO) Dos Navigator and DosBox.. ctrl+p, shift+arrows, ctrl+ins, shift+ins, without end of lines.. Enjoy. :) BTW. NfoViewer, QInfo (another Linux stuff). NoName 20:59, 21 Aug 2009 (CET/CEST)

Folio Infobase

What are "Folio Infobase" files and how do I read them? Bastie 21:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

DAMN-NFO link

For some reason, Phobie (talk · contribs) and misc anon IPs (the latest being 84.176.241.182 (talk · contribs) with the same message that Phobie used previously), continue to change the link to a .biz domain. .biz domains are notoriously spam and ad heavy. The link to softpedia is a more well-known internet resource with a known good reputation (and less likely to hit corporate firewalls). I am not the only one, Copysan (talk · contribs) seems to have implicitly agreed when they did the same revert. So, the people pushing .biz, please feel free to participate in this discussion. Continuously changing article text without discussion is considered vandalism, so please give us a reason softpedia is not good enough. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 19:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I hereby explicitly agree. Copysan 20:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam

Seems the NFO viewers links is getting spammy again... Copysan 21:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Links

I just want to say I think some useful links were removed in this edit and I plan to add some when I have time to sort out the good ones from the non-noteworthy. While I agree there were lot of unneeded links, some of them seem to be very appropriate. Cheers SF007 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)