Can anyone give me a reason why I shouldn't run Jaguar on UFS? I have OS 9 on another hard drive. Would there be any application problems, or other worries?
<strong>So what is the usefulness of the UNIX File System on a UNIX operating system like OS X?</strong><hr></blockquote>Read the kbase article I linked to.
Unless you have a specific reason to use UFS, you should use the Mac OS Extended format since it provides a more familiar experience to Macintosh users.
Is that not clear enough?
[quote]<strong>Why would we use it at all with all these problems?</strong><hr></blockquote>As CubeDude said, you don't have to use it and you probably shouldn't use it. The default option for formatting a drive is HFS+, not UFS. Why? Because HFS+ is the optimal format. Simple as that. Why does it offer the option to use UFS then? Well, the only thing I can think of is exactly what Apple said:
UFS may be preferable for developing UNIX-based applications within Mac OS X.
The only people I could imagine using UFS would be developers and/or hard-core Unix gurus.
I tried UFS a few months ago, and switched back to HFS+ in days. If you think OSX needs a speed boost, UFS is not for you. Plus, some Carbon apps that I needed didn't work.
Comments
- Classic won't work.
- Many Carbon apps break.
- Files with resource forks may break.
- UFS has different case sensitivity rules.
- Filesystem access is reportedly much slower. (again, I don't know if this is true with 10.2)
Why would you want to use UFS? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">- AirPort does not function.
- You can't customize a hard disk volume name.
- Type/Creator codes break.
- UFS volumes do not appear in OS9.
<a href="http://kbase.info.apple.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/kbase.woa/24/wa/query?type=id&val=KC.25316"; target="_blank">http://kbase.info.apple.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/kbase.woa/24/wa/query?type=id&val=KC.25316</a>;Is that enough incentive to not use UFS?
<strong>So what is the usefulness of the UNIX File System on a UNIX operating system like OS X?</strong><hr></blockquote>Read the kbase article I linked to.
Unless you have a specific reason to use UFS, you should use the Mac OS Extended format since it provides a more familiar experience to Macintosh users.
Is that not clear enough?
[quote]<strong>Why would we use it at all with all these problems?</strong><hr></blockquote>As CubeDude said, you don't have to use it and you probably shouldn't use it. The default option for formatting a drive is HFS+, not UFS. Why? Because HFS+ is the optimal format. Simple as that. Why does it offer the option to use UFS then? Well, the only thing I can think of is exactly what Apple said:
UFS may be preferable for developing UNIX-based applications within Mac OS X.
The only people I could imagine using UFS would be developers and/or hard-core Unix gurus.