UFS or HFS+
August 9, 2002 12:47PM
edited January 2014
Which is faster, more relieble and better for Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar, or for that sake for any 10.X OS?
Reply 1 of 5
August 9, 2002 1:22PM
i suggest hfs+. when i got osx, i reformatted. and after noticing the option for UFS, i reformatted again (this time, with UFS). i installed, but shit happened. my computer was basically fubar'd. i called apple support and they said that i should reformat to hfs+. i asked why they had the option for ufs then, he said its there only for *nix geeks. so i strongly suggest hfs+.
Reply 2 of 5
August 9, 2002 1:31PM
There are MANY reasons for this. See my posts in this thread for details.
; target="_blank">UFS and Jaguar</a>
Reply 3 of 5
August 9, 2002 2:47PM
Is UFS better for Mac OS X Server than HFS+. If not what is UFS for? Why is it an formating option?
Reply 4 of 5
August 9, 2002 2:57PM
The short and simple answer is that UFS is a case sensitive file system, and HFS+ is not. This is the reason applications break on UFS file systems - In an application package, there is an entire hierarchy of files that are resources for that application. However, when developers link to those resources, they sometimes don't keep the links in the same case as the actual flie names, and hence it breaks under UFS.
Personally, I would love to have a case sensitive file system... unfortunately is just isn't feasible
Reply 5 of 5
August 9, 2002 4:38PM
UFS is the file system used for most other unix HDs. HFS+ is the formatting used for the Mac OS. As others have said, the UFS is case sensative. UFS isn't recommended much for normal users because with UFS, IIRC you can't use Classic or OS 9 with it.