MacBidouille Rumors about new Panther Filesystem
OSX to have a similiar FS to BeFS
Translation by Google.
So, let us say Apple does update the FS. Realistically how long would it take for this FS to overtake UFS or HFS+. I'm pretty sure there would be some issues with some applications right? From a programming standpoint would huge changes be required?
Quote:
some information on Panther: - It will bring the support of a new format, very similar to the Be OS BSF. This format is supposed to become the substitute of HFS+. It allows in particular a journalizing much simpler. - APPLE still terribly progressed to the optimization of its OS. It is likely y to have a difference in performances between 10.3 and 10.2 as significant as that which separated 10.1 from 10.2. They would have finally done the housework in the code of Next by optimizing it. In any event one will need large innovations in this OS to encourage the customers to buy it. Highly the WWDC!
some information on Panther: - It will bring the support of a new format, very similar to the Be OS BSF. This format is supposed to become the substitute of HFS+. It allows in particular a journalizing much simpler. - APPLE still terribly progressed to the optimization of its OS. It is likely y to have a difference in performances between 10.3 and 10.2 as significant as that which separated 10.1 from 10.2. They would have finally done the housework in the code of Next by optimizing it. In any event one will need large innovations in this OS to encourage the customers to buy it. Highly the WWDC!
Translation by Google.
So, let us say Apple does update the FS. Realistically how long would it take for this FS to overtake UFS or HFS+. I'm pretty sure there would be some issues with some applications right? From a programming standpoint would huge changes be required?
Comments
Originally posted by hmurchison
OSX to have a similiar FS to BeFS
Translation by Google.
So, let us say Apple does update the FS. Realistically how long would it take for this FS to overtake UFS or HFS+. I'm pretty sure there would be some issues with some applications right? From a programming standpoint would huge changes be required?
I would think any new FS would be completely backward compatible with current applications.
I also don't think the new FS would have any trouble 'overtaking' UFS. I doubt even Apple's OS X based servers use UFS.
I expect speed will be a central feature.
I can't wait to re-format!
One of the twisted ironies of being a Linux user is that I can run Mac OS atop linux using MOL... and get way faster disk access!
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
Dude! This is RAD news!!! HFS+ sucks, plain and simple. It is the Mac OS 8.0 of file systems. Times have changed. OSX's Unix underpinnings deserve a FAST, MODERN FS.
I expect speed will be a central feature.
I can't wait to re-format!
One of the twisted ironies of being a Linux user is that I can run Mac OS atop linux using MOL... and get way faster disk access!
It would be nice if we did not have to reformat but I know it is unbeatable.
I never thought Apple could pull the whole UNIX thing off without having to reformat the drive when going from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X but they shocked the heck out of me...heck even Classic is an amazing work of backwards engineering!
Originally posted by Jared
It would be nice if we did not have to reformat but I know it is unbeatable.
Weren't there utilities that allowed you to move from HFS to HFS+ without losing your data though? You know, that way you could reformat to the new FS without "reformatting," i.e. no data loss... maybe Apple could do something similar?
Another question, how will this affect Classic?
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
Dude! This is RAD news!!! HFS+ sucks, plain and simple. It is the Mac OS 8.0 of file systems. Times have changed. OSX's Unix underpinnings deserve a FAST, MODERN FS.
I expect speed will be a central feature.
I can't wait to re-format!
One of the twisted ironies of being a Linux user is that I can run Mac OS atop linux using MOL... and get way faster disk access!
Did I hear re-FORMAT??? me too - ME TOO
Seriously, I'll hope there will be some sort of dynamic update feature. I have well over 200 gigs of data that I'll have to shuffle around if there isn't.
Originally posted by Ra
Weren't there utilities that allowed you to move from HFS to HFS+ without losing your data though? You know, that way you could reformat to the new FS without "reformatting," i.e. no data loss... maybe Apple could do something similar?
Another question, how will this affect Classic?
They'll find a way to make Classic work I'm sure. Don't think it will be a problem.
Originally posted by Ra
Another question, how will this affect Classic?
Classic won't work on UFS and that means it accesses HFS directly. So unless a new FS is backward-compatible Classic won't work. Good riddance, I should say! If I have to choose between Classic and a brand-new fast file system with metadata, journaling and some kind of advanced self-protection, I will trash Classic in a minute and drink myself mad for all the nostalgic pain Classic matters.
If I am right, good-citizen applications don't call low-level HFS API and should not even worry about what FS it is. So, apart from disk-repairing utilities all else should work.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I'm pretty sure there would be some issues with some applications right? From a programming standpoint would huge changes be required?
Nope. Applications don't care about the filesystem. It's the OS's job to handle this. Exceptions: DiskUtilities like Norton are affected of course.
On linux you can choose between half a dozen of filesystems but the applications stay the same.
cheers
zero
Originally posted by costique
Classic won't work on UFS and that means it accesses HFS directly. So unless a new FS is backward-compatible Classic won't work. Good riddance, I should say! If I have to choose between Classic and a brand-new fast file system with metadata, journaling and some kind of advanced self-protection, I will trash Classic in a minute and drink myself mad for all the nostalgic pain Classic matters.
If I am right, good-citizen applications don't call low-level HFS API and should not even worry about what FS it is. So, apart from disk-repairing utilities all else should work.
If you had to choose, what would it be?
#1: HFS+(+) + Classic
#2: New superspiffy file system (FSXtreme) wo Classic
Stupid q?? 8)
Originally posted by ZO
what about a new FS that doesnt allow Classic, but then have Classic in a Disk Image of somekind that is HFS+ formatted? Like a VirtualPC image that auto grows or shrinks according to need.
Possible. But if your data is stored on a "New FS" Disk/Partition classic needs an extension to read "New FS". You can't even access "UFS" data from classic/native OS9 at the moment (maybe I'm wrong. Never tried).
Anyway, I don't use classic so I don't give a ****. Give me a faster FileSystem with journaling... ByeBye HFS+.
Originally posted by ZO
what about a new FS that doesnt allow Classic, but then have Classic in a Disk Image of somekind that is HFS+ formatted? Like a VirtualPC image that auto grows or shrinks according to need.
If they implemented this system, could classic and classic programs access files outside of the virtual disk, or do they all have to be on the virtual disk?
(Update)
To Zero:
If you had an extension to classic that would allow it to read data, why couldn't you make it like an interpreter between the file-systems? Classic sees the new file-system trough the interpreter, and think it's talking to the good old HFS. That way both programs and data could reside on the new file system wo classic ever knowing.
Originally posted by Jared
It would be nice if we did not have to reformat but I know it is unbeatable.
Yes...reformatting is a pain in the butt. Especially for those that don't have the equipment to back up their HD (ie, no CD-burners, no removable media, no external HDs.)...but it's actually good to reformat once in a while.
I rarely format my drive, but a new OS filesystem or even just a new OS upgrade is a good excuse to start fresh. Plus you never know what will await if you simply upgrade over an older OS. Incompatibility problems with 3rd party apps, kexts, etc...
If rumors are true...10.3 with a new Be-like FS (probably written from scratch by that Dominic guy), and all the other rumored goodies and apps, will be the mother of all upgrades...almost as big as the changes from OS 9 to OS X.
Originally posted by NETROMac
If you had to choose, what would it be?
#1: HFS+(+) + Classic
#2: New superspiffy file system (FSXtreme) wo Classic
Stupid q?? 8)
I'd choose #2 without hesitation because I use the file system every minute (constantly), while I launch Classic once a month at best.
Originally posted by NETROMac
If you had an extension to classic that would allow it to read data, why couldn't you make it like an interpreter between the file-systems? Classic sees the new file-system trough the interpreter, and think it's talking to the good old HFS.
Technically possible. I just don't think His Steveness changed his mind about burying Classic. It may be so that they will offer two alternatives: format or not format. The first is BFS+ without Classic for those whose hands aren't tied, the latter is HFS+ & Classic.
[Edit] Is networking still possible between old and new systems if an older system doesn't know about a newer one?
Originally posted by costique
[Edit] Is networking still possible between old and new systems if an older system doesn't know about a newer one?
I'm not sure, but I don't think the type of file system you are using would stop other machines from connecting to you on a network. Did I understand your question right there costique?
Originally posted by costique
Yes. I am not a networking expert, but there are network protocols and there are file systems. When one computer asks another for file sharing action (list files, open/read/write/close file and others), does it send these commands directly to that other computer or is file sharing a part of high-level network protocols (like tell computer B to read the file C for me and send me the data)? I used to think the latter way.
I'm almost certain it works that way, and therefore it doesn't matter what file system you're on as long as the computers use the same network protocols.
I hope it's true. It may be key to speeding up some applications. And of course improving the User Experience.