MacBidouille Rumors about new Panther Filesystem

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 94
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kim kap sol

    One thing is for sure if Apple is working on a new Be-like database filesystem: we're getting a new Finder to take advantage of the new filesystem's capabilities...hopefully rewritten from scratch with speed in mind (and if rewritten from scratch, then Apple would definitely choose Cocoa for their rewrite.)



    I'd be surprised if there weren't at least a major overhaul to Finder in Panther. It has to be some of the most criticized parts of osX. Apple has probably been working on Finder's replacement for some time, and the fruit of their work will hopefully be unveiled at the WWDC.
  • Reply 42 of 94
    wmfwmf Posts: 1,164member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dfiler

    When a file is changed, the previous data is untouched until the new data has been created. When the write is finished, the filesystem just points to the new data instead of the old. This reuslts in a MUCH smaller window of opportunity for data corruption. (This is the way that Apple has impletended HFS+'s journaling right?)



    This is not how journaling works. When a file is modified, the old blocks are overwritten with the new contents.
  • Reply 43 of 94
    For me it will be one of the best things that can append now for OS X.

    And with a sort of FS like that, perhaps we will get rid of these stupids .DS_Store (I know that we need them for the moment for the icon positions etc... but that a dirty way I think...) whose are annoying while sharing files with linux or wintel machines... They're don't care about that files...
  • Reply 44 of 94
    screedscreed Posts: 1,077member
    From that osnews link:

    Quote:

    The address space in BFS is 64-bit, meaning that the theoretical maximum file size on a BFS volume is 18,000 petabytes (the practical maximum is much smaller for various reasons, but is still in the tens of thousands of gigabytes range). The 32-bit HFS+, like all 32-bit file systems, has a maximum file size of around four gigabytes. Larger files are possible via behind-the-scenes magic which transparently stitches files together, but it seems like this is an issue Apple would have addressed as long as they were creating a new operating system and had the chance to get it right.



    ...18,000,000 terabytes... Shedooby!!!



    Doing away with the 4 GB limit would help with DV files which tend to get... ginormous.



    Screed
  • Reply 45 of 94
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 46 of 94
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sCreeD

    Doing away with the 4 GB limit would help with DV files which tend to get... ginormous.



    in a later article by Scot Hacker, he confirms that HFS+ is also a 64bit filesystem. the 4GB limit isn't there, which is why capture files from FCP can be well in excess of 4GB. in fact, i have a 12GB clip used in a project currently.



    you might have been thinking of how iMovie keeps files under 2GB each.
  • Reply 47 of 94
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by beigean

    in a later article by Scot Hacker, he confirms that HFS+ is also a 64bit filesystem. the 4GB limit isn't there, which is why capture files from FCP can be well in excess of 4GB. in fact, i have a 12GB clip used in a project currently.



    you might have been thinking of how iMovie keeps files under 2GB each.




    From Apple:

    Max file size:

    HFS = 2^31 bytes

    HFS+ = 2^61 bytes



    File systems and bits:

    HFS uses 16-bit fields to identify areas on the disk and these are called allocation blocks. HFS can have up to 2^16 (65,536). HFS+ uses 32-bit fields, and can master up to 4,294,967,296 different allocation blocks.

    More allocation blocks means more effective use of your disk space.
  • Reply 48 of 94
    zosozoso Posts: 177member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kim kap sol

    One thing is for sure if Apple is working on a new Be-like database filesystem: we're getting a new Finder to take advantage of the new filesystem's capabilities...hopefully rewritten from scratch with speed in mind (and if rewritten from scratch, then Apple would definitely choose Cocoa for their rewrite.)



    IIRC the FS architecture in OS X is sort of plug-in based. That is, the "core" or whatever of the OS deals with something called VFS (suppose it stands for Virtual File System?), then a kind of "translation" takes place to HFS, HFS+ or UFS. I don't know if this is still true in Jagwyre, maybe it's an old 10.0 trick no longer in use, but if it's still true then two things at least are clear: Apple is in no way "forced" to update the Finder (but of course, it'd be great if they did! ) and maybe except for apps like Norton Utils or Drive10 nobody else would need to change a single line of code in their apps, as the app itself wouldn't really deal directly with the new FS.



    Hope what I said makes sense...



    ZoSo
  • Reply 49 of 94
    robsterrobster Posts: 256member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NETROMac

    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.



    The essence of TCP/IP networking is that it works independently of your hardware, OS or File System. Thats why it works so well networking Mac, Unix, Linux, Windoze, BeOS, whatever.



    I'm more than happy to lose Classic for a new FS but I beleive that MacOS X Kernel arbitrates all of Classics Access to hardware, including disk read/writes so we could probably still use it with a new FS.
  • Reply 50 of 94
    robsterrobster Posts: 256member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NETROMac

    I'd be surprised if there weren't at least a major overhaul to Finder in Panther. It has to be some of the most criticized parts of osX. Apple has probably been working on Finder's replacement for some time, and the fruit of their work will hopefully be unveiled at the WWDC.



    eeek! maybe they won't call it Finder anymore!?

    Seriously though I do hope we get a re-write...and spring loaded folder bahaviour in the dock....
  • Reply 51 of 94
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by robster

    eeek! maybe they won't call it Finder anymore!?



    LOL!
  • Reply 52 of 94
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ZoSo

    IIRC the FS architecture in OS X is sort of plug-in based. That is, the "core" or whatever of the OS deals with something called VFS (suppose it stands for Virtual File System?), then a kind of "translation" takes place to HFS, HFS+ or UFS. I don't know if this is still true in Jagwyre, maybe it's an old 10.0 trick no longer in use, but if it's still true then two things at least are clear: Apple is in no way "forced" to update the Finder (but of course, it'd be great if they did! ) and maybe except for apps like Norton Utils or Drive10 nobody else would need to change a single line of code in their apps, as the app itself wouldn't really deal directly with the new FS.



    Hope what I said makes sense...



    ZoSo




    You're dead on. Heck, how do you think they added journaling to HFS+ without requiring everyone to reformat? Journaling is a plugin that inserts into the VFS stream. Enable it, everything gets journaled. Disable it, back to the original behaviour. Voila. Most Linux/Wintel geeks' jaws drop when you point this out to them... on the Dark Side (and the Penguin Side), major new filesystem features generally mean a reformat and restore, period.



    Methinks we're going to see some verra verra nice thangs coming in the next year. The pieces are finally in place.
  • Reply 53 of 94
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 54 of 94
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ZoSo

    IIRC the FS architecture in OS X is sort of plug-in based. That is, the "core" or whatever of the OS deals with something called VFS (suppose it stands for Virtual File System?), then a kind of "translation" takes place to HFS, HFS+ or UFS. I don't know if this is still true in Jagwyre, maybe it's an old 10.0 trick no longer in use, but if it's still true then two things at least are clear: Apple is in no way "forced" to update the Finder (but of course, it'd be great if they did! ) and maybe except for apps like Norton Utils or Drive10 nobody else would need to change a single line of code in their apps, as the app itself wouldn't really deal directly with the new FS.



    Hope what I said makes sense...



    ZoSo




    I never said they were forced or needed to update the Finder. I'm just saying that if they're implementing a new filesystem, the Finder has to be overhauled to take advantage of new features it will bring. Why a new database filesystem without the supporting the goodies it brings.



    Right now HFS+ is decent. A new filesystem might bring more speed, but the biggest thing I think is the advantages a database filesystem will bring. Keeping the existing Finder with this new filesystem would be a very stupid move Apple would never make.
  • Reply 55 of 94
    frawgzfrawgz Posts: 547member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by robster

    eeek! maybe they won't call it Finder anymore!?



    I think they should call it "Desktop"
  • Reply 56 of 94
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    No, no, *I* know!



    Explorer!
  • Reply 57 of 94
    robsterrobster Posts: 256member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by frawgz

    I think they should call it "Desktop"



    D'you know I like that idea...

    I know it's not quite as accurate as Finder but it's more descriptive especially to new users.
  • Reply 58 of 94
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,401member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by frawgz

    I think they should call it "Desktop"



    Never happen. Makes too much sense...
  • Reply 59 of 94
    overhopeoverhope Posts: 1,123member
    Y'know, the more time I spend with the Finder in X, the more it pisses me off.



    It does stuff that makes no sense (stop opening a frikkin' window when I click on the Dock icon, dammit! You don't do that if I Alt-Tab...), is horribly slow, takes forever to update and is the most crash-prone app in my whole system...
  • Reply 60 of 94
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Overhope

    (stop opening a frikkin' window when I click on the Dock icon, dammit! You don't do that if I Alt-Tab)



    FWIW, that has nothing to do with the Finder, rather it has to do with the app (and the Dock of course). It's the default behavior according to the HI Guidelines when no windows in that app are open.
Sign In or Register to comment.