<strong>even if i put os9 [classic] on a separate partition, can I use UFS still?
is UFS the most advised for os x? [over hfs+]</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, you can use Classic as long as it is on an HFS+ formatted drive/partition.
However, I strongly recommend *against* formatting with UFS. Disk accesses and writes are reportedly much slower with UFS than HFS+, probably because Apple has optimized OSX for HFS+ since the vast majority of users are already formatted in HFS+.
Furthermore, files with resource forks are handled rather strangely with UFS (they are actually split into two different files!) and case sensitivity is different.
<strong>I think you can still use Classic on UFS, but HFS+ really is the best filesystem to use for OS X and Classic right now.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe that is incorrect. If you go UFS, you can't run classic (unless you're dealing with seperate drives/partitions), and I have heard (take this with a grain of salt) that some carbon apps don't behave well on a UFS partition.
Unless you have a definite need for UFS, I would stick with HFS+ for now until Steve announces we can move on
1. Classic will not work on a UFS-formatted drive. Period. It is true that there have been reports of certain Carbon apps behaving strangely on UFS drives also, though I can't recall exactly what they are.
2. OS9 (Classic) can be put anywhere -- on the same partition as OSX, on a different partition, or on a different drive. Classic and OSX can happily sit together on the same partition with no troubles at all. In fact, that is how Apple ships their systems and is how I've had my main system setup since September of 2000.
If you are getting this computer brand new, you really shouldn't need to go to the trouble of reformatting and reinstalling everything unless you just want to partition your drive for organizational purposes.
c'mon starfleet, of course i want to start fresh! I'm getting it from a past user, don't want his/her settings/crap on there
i guess i don't want to deal with the mac os 9 and mac os x mixed on the same partition/drive. So I'll try & get a cheapy external usb/firewire drive to store os 9 on. or maybe even one of those nifty firewire keychains
or maybe even an iPod? ;-)
options options!
this way, when I want to delete os 9 forever, i don't have to mess with it all in the partition X is on
No sweat -- I didn't realize you were getting a used computer. By all means, format away then!
FYI, removing Classic is as simple as dragging the OS9 System Folder to the trash. Simple as that. Classic is contained entirely within the confines of the System Folder and won't be mixed with anything else (except for your Classic apps, which you can put wherever you want).
Yes, the OS9 system files are contained within a single folder. The apps will, by default, be placed in a folder at the root of your drive called "Applications (Mac OS 9)". If you ever want to get rid of classic, simply drag both of these folders to the trash.
Aquatik is right, though, that unless you know there are some apps you'll need it for, you could go ahead and toss Classic. I don't have any full-time apps I need Classic for, but there are still a few really older programs I come across that will never be carbonized that I like to keep Classic for. By simply keeping Classic on your drive, you're not really using any of your system's resources -- it's just taking up space sitting idle on the hard drive.
<strong>well, if i find fault in filing with ufs...</strong><hr></blockquote>I know I'm probably repeating myself (and this will be the last time, I promise!), but I thought I should mention again that UFS is *not* the suggested format to use for OSX. HFS+ is the default option and is reportedly much faster at disk accesses and writes. The only reason I can imagine you would choose UFS over HFS+ is for its case handling (meaning that "apple", "Apple", "ApPlE", and "APPLE" can all reside in the same directory as separate files). That's the only advantage I can think of that it has, and I know many people wouldn't even consider that an advantage.
<strong>Actually, when my drive had UFS, I never needed to do this. I just double-clicked on a Classic app, and everything started without a prob.</strong><hr></blockquote>Ah, but the very first time you ever launched Classic (not the first time since login, the *very* first time), you probably already had a System Folder with the necessary extensions and control panels installed, no? I think this step is necessary if you have an absolute bare-bones installation of OS9.
[quote]<strong>If you open HIToolbox.rsrc at /System/Library/Frameworks/Carbon.framework/Versions/A/Frameworks/HIToolbox.framework/Versions/A/Resources(make a copy by holding down Option and Command while dragging it to the Desktop) in Icongrapher, you will see a list of icons(long list).</strong><hr></blockquote>No, no, I think you misunderstood what he wants to do. HIToolbox only contains icons related to the system and Finder, not documents like JPEG. For those icons, you'd have to edit the resources of a parent app to the file type.
Yeah, your right starfleet, I had launched it before while my drive was HFS+, and I wasn't quite sure if my icon directions were correct, I tried to edit them, but all that appeared in the edit box was the first line.
Comments
<strong>even if i put os9 [classic] on a separate partition, can I use UFS still?
is UFS the most advised for os x? [over hfs+]</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, you can use Classic as long as it is on an HFS+ formatted drive/partition.
However, I strongly recommend *against* formatting with UFS. Disk accesses and writes are reportedly much slower with UFS than HFS+, probably because Apple has optimized OSX for HFS+ since the vast majority of users are already formatted in HFS+.
Furthermore, files with resource forks are handled rather strangely with UFS (they are actually split into two different files!) and case sensitivity is different.
i'm thinking i might buy a separate small firewire HD to put classic/os9 on it, while i keep my complete hd with os x.....
I think you can still use Classic on UFS, but HFS+ really is the best filesystem to use for OS X and Classic right now.
There's little reason to tinker with Apple's default installation methods unless you're just playing around.
<strong>I think you can still use Classic on UFS, but HFS+ really is the best filesystem to use for OS X and Classic right now.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe that is incorrect. If you go UFS, you can't run classic (unless you're dealing with seperate drives/partitions), and I have heard (take this with a grain of salt) that some carbon apps don't behave well on a UFS partition.
Unless you have a definite need for UFS, I would stick with HFS+ for now until Steve announces we can move on
1. Classic will not work on a UFS-formatted drive. Period. It is true that there have been reports of certain Carbon apps behaving strangely on UFS drives also, though I can't recall exactly what they are.
2. OS9 (Classic) can be put anywhere -- on the same partition as OSX, on a different partition, or on a different drive. Classic and OSX can happily sit together on the same partition with no troubles at all. In fact, that is how Apple ships their systems and is how I've had my main system setup since September of 2000.
If you are getting this computer brand new, you really shouldn't need to go to the trouble of reformatting and reinstalling everything unless you just want to partition your drive for organizational purposes.
i guess i don't want to deal with the mac os 9 and mac os x mixed on the same partition/drive. So I'll try & get a cheapy external usb/firewire drive to store os 9 on. or maybe even one of those nifty firewire keychains
or maybe even an iPod? ;-)
options options!
this way, when I want to delete os 9 forever, i don't have to mess with it all in the partition X is on
FYI, removing Classic is as simple as dragging the OS9 System Folder to the trash. Simple as that. Classic is contained entirely within the confines of the System Folder and won't be mixed with anything else (except for your Classic apps, which you can put wherever you want).
hmm, if my programs are carbonized, then i might as well NOT use os9 ryte? [assuming they ALL are carbonized]
Aquatik is right, though, that unless you know there are some apps you'll need it for, you could go ahead and toss Classic. I don't have any full-time apps I need Classic for, but there are still a few really older programs I come across that will never be carbonized that I like to keep Classic for. By simply keeping Classic on your drive, you're not really using any of your system's resources -- it's just taking up space sitting idle on the hard drive.
otherwise, i'll have to either split partition or put on separate drives........
thanks! nice knowing os 9 can easily be TOSSED out!
<strong>well, if i find fault in filing with ufs...</strong><hr></blockquote>I know I'm probably repeating myself (and this will be the last time, I promise!), but I thought I should mention again that UFS is *not* the suggested format to use for OSX. HFS+ is the default option and is reportedly much faster at disk accesses and writes. The only reason I can imagine you would choose UFS over HFS+ is for its case handling (meaning that "apple", "Apple", "ApPlE", and "APPLE" can all reside in the same directory as separate files). That's the only advantage I can think of that it has, and I know many people wouldn't even consider that an advantage.
Okay, I'll shut up now.
[ 06-01-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
!!
* Main volume can only be named "/"
* Airport does not work
* Must actually copy "Classic" to "System Folder" in order to start up the Classic environment for the first time
* Finder seems to run more slowly
* Cannot access files or repair volume when booted up in OS 9
* Many Carbon apps will not work in UFS, including Photoshop 7.x, InDesign 2.x, and Netscape 6.x and later.
* Type and creator codes are not preserved.
There's also an Apple kbase article "Choosing UFS or Mac OS Extended (HFS Plus) Formatting."
<a href="http://kbase.info.apple.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/kbase.woa/101/wa/query?searchMode=Expert&type=id&val=KC.25316"; target="_blank">http://kbase.info.apple.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/kbase.woa/101/wa/query?searchMode=Expert&type=id&val=KC.25316</a>;
[ 06-02-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
I appreciate very technical answers!!! Satisfy all my sub-questions before I ask them!
when you install os 9 second, does it install like normal, like Os X wasn't there? or does it detect os x & installation continues?
is there a chance it will overwrite any os x files?
[ 06-03-2002: Message edited by: CubeDude ]</p>
<strong>Actually, when my drive had UFS, I never needed to do this. I just double-clicked on a Classic app, and everything started without a prob.</strong><hr></blockquote>Ah, but the very first time you ever launched Classic (not the first time since login, the *very* first time), you probably already had a System Folder with the necessary extensions and control panels installed, no? I think this step is necessary if you have an absolute bare-bones installation of OS9.
[quote]<strong>If you open HIToolbox.rsrc at /System/Library/Frameworks/Carbon.framework/Versions/A/Frameworks/HIToolbox.framework/Versions/A/Resources(make a copy by holding down Option and Command while dragging it to the Desktop) in Icongrapher, you will see a list of icons(long list).</strong><hr></blockquote>No, no, I think you misunderstood what he wants to do. HIToolbox only contains icons related to the system and Finder, not documents like JPEG. For those icons, you'd have to edit the resources of a parent app to the file type.
<strong>actually, one more : )
when you install os 9 second, does it install like normal, like Os X wasn't there? or does it detect os x & installation continues?
is there a chance it will overwrite any os x files?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You have to install OS 9 FIRST, otherwise you cannot select it as Classic.