UFS and Jaguar

in macOS edited January 2014
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?


  • Reply 1 of 6
    Mac OS X (10 and 10.1, at least, I haven't heard reports about 10.2) is generally NOT optimal to use on UFS.
    • 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">
  • Reply 2 of 6
    By the way, here's a kbase article about choosing HFS+ or UFS. Apparently I forgot a few other problems:
    • 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?
  • Reply 3 of 6
    So what is the usefulness of the UNIX File System on a UNIX operating system like OS X? Why would we use it at all with all these problems?
  • Reply 4 of 6
    cubedudecubedude Posts: 1,556member
    Simple, you don't.
  • Reply 5 of 6
    [quote]Originally posted by jpcrumley:

    <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.
  • Reply 6 of 6
    cubedudecubedude Posts: 1,556member
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.