mdavis@pro-sol.cts.com (Morgan Davis) (05/16/89)
Network Comment: to #7108 by pnet01!crash!apple.com!mattd I don't know if it was announced or not, but will System 5.0 for the IIGS include a Macintosh HFS FST? Now that I'm doing most of my coding on my Mac IIx the ability to transparently access ProDOS and HFS disks from both machines will be a major win. Any comments on this? --Morgan Davis
farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) (05/17/89)
In article <8905161918.AA00834@crash.cts.com> pnet01!pro-sol!mdavis@nosc.mil writes: >Network Comment: to #7108 by pnet01!crash!apple.com!mattd > >I don't know if it was announced or not, but will System 5.0 for the IIGS >include a Macintosh HFS FST? Now that I'm doing most of my coding on >my Mac IIx the ability to transparently access ProDOS and HFS disks from both >machines will be a major win. Any comments on this? The only new FST on System 5.0 is the AppleShare FST. Are you using MPW for your work, because if you aren't, there is a tool in the MPW IIGS Cross Development Package called DuplicateIIGS, which copies a file to a ProDOS disk for you. (If you already know this, then maybe somebody else out there can use the information...) Cary Farrier
sysop@pro-generic.cts.com (Matthew Montano) (02/07/90)
There are too many allusions to an HFS FST in GS/OS Beta drafts, APW v2.0
manual excerpts et all for it not to exist. Whether Apple feels it neccesary
for it to be released is a different story.
I would enjoy an HFS FST for many reasons:
o the 32meg partition limit is removed
I am virtually operating off a full GS/OS environment and rarely use
ProDOS 8 bit programs, and as time goes on I figure I will be completely
operating off GS/OS programs and leaving the 8 bit stuff behind. With an HFS
FST I would be able to use a large HD and format it with large partitions and
make huge HD's hooked up to a //gs a reality.
o the filename restrictions are lifted
15 character filenames are limiting somewhat when naming a file with a
descriptive name. Archiving files would be vastly improved.
o transporting files between platforms becomes easier
I have a Mac SE in the house, and I find AFE to be unusable is some
cases, sharing disks and text files would become that much easier.
An HFS FST (or something similar) would finally lift GS/OS out of the ProDOS
mold it has had to reside in for years and would allow the //gs to finally
break it's bond with 8 bit apples which it needs to do badly.. (no flames
please!).
UUCP: crash!pro-generic!sysop
ARPA: crash!pro-generic!sysop@nosc.mil
INET: sysop@pro-generic.cts.comshankar@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Subash Shankar) (02/11/90)
In article <10198.infoapple.net@pro-generic> sysop@pro-generic.cts.com (Matthew Montano) writes: > There are too many allusions to an HFS FST in GS/OS Beta drafts, APW v2.0 >manual excerpts et all for it not to exist. Whether Apple feels it neccesary >for it to be released is a different story. Alternate conclusion - When GS/OS was developed, Apple intended to write a Mac HFS, but when they actually started writing it, they realized that it was totally impractical, and abandoned the project. At least, this is what I infer from other Usenet posts by the Apple folk. --- Subash Shankar Honeywell Systems & Research Center MN65-2100 voice: (612) 782 7558 US Snail: 3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418 shankar@src.honeywell.com srcsip!shankar
dlyons@Apple.COM (David A. Lyons) (02/11/90)
In article <57906@srcsip.UUCP> shankar@src.honeywell.com (Subash Shankar) writes: >[...] >Alternate conclusion - > >When GS/OS was developed, Apple intended to write a Mac HFS, but when they >actually started writing it, they realized that it was totally impractical, >and abandoned the project. > >At least, this is what I infer from other Usenet posts by the Apple folk. That's an interesting theory, but I can't think what posts you are referring to. -- --David A. Lyons, Apple Computer, Inc. | DAL Systems Apple II Developer Technical Support | P.O. Box 875 America Online: Dave Lyons | Cupertino, CA 95015-0875 GEnie: D.LYONS2 or DAVE.LYONS CompuServe: 72177,3233 Internet/BITNET: dlyons@apple.com UUCP: ...!ames!apple!dlyons My opinions are my own, not Apple's.
shankar@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Subash Shankar) (02/12/90)
In article <38524@apple.Apple.COM> dlyons@Apple.COM (David A. Lyons) writes: >In article <57906@srcsip.UUCP> shankar@src.honeywell.com (Subash Shankar) writes: >>[...] >>Alternate conclusion - >> >>When GS/OS was developed, Apple intended to write a Mac HFS, but when they >>actually started writing it, they realized that it was totally impractical, >>and abandoned the project. >> >>At least, this is what I infer from other Usenet posts by the Apple folk. > >That's an interesting theory, but I can't think what posts you are referring >to. Well, probably I'm wrong, but here's my reasoning (all from memory, so they could be wrong). One, somebody made mention of some official type at one of the Developers Meetings saying something like You're asking us for a _____ FST, when we haven't even completed the HFS one yet? Two, the amount of time that has gone by without release of an HFS FST. I don't suscribe to the anti-Apple II conspiracy at Apple theories (though they definitely don't support it adequately), so I think it would have been released if they had a working version. --- Subash Shankar Honeywell Systems & Research Center MN65-2100 voice: (612) 782 7558 US Snail: 3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418 shankar@src.honeywell.com srcsip!shankar
lunatic@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Lunatic) (02/12/90)
In article <57966@srcsip.UUCP> shankar@src.honeywell.com (Subash Shankar) writes: ]In article <38524@apple.Apple.COM> dlyons@Apple.COM (David A. Lyons) writes: ]>In article <57906@srcsip.UUCP> shankar@src.honeywell.com (Subash Shankar) writes: ]>>[...] ]>>Alternate conclusion - ]>> ]>>When GS/OS was developed, Apple intended to write a Mac HFS, but when they ]>>actually started writing it, they realized that it was totally impractical, ]>>and abandoned the project. ]>> ]>>At least, this is what I infer from other Usenet posts by the Apple folk. ]> ]>That's an interesting theory, but I can't think what posts you are referring ]>to. ] ]Well, probably I'm wrong, but here's my reasoning (all from memory, so they ]could be wrong). ] ]One, somebody made mention of some official type at one of the Developers ]Meetings saying something like ] You're asking us for a _____ FST, when we haven't even completed the ] HFS one yet? ]Two, the amount of time that has gone by without release of an HFS FST. I ]don't suscribe to the anti-Apple II conspiracy at Apple theories (though they ]definitely don't support it adequately), so I think it would have been released ]if they had a working version. |) |erhaps someone at Apple could give a detailed explaination as to why we DON'T have an HFS FST by now? (As long as it doesn't get too close to discussing the release of unannounced products, of course! :) ][ can only see how an HFS FST would HELP the sales of both product lines. If one were available, it would promote the creation of programs to transfer data (with formatting intact!) between the systems, and make the co-existence of Macintoshes and IIGSes much easier (say, in a classroom setting?). ]--- ]Subash Shankar Honeywell Systems & Research Center MN65-2100 ]voice: (612) 782 7558 US Snail: 3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418 ]shankar@src.honeywell.com srcsip!shankar -- ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________ ARPA: lunatic@uscsb.UCSC.EDU / ________/ Internet: lunatic%ucscb@ucscc.edu / ____// _ ___ _ UUCP: ...!ucscc!ucscb!lunatic / ___///__ {_} |\| /-\ | ][ {_ GEnie: L.BRUCE (Lunatic Bruce) / __________________________________________________________________/ (: