AWCTTYPA@UIAMVS.BITNET ("David A. Lyons") (03/17/89)
>Date: Thu, 16 Mar 89 17:47:05 GMT >From: Kareth <mentor.cc.purdue.edu!asd@PURDUE.EDU> >Subject: Re: why Finder replaced Desktop; large HDs > >[...] I'm interested in why Apple chose to make something new that >offers less in window opening speed, size of information, etc. when >they could have taken work previously done and bring it to GS/OS. As Matt pointed out in another note, the old Desktop is _not_ something that Apple wrote in the first place. The Finder is a completely separate product, but it _is_ what you get when you take the same ideas and use GS/OS, the super-hires display, follow actual human interface guidelines, etc. >Okay, picky, picky :-) I didn't mean PRO.FST wasn't a real GS/OS >fst. I meant it doesn't support everything GS/OS can. In a sense, >PRO.FST might be considered to be a foreign translator, that >unfortunately, we have to use until we get our native translator, >GSOS.FST. I understand the other stuff, guess I just didn't make >myself clear. First, I endorse Matt's comments in another note. There is no reason to expect (or even _want_) Apple to invent a brand new file system just for GS/OS. I don't feel at all unfortunate to have a ProDOS FST for GS/OS; without it, I would be unable to read or write ProDOS-format disks. The word "ProDOS" in "ProDOS FST" refers to the format of the information stored on a disk, the ProDOS _file system_, and _not_ to any operating system that also happens to be called ProDOS. In other words, the ProDOS FST is a written-from-scratch piece of code which takes full advantage of the 65816. As I think I said in a previous note, _every_ FST will impose restrictions on filenames, volume size, etc. That's okay. I don't see a need for a new file system to be invented at this time, since existing ones are good: It would be reasonable for Apple to release an HFS FST to let us read and write disks in Hierarchical Filing System Format, as usually used with the Macintosh. HFS does not have a 32M volume size limit (what _is_ its limit, folks?), and it is much more efficient than the ProDOS format when you have long directories. Apple has never promised to release an HFS FST, and I don't if they're working on one. My best guess is that they are, but that they're taking the time to get it perfect. HFS is a much trickier file system to implement than ProDOS, and releasing an FST with any serious bugs would be a mistake on a scale that the mind cannot comfortably comprehend. [To paraphrase someone from Ghostbusters: "This twinkie represents the normal amount of hostile energy among Apple IIgs users. If a volume-munching FST was released, this would be a twinkie over 500 feet long."] --David A. Lyons bitnet: awcttypa@uiamvs DAL Systems CompuServe: 72177,3233 P.O. Box 287 GEnie mail: D.LYONS2 North Liberty, IA 52317 AppleLinkPE: Dave Lyons
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (03/18/89)
In article <8903171111.aa07585@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> AWCTTYPA@UIAMVS.BITNET ("David A. Lyons") writes: >restrictions on filenames, volume size, etc. That's okay. I don't >see a need for a new file system to be invented at this time, since >existing ones are good: It's the restrictions on filenames and volume size that we want FIXED! I'm another GS user who would already have acquired an 80-300Mb SCSI disk if the OS would only have supported it reasonably. If HFS.FST will support such disks, then fine. Give us one. Is the hold-up simply fixing all the Apple II tools to cope with the resource forks?
shawn@pnet51.cts.com (Shawn Stanley) (03/22/89)
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes: >It's the restrictions on filenames and volume size that we want FIXED! You find the 15-character filename size limit unreasonable? I find that filenames larger than 15 characters can become rather unwieldy, especially if you're passing information between other computer systems. UUCP: {uunet!rosevax, amdahl!bungia, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!shawn INET: shawn@pnet51.cts.com
farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) (03/23/89)
In article <795@orbit.UUCP> shawn@pnet51.cts.com (Shawn Stanley) writes: >gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes: >>It's the restrictions on filenames and volume size that we want FIXED! > >You find the 15-character filename size limit unreasonable? I find that >filenames larger than 15 characters can become rather unwieldy, especially if >you're passing information between other computer systems. > >UUCP: {uunet!rosevax, amdahl!bungia, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!shawn >INET: shawn@pnet51.cts.com Besides that, the 15 character filename size limit is specific to the ProDOS file system. The limit in High Sierra/ISO 9660 is 32 letters. What I'm getting at is that there is nothing to be fixed, the limits on filenames and volume sizes are specific to the file system involved. ProDOS limits the volumesize to 32k, High Sierra/ISO 9660 is somewhere around 700Mb. This could go on and on and on... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ This message does in no way reflect the views or opinions of any organization. They are entirely my own. ------------------------------------------------------------------
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (03/23/89)
In article <795@orbit.UUCP> shawn@pnet51.cts.com (Shawn Stanley) writes: >gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes: >>It's the restrictions on filenames and volume size that we want FIXED! >You find the 15-character filename size limit unreasonable? I find that >filenames larger than 15 characters can become rather unwieldy, especially if >you're passing information between other computer systems. For years UNIX had a 14-character filename limit. It definitely got in the way, and 4.2BSD expanded it many times. People who got used to 4.2BSD filenames and have had to deal with older UNIX filesystems definitely have found the 14-character limit a serious hindrance. So, yes, 15-character filenames are woefully small.
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (03/23/89)
In article <1019@internal.Apple.COM> farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) writes:
-Besides that, the 15 character filename size limit is specific to the ProDOS
-file system. The limit in High Sierra/ISO 9660 is 32 letters. What I'm
-getting at is that there is nothing to be fixed, the limits on filenames and
-volume sizes are specific to the file system involved. ProDOS limits the volumesize to 32k, High Sierra/ISO 9660 is somewhere around 700Mb. This could go
-on and on and on...
We don't have the option of using High Sierra on our read/write disks,
e.g. HD20SC. Therefore there IS a limitation and some of us DO want
it removed.farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) (03/24/89)
In article <9907@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >We don't have the option of using High Sierra on our read/write disks, >e.g. HD20SC. Therefore there IS a limitation and some of us DO want >it removed. That's not the point. The point is that it is the file system which imposes any and all limitations on storage. If ProDOS was changed, then it would no longer be ProDOS, it would be another file system. What you want is a new filing system, not changes to ProDOS. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ This message does in no way reflect the views or opinions of any organization. In fact, they illustrate just how disorganized things really are. ------------------------------------------------------------------
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (03/24/89)
In article <1034@internal.Apple.COM> farrier@Apple.COM (Cary Farrier) writes: >What you want is a new filing system, not changes to ProDOS. If you had read the messages you responded to in the first place, you would have seen that I pointed that out. Yes, I do want a new filesystem format supported by GS/OS without these restrictions. HFS would probably do. Where is it?