[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

RE: Long filenames





On Thu, 19 Oct 1995, Ed Hurtley wrote:

> 
> >>> Does Executor support long filenames on VFAT drives under Win95? I would
> >>> think that the filenames used by Mac files would map well to the Win95 ones,
> >>> and this would simplify things quite a bit for me.
>  
> >>> Executor seems to work well for me so far. If I have any major problems I'll
> >>> be sure to mention them.
> 
> >> Heres the problem.  The VFAT file system is superior to the Macintosh file 
> >> system.  We, with Windows 95 have the 8.3 replaced with 250.5.  Now, here 
> >> is the problem, Macs have 32.4.4!  What if you have a longer file name?  It 
> >> will have to shrink.  Now, I agree that there should be support for the VFAT 
> >> system (And beleive a Win95 GUI version of Executor 2.0 or 2.1 should be 
> >> released).  Also, it should then also allow use of the desktop.  Now, as most 
> >> people know, the Windows 95 desktop is stored in two places:
> >> Single User System:
> 
> >	Actually, no.  As far as I know, the Mac file system isn't based 
> >in the ancient FAT standard as is VFAT.  And, doesn't suffer the same 
> >limitations.   I think that this list isn't the place to make such absurd 
> >statements, don't you?
> 
> He didn't say that the Mac File System (HFS) is based on FAT, he said that the Mac 
> File System is worse than VFAT.  Not to be mean (but you seemed mean) but what on
> earth made you think he said that HFS was based on FAT???  All I see is numbers
> giving the number of letters in a name!!! (8.3, 250.5, 32.4.4)
> 
> At least re-read the original before you critisize it!!!
>
You Hurl-ey,
	
	He said that the VFAT system is superior to the Mac HFS, which is 
just not true at all.  I don't think anyone else had trouble 
understanding my point, since nobody else commented on it.  Let's dust it 
off and try to use that old brain, OK?

Jon Cochran
Rider University



Follow-Ups: References: