home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: COCHRAN@genius.rider.edu
- Received: from genius.rider.edu by genius.rider.edu (PMDF V4.3-7 #10460)
- id <01HWNWUILWG08Y5JXT@genius.rider.edu>; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 12:52:55 EDT
- Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 12:52:53 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: Long filenames
- In-reply-to: <199510201620.MAA22862@vorlon.mit.edu>
- To: Jered J Floyd <jered@mit.edu>
- Cc: Ed Hurtley <edh@europa.com>, "'Executor List'" <executor@nacm.com>
- Message-id: <Pine.3.89.9510201214.A541095473-0100000@genius.rider.edu>
- MIME-version: 1.0
- Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
- Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
- Sender: owner-paper@nacm.com
- Precedence: bulk
-
-
-
- On Fri, 20 Oct 1995, Jered J Floyd wrote:
-
- > > 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?
- >
- > Oh dear....I didn't want to get into this. However, the Mac filesystem
- > is uniquely limiting. In it's current instantiation, I am told, there is
- > a rather low hard limit on the number of files that you can have on a Mac
- > drive. Such that if you have an 8 GB drive and your average file size isn't
- > around several dozen MB, most of your drive will be wasted.
- >
- Agreed, but let's think of this. With an 8GB drive using the
- VFAT system, you'd have 32K cluster sizes. And, actually, you'd only be
- able to use the first 2GB. So keeping that in mind, and the huge cluster
- sizes, you'd waste a great deal of the drive as well. I'm not saying
- either system is great, but calling VFAT "far superior" to the mac
- filesystem is a *gross* lie.
-
- Jon Cochran
- Rider University
-
-