Actually, the responses to this question have been very helpful, even if a mite long. The techno stuff isn't important until you need to understand it -- and I am at that point right now.
Thanks again. nan >In a message dated 8/19/02 16:19:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >>For those wondering what HFS+ is about, in terms of the way it conserves >>space at least, here is a very simplistic example. >> >>Imagine you have four pigeon holes .... (snip, snip, snip, snip, snip ... >dang, my scissors are getting dull .... whack, whack, whack) > >Grin, THAT was a simplistic example????? Holy dear lord Daniel, I drank two >beers and smoked a pack of cigarettes before I got to the end of your >posting! I must admit though, it was the most interesting explanation of >block structure that I've ever seen to date. > >Although I don't want to step on Daniel's toes, much less stomp all over his >good intentions, perhaps I can offer a different explanation of this block >structure business...... > >Prior to OS 8.1 and sometime after OS 4 or 6 (I can't remember), Apple used a >file system called Hierarchical File System (AKA: HFS or Mac OS Standard). >What this did was to allow for no more than 65,000-odd (do we REALLY need the >exact number?) blocks in a partition. Most people back then only had their >hard drives set up as one partition so this "limitation" applied to their >entire hard drive (but more about this later). Of course, "back then" this >wasn't considered a limitation because hard drives weren't very big and one >didn't see too many drives that were over 2 or 3 gigabytes. However, hardware >technology started to advance and we began seeing 4, 6, 9, 15, 20, etc., >gigabyte hard drives hit the market. Unfortunately, this limitation of >65,000-odd blocks still applied to these larger drives and all of a sudden >people with these larger hard drives were noticing that what was once a >rather small file on a smaller drive became a much larger file on these large >hard drives. And they were right; a one sentence Simple Text file took up a >lot more room on a 27GB drive than on a 2GB drive. Well, think about it ---- >if you divide 27GB into 65,000, that number is a lot bigger than if you >divide 2GB into 65,000. > >OK, so a lot of us got around this 65,000-odd limitation by partitioning our >drives (this will be the prior reference to "more about this later"). Why? >Because under Apple's OS, each partition is treated as a separate drive and >therefore the 65,000-odd block limitation only pertained to the partition >(and not to the physical drive). So we could take, say, an 8GB drive and make >it look like four 2GB drives. > >So why would Apple need to change this 65,000-odd limitation if Users could >get around it with partitioning their hard drives? Well, add a few 20GB hard >drives to your computer and try dealing with 10 to 20 partitions and you will >understand why this block structure wasn't working. Besides that, files were >becoming massive and as we all know, 1 to 2 Gig files have become as common >as flies. What really went down was that Users were getting mad that Apple's >block structure was inefficient; that there was too much wasted space. > >And Apple changed in response to all the irate users; Apple introduced HFS+ >(AKA: Hierarchical File System Plus or Mac OS Extended). HFS+ increased the >potential number of blocks to somewhere in the billions (or so I'm told). OK >well think about that ------ if you divide 27GB into "the billions", that >number is a lot smaller than if divide 27GB into 65,000. > >There is a catch if one converts to the HFS+ file format though. To my >understanding, no OS prior to 8.1 can read HFS+ file formats. That doesn't >mean that the reverse is true; I'm running both OS 9.0 and OS 7.6 and all my >files are non-HFS+ files. I should also say that I'm smack dab right in the >middle of a massive conversion and although I am running both of these OS >versions, I would NEVER recommend it. All the same, I'd be remiss in not >pointing out that these two particular versions of OS can live in harmony. I >don't have a clue as to what OS 9.1 would do with these files though. > >OK Daniel, I drank a few more beers and smoked another pack of cigarettes >while I was composing this response but I don't think that I got any closer >to providing a succinct answer than you did. So I'm thinking that perhaps >your approach to the answer was just fine after all. I'm not sure why I'm >even bothering to post this response other than if I don't, I've wasted my >entire afternoon talking to myself (again). > >Will this insanity never stop? > >Linda > >-- >StarMax is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... > > / Buy books, CDs, videos, and more from Amazon.com \ > / <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect-home/lowendmac> \ > > Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> > >StarMax list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/starmax.html> >Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/starmax%40mail.maclaunch.com/> > >Using a Macintosh? Get free email and more at Applelinks! ><http://www.applelinks.com> -- StarMax is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... / Buy books, CDs, videos, and more from Amazon.com \ / <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect-home/lowendmac> \ Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> StarMax list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/starmax.html> Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/starmax%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Macintosh? Get free email and more at Applelinks! <http://www.applelinks.com>
