What can or can't be done when your OSX drive is UFS?

ThE OutsiDer

ThE OutsiDer

Registered
I'm thinking about going pure UFS, I'm sick of fragmentation and don't use os9 anymore anyway.
What will happen if I go pure UFS?
Will there be apps i didnt anticipate I'd need that arent carbon?

What experiences have u had being pure UFS?
 
some carbon apps won't install although they might run if copied from a hfs+ volume. airport was known to not work on a pure UFS system. UFS is slower overall. apple does NOT recommend using UFS any longer.
 
Classic won't work on a UFS volume. You decide if this is a good thing or a bad thing ;) I have heard Apple may have some workaround to get Classic working on UFS, but it is rumor. If someone has a link, please include it.
 
Since you don't wanna use Classic, it doesn't matter, but the question is: is the loss of disk fragmentation worth the loss in performance? UFS is much slower than HFS+, also if you ever plan on getting an iPod, you are screwed since till now, iPods don't sync with UFS-disks (might be fixed though).

As for the classic workaround: till now, I haven't seen any official workaround. I red somewhere on Macslash that people managed to somehow get it to work, but with awful stability.

I wouldn't do it! It's like downgrading your Mac.
 
I've heard it was faster with UFS, actually. And if you don't own an iPod or work with classic, I'd go for it.

Let us all know what you decide.
 
http://kbase.info.apple.com/cgi-bin...ype=id&val=106277&KCID=207&dialogId=113278243
Thats the word from apple.
Basically, OS9 has to be on an HFS+ disk.
the first time you start classic, though, you have to copy the ClassicStartup.app to your HFS+ partition, chown it to root, execute it.

After that, you can go back to having Classic Startup.app on your UFS disk. However, you still need Classic to have an HFS+ partition.

So I guess you could partition and make os9 like a 2gig partition (HFS+), and osx the rest, as UFS.

*maybe* you could do this with disk images... not sure on that one.
 
There are several threads on this forum where people state how awful the speed on UFS systems is, and that's what I red all over the net. I have to admit I never tested it, so I really can't rely my opinion on any personal experience, but what I red everywhere is that it is damn slow.

You will also run in other problems, like for example Drive 10 doesn't work right on UFS machines, not to mention current (and maybe future?) classic defrag tools. I wouldn't count on the fact that UFS is any longer supported by the hdd-app developers and by Apple itself.
 
and thus it is shown ;-)

I think though that HFS+ really really sucks. Maybe it would be better for apple to improve how the Finder and various compatability layers handels UFS instead of forcing us to use an outdated (IMO) file system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top