Received: from uncvx1.oit.unc.edu (uncvx1.oit.unc.edu [152.2.21.17]) by nacm.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id MAA29536 for <executor@nacm.com>; Thu, 18 May 1995 12:48:11 -0700
From: SYNNAD@uncvx1.oit.unc.edu
Received: from UNCVX1.OIT.UNC.EDU by UNCVX1.OIT.UNC.EDU (PMDF V4.3-7 #6908)
id <01HQNJUFR8WW0038T8@UNCVX1.OIT.UNC.EDU>; Thu, 18 May 1995 15:49:54 EDT
> >Win95 will render the HFV obsolete (Executor/Linux does not by default
> >use HFV files for precisely this reason; ext2fs allows 255 character
> >filenames), so Mac folders become ordinary directories with two files
> >for each Mac file 'filename' and '%filename' which are the resource
> >and data forks.
> >
> >Tim.
>
> Doesn't this assume that they are using the VFAT filesystem? I wouldn't recommend designing solely for that. Leave the HFV as an option at least. I, for one, prefer using that as long as there is not a significant performance hit.
>
> Plus, what if they are using a different filesystem? Heck, MS alone supports 3 different systems, Dos, NTFS (for Win NT), and now VFAT. Not to mention those of us running OS/2, who have HPFS. It would be far, far simpler to concentrate on perfecting HFV
files than porting to 4 possible filesystems.
>
> I'm still hoping for a Native OS/2 version, preferably with DIVE video support. That would burn rubber. Plus, with the new tools IBM is developing, it is a very simple operation to recompile Win9x apps into OS/2.
> -
I think VFAT is virtually identical to FAT. Files are stored as FAT, with
additional information stored in hidden system files (unfortunately).