Which W2000 FS suits BeOS5 best, compatibility wise?
Mick
which W2000 file system to use on that Partition. As far as BeOS5
compatibility is concerned, which is better, FAT32, NTFS or HPFS?
Thanks.
Michael Koenig
"Mick" <mic...@optushome.com.au> :
> I'm thinking of upgrading my W98 partition to W2000, & I'm just debating
> which W2000 file system to use on that Partition. As far as BeOS5
> compatibility is concerned, which is better, FAT32, NTFS or HPFS?
I think HFS is supported but not HPFS.
I don't have a NTFS partition to test it, but one thing is for sure, NTFS can
only be read but not written to, whereas FAT32 works with reading and writing.
Since it's ont possible yet to access BFS partitions from Windows I recommend
that you keep at least a small FAT partition for data exchange.
--
M.I.K.e
-= H.=-
news:sc9l5.2746$Kz2....@news1.belrs1.nsw.optushome.com.au...
: I'm thinking of upgrading my W98 partition to W2000, & I'm just debating
: which W2000 file system to use on that Partition. As far as BeOS5
: compatibility is concerned, which is better, FAT32, NTFS or HPFS?
Run 2000 on NTFS and keep a separate FAT32 partition where you can share files
with BeOS.
--
Håkan
h dot gunnarsson at ebox dot tninet dot se
Mick
when NT surpassed OS/2, as far as its user base is/was concerned, BG dropped
HPFS compatibility from NT, as from then on it would be helping IBM more
than MS, who knows?
"bobrost el magnifico" <rr...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.3.96L.10008...@unix9.andrew.cmu.edu...
> On 12 Aug 2000, Michael Koenig wrote:
> > "Mick" <mic...@optushome.com.au> :
> > > I'm thinking of upgrading my W98 partition to W2000, & I'm just
debating
> > > which W2000 file system to use on that Partition. As far as BeOS5
> > > compatibility is concerned, which is better, FAT32, NTFS or HPFS?
> > I think HFS is supported but not HPFS.
> > I don't have a NTFS partition to test it, but one thing is for sure,
NTFS can
> > only be read but not written to, whereas FAT32 works with reading and
writing.
> > Since it's ont possible yet to access BFS partitions from Windows I
recommend
> > that you keep at least a small FAT partition for data exchange.
>
> HFS is for macs. be can read it, but not HFS+, but that shouldn't matter
> to you since you're on a PC anyway. you can't install NT to HPFS because
> that's for OS/2, and i don't think there's a be driver for HPFS. the NTFS
> driver is still not the most stable thing in the world, and has been known
> to lock up systems, and it's read-only. therefore, go with the FAT32
> partition. i've got win98 and win2k sharing a fat32 partition, and i've
> found that 2k is easier to bitchslap (file sharing, deleting stuff
> that it *thinks* can't be deleted) when it's on a fat32 partition because
> it doesn't have all the rights it would on ntfs.
>
Richard Steiner
spake unto us, saying:
>Actually Windows NT3, was HPFS compatible. So I assumed W2000 was too.
>Maybe when NT surpassed OS/2, as far as its user base is/was concerned,
>BG dropped HPFS compatibility from NT, as from then on it would be
>helping IBM more than MS, who knows?
Yes, HPFS support was dropped after NT 3.51. A lot of us found that to
be relatively annoying, but it's nice to know Microsoft cares. :-)
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@visi.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
All in a days work for "Confuse-a-Cat".