| From: | Duane A. Miller |
| Date: | 12 Aug 2000 at 02:58:50 |
| Subject: | Re: SFS |
Hello Everyone,
Many thanks for all the replies. I do have another question, when I tried to
install it on one partition, the other partitions said they still had FFS
on the change button, but SFS on the Add/Updat button, is this OK or
normal, and should I go ahead? Thanks
On 11-Aug-00, you wrote:
> Hello Duane
>
> On 11-Aug-00, Duane A. Miller wrote:
>
>> I downloaded the SFS file from Aminet, and am thinking about using it. I
>> talked to someone who thought it was good, but didn't use it. I would
>> like to talk to someone who is using it, with pro's and con's for OS3.5.
>
> Go to <http://www.xs4all.nl/~hjohn/> and get the latest version (1.84).
> That's the version that has background defragmentation enabled. Then get
> <http://webclub.solutions.fi/~iti/beta/SmartInfo117r3fixed.lha> which is
> the better defrag gui.
>
> I've been using SFS for over 2 years now and it's been much better than
> FFS. Most of the bugs have been squashed (despite it's near permanent
> beta state). The only major one that I know of is there is sometimes a
> problem trying to delete a file when the disk is full (I've never
> encountered it). The only problem I've ever had relates to other programs
> which won't allow the use of filenames longer than 30 characters (you try
> renaming 1000 files in MasterISO!!! See how long it takes you!!).
>
> But otherwise, everything Xavier says about PFS can be applied to SFS.
> Big increase in speed, Zip drives don't crawl at a snails pace, no
> revalidation, etc.
>
> Later,
> Bryan
>
Regards
Auf Wienerschnitzel
Duane
____________________________________________
A1200 w/030 Apollo @ 40mgz
_____________________________________________