as i bought the beige G3, it had MacOS 8 on it. 8 was very new these days. as i remember right, it had HFS on it. i know this, because then HFS+ came out, and i was not shure if i should change to it.
i had partition bigger then 2GB. and i remember the 2GB file size limit, because i reached it with my videos. i think brad is right: >The limit on the size of the volume changed over time, with early >versions being limited to 2GB for the volume, then 4GB, then 2TB. >The larger partition support was added in the System 7.5.x series martin On Wed, 2003-01-15 at 02:26, Brad Boyer wrote: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 06:13:30PM -0700, Chris Tillman wrote: > > I looked on the hfs-user list, and it said hfsutils under Linux can > > actually handle hfs volumes up to 4GB. However, there is also a > > limitation of 32,000 files per volume, so if your files are small > > you'll run out of handles before getting to 2GB anyway. > > > > Also there is a 2GB _file_ size limitation. > > > > 2GB partition size was what I had in mind from many moons ago under > > System 7 - that was probably a system limitation, not HFS per se. > > The limits of HFS are as follows: > > 2GB limit on data forks > 16MB limit on resource forks > 32767 files in a single folder > 65536 files on the whole volume > > The limit on the size of the volume changed over time, with early > versions being limited to 2GB for the volume, then 4GB, then 2TB. > The larger partition support was added in the System 7.5.x series > > There is also a limit of 65536 allocation blocks, which means that > in a practical sense, you can't have more than a few thousand files. > HFS+ removes most of these limits by using 32 bit numbers for a lot > more types of data, and 64 bit numbers in a couple places. > > Brad Boyer > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- ----------------------------------- me and my friend kurt kuene http://krungkuene.org
