>Yeah, the anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that HFS+ is much better
>so far. I don't know of any official documents, though. The things
>I've seen have been on macfixit, comp.sys.mac.system, and so on.
I've read Apple's Inside Mac OS X: System Overview document, and it
has to do with resource forks. Simply, UFS doesn't support resource
forks, and this will cause Classic to fail.
If you use the Finder to copy to a UFS disk, it will create a hidden
file (._Filename) to contain the resource fork, so transfer in this
manner is safe. But Classic and Classic apps can't use this info.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
