Jump to content
IGNORED

Apple unveils new Mac Mini, iPad Pro, and MacBook Air


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, jhwalker said:

 

That's for individual files / folders, not the file system, per se.  I guess you COULD compress your boot disk, but I've never seen that be anything but a hassle.

 

I also don't encrypt my boot disk, as my computer is never outside my house, and there's nothing on it anyone would want, in any case ;)

 

you can compress a folder of any size - it's just not automated any more

 

but, it will solve his problem - NOT as well as adding the very low cost storage we have now, of course...

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

you can compress a folder of any size - it's just not automated any more

 

but, it will solve his problem - NOT as well as adding the very low cost storage we have now, of course...

 

This has never been automated on the Mac. What is automatic is FileVault, which is whole-disk encryption. 

I write about Macs, music, and more at Kirkville.

Author of Take Control of macOS Media Apps

Co-host of The Next Track podcast.

Link to comment

HFS+ compression of system files, where a bunch of stuff gets slotted into the resource forks of the files, would happen automatically for system files. It could save quite a bit of space when applied to ascii files. Presumably, that went out the window with the new disk format (or maybe they have something that replaces it?).  It didn't do much of anything for music files (I tried it manually).

Link to comment
On 11/2/2018 at 5:45 AM, wgscott said:

HFS+ compression of system files, where a bunch of stuff gets slotted into the resource forks of the files, would happen automatically for system files. It could save quite a bit of space when applied to ascii files. Presumably, that went out the window with the new disk format (or maybe they have something that replaces it?).  It didn't do much of anything for music files (I tried it manually).

 

Huh?  Resource forks haven't been a thing since OS 9.

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Sevenfeet said:

 

Huh?  Resource forks haven't been a thing since OS 9.

 

You might want to double-check that.  (They carried over the HFS+ filesystem from OS 9, and only now -- after a false start with ZFS a few years ago, are finally changing over to a new (and badly needed) filesystem architecture.)

 

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6/3/

https://jonsview.com/mac-os-x-resource-forks

 

All of HFS+ compression, extended attributes, metadata, ACL, etc. was implemented via resource forks on HFS+, which is one of the reasons HFS+ is such a mess.  

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

You might want to double-check that.  (They carried over the HFS+ filesystem from OS 9, and only now -- after a false start with ZFS a few years ago, are finally changing over to a new (and badly needed) filesystem architecture.)

 

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6/3/

https://jonsview.com/mac-os-x-resource-forks

 

All of HFS+ compression, extended attributes, metadata, ACL, etc. was implemented via resource forks on HFS+, which is one of the reasons HFS+ is such a mess.  

 

Yes, OS X has been using the resource forks for metadata.  I was thinking of application developers using it as it was originally intended since the early days of the Mac.

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...