Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:75860 comp.sys.amiga.tech:17485 Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!usc!wuarchive!uunet!nuchat!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: HD Errors Message-ID: <7461@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 5 Jan 91 14:15:56 GMT References: <37492@cup.portal.com> <1991Jan2.190655.15790@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> <1991Jan3.141624.25450@forwiss.uni-passau.de> <1991Jan3.230319.3648@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> <7455@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991Jan4.191249.14442@jato.jpl.nasa.go Reply-To: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 23 In article <1991Jan4.191249.14442@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> jdickson@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Jeff Dickson) writes: > tough s___! These UNIX boxes you cite their manafactures have been > around for a lot longer than the Amiga has - so their products are quite > mature. Plus, there is quite a cost difference between the SUN Sparc and an > Amiga. I don't know how you can realistically compare the two. Well, the UNIX box in my bedroom cost me about half what my Amiga 3000 did, so I can't imagine how I could realistically compare the two. The Amiga is a *much* more powerful machine with a better hardware design. But if you want to compare a *less* mature file system, then MS-DOS handles disk corruption a whole lot better than AmigaOS does. Always has. The basic problem seems (to me, at least) to be gratuitous complexity in the file system. Both DOS and UNIX use much simpler file systems that have built-in high level redundancy. AmigaOS has a modicum of low-level redundancy, less with the FFS, and a *very* complex directory scheme that really doesn't add much capability over a straight V7 UNIX file system. Oh, a word to the wise... how about editing your followups a bit better? You managed to include two copies of my message, headers and all. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .