Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!bagate!temvax!bagnce !dsinc!unix.cis.pitt.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uwm.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!think.com!linus!agnte!usenet From: spenton@ssl.berkeley.edu (Steve Penton) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Merits of DOS vs NeXT SCSI HD Formats ? Summary: I was wondering ... Message-ID: <1991Mar8.083953.11933@agnte.berkeley.edu> Date: 8 Mar 91 08:39:53 GMT Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator) Distribution: usa Organization: Space Science Labs - CEA Lines: 34 I was about to order a Quantum 105 (12ms) from Warehouse 54 for $399 as an external for my 105 slab, and I was thinking about whether to use BuildDOS-SCSI or Format it in NeXT Format. When faced with the same question for 1.44 floppies, I always choose the DOS because of compatability with the Sparcstations and such of the world. So, realizing that if you format it DOS and something happens to your NeXT you could always read off those important files wouldn`t you use the DOS option? Of course, a number of important questions remain 1) Does formatting the disk in NeXT's format yield better performance or what ? I assume that they had some tricks in mind by formatting hard drives in their own way.? 2) Considering the recent " what happened to X% of my HD when I formatted the sucker"'; IS DOS Format any better/worse in this respect? 3) Are their any compatibility problems doing the DOS thang ? 4) Will formating the disk in DOS format force me to do stupid things like use the \ for directories (which is even FURTHER away than the |) Whatcha think ? Steve Penton spenton@ssl.berkeley.edu /_____________ /| Steve Penton | | | spenton@ssl.berkeley.edu | Figliano! | | Center For EUV Astrophysics | | | University Of California @ Berkeley |_____________ |/ 2150 Kittredge St., Berkeley CA,94720