Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!
  • Did you order new AirTags? We've opened a dedicated AirTags forum.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
52,442
14,142
MacBidouille reports that the next version of Mac OS X (10.3 aka Panther) will feature a new file system format akin to BeOS's file system.

Previously, it was reported that Dominic Giampaolo, a BeOS engineer was employed by Apple approximately one year ago, and it is presumed that his experience with BeOS's journaled file-system was applied towards Apple's current implementation of Journaling in Mac OS X. If this rumor is true, more BeOS file-system feature may find their way into Mac OS X.

This 2001 article by Scot Hacker entitled "Tales of a BeOS Refugee", gives one experienced BeOS user's perspective on the advantages of the BeOS file system.

MacBidouille also claims that Mac OS X 10.3 will feature significant performance boosts over 10.2.
 

sparkleytone

macrumors 68020
Oct 28, 2001
2,307
0
Greensboro, NC
fp ;)

basically just educated guessing. that website is such a mystery sometimes. they go from nearly outlandish things to just hohum predictions.
 
Comment

RandomMacGuy

macrumors member
Apr 30, 2002
30
0
Huh?!

I thought journaling was already in OS X...

I think there is some sort of option to enable it...

It slows down the system a very little bit, iirc.

[Edit: OK, I'm an idiot... but what other features are we talking about?]

[Edit2: Disregard this post. I need to RTF Article]
 
Comment

zkmusa

macrumors regular
Jul 16, 2002
100
13
Dallas, TX
I think it's great that Apple is competing so well in the operating system market with Windows. The next version of Windows (codenamed Windows Longhorn due out in the end of 2004, I think) will also have this journaled filesystem, capability, if I'm not mistaken.

Does anyone know the similarities of the journaled file system between Mac OS X and Windows Longhorn? I'm curious. Thanks!
 
Comment

nuckinfutz

macrumors 603
Jul 3, 2002
5,502
314
Middle Earth
OSX already has Journaling in the FS. What we need is

64bit support.
Efficient use of multithreading.

extensive Metadata. This is like adding a liteweight Database to the system. Searching for files would become much easier for applications as they'd just query from a list of attributes that follow that chunk of data.

I guess an easy way of explaining it would be. You know how when you're searching for songs in iTunes you just keep feeding data into the search field and the more data you input the smaller your "results" list becomes. Now imagine that and more in the FS itself.

Anything that resides on the HD can be ordered up in a list and shown in different views and lists. It doesn't sound powerful but in reality features like that will save you time as HD keep getting bigger and bigger.

I'd assume that iApps would become faster as they could just poll the FS for the files and metadata they need eliminating one layer of complexity.
 
Comment

Hawthorne

macrumors regular
Jul 1, 2002
198
0
In front of my Mac
Two things

1. I wouldn't be surprised to see this as a low-cost ($20 or so, free at Apple Stores) upgrade similar to 10.1 after all the fuss about Jaguar, which was worth every penny, IMO, but opinions vary.

2. Is it just me, or do OS X upgrades bring better performance to existing machines, while upgrades to Windows mean upgrading your machine to wade through the resulting bloatware? Think different, indeed... :)
 
Comment

irmongoose

macrumors 68030
I loved the BeOS file search system... truly instantaneous. The only comparable search system is simple database searching.. but that's such a pain because you have to update the database each time you want to make a search. No more of that :D



irmongoose
 
Comment

Flynnstone

macrumors 65816
Feb 25, 2003
1,433
95
Cold beer land
I am somewhat familiar with journaling under Linux.
I use journaling on my filesystems with my embedded Linux projects. I read an article once (from Redhat) about journaling and it can be faster than non-journaled. My main reason is for faster boots. Booting is usually not an issue. I have never had a kernel panic or crash. Strange behaviour yes. I've thought I've crashed Linux, but it was really me pulling the rug out from under it. I removed it's filesystem. It didn't crash. It recovered when I gave it it's filesystem back. Cool :cool:
But I have tasks that write to a log file and the pwoer to the board could be lost, so journaling is wise!
I don't know how windows journalling would compare to OS X ( or Linux), but my NT 4 and Win 2K machines are not nearly as stable as my Linux or OS X machines.
 
Comment

nuckinfutz

macrumors 603
Jul 3, 2002
5,502
314
Middle Earth
Originally posted by chewbaccapits
So///let's say this is true....Would this be worth 129 dollars?

The only question i have is..how much time? I believe you just can't toss in a new FS and expect everything to run without a hitch. Each FS enables new features but I don't believe it's as transparent to 3rd parties as we'd like. I'll be curious to see if any more light is shed on this. I don't think the FS alone would be worthy of $129 but it's forward thinking for the future. I think it might entail a gradual change over the next few years rather than an abrubt change.
 
Comment

NicoMan

macrumors 6502a
Oct 20, 2002
712
0
Malmö, Sweden
Originally posted by chewbaccapits
So///let's say this is true....Would this be worth 129 dollars?
Hmm I don't know if you are going to feel it's money well spent, but there is a good chance it is going to be WORTH $129.

NicoMan
 
Comment

ultrafiel

macrumors member
May 19, 2002
66
0
Maybe, but I'm sure it will be worth $79. I'm glad I'm a student, well, at least for the Apple discount anyway.

Oh and if a new file system is implemented I hope disk repair utilities catch up to it quick. I remember waiting to go HFS+ because Norton wouldn't have been able to fix it when it came out and something went wrong. I'm not too keen on Norton anyway now, but maybe Apple will make repairs easier somehow.
 
Comment

richie

macrumors member
Jul 16, 2002
91
0
Melbourne, Australia
Originally posted by nuckinfutz
OSX already has Journaling in the FS. What we need is
...

extensive Metadata. This is like adding a liteweight Database to the system. Searching for files would become much easier for applications as they'd just query from a list of attributes that follow that chunk of data.
...

Uhh, mate, RTFA. This is exactly what Be's FS does. To quote:

"Any file or file type on a BFS volume can have arrays of metadata associated with it, in the form of "attributes." There is no limit to the amount, size, or type of attributes, and attributes can be displayed and edited, sifted, sorted, and queried for directly in the Tracker (Be's equivalent of the Finder). Because most attributes are indexed, search results are nearly instantaneous, regardless the size of the volume or the number of files being searched through"

Kudos to you for thinking of the idea independently of the article, but don't just dismiss what's being suggested without even reading it :) Sorry if that came off harsh..

Oh, and I would pay $79 for a new FS like this. Throw in a few more pretty glittery things and I'm sold on the full price :D
 
Comment

ParadisePete

macrumors newbie
Apr 1, 2002
5
0
What we need is...

OSX already has Journaling in the FS. What we need is ...extensive Metadata. This is like adding a liteweight Database to the system.

Be's file system is a database, so you may get your wish.
 
Comment

reyesmac

macrumors 6502a
Jul 17, 2002
536
191
Central Texas
If they can pull serious performance increases on the G3 and G4, it will be worth the price they sell it at. If they are only saying it will be much faster on the G5 and quartz extreme machines, then that would stink. Hope they start making black machines now that they will be running Panther.
 
Comment

Choppaface

macrumors 65816
Jan 22, 2002
1,187
0
SFBA
for me, jag wasn't worth it, not even if it was half of what is was, but this would be. now the next step is an option to just turn anti-aliasing and transparency off... he he

go apple, yay! :D
 
Comment

MacsRgr8

macrumors 604
Sep 8, 2002
7,882
1,200
The Netherlands
Is it, or is it not 64 bits?
I can't find any confirmation anywhere. If it isn't then 10.3 wouldn't be such a HUGE deal. I really want to know if it's running on a 970!
Jaguar is lovely as it is, and I'm sure that even if 10.3 is only 32 bits, I'd buy it anyway. But Apple is really building a hype again. 3 months in advance. :confused:
 
Comment

Flynnstone

macrumors 65816
Feb 25, 2003
1,433
95
Cold beer land
$129 is not that expensive comapred to Windoze. I can't remember what an upgrade costs, but you need to factor in at least $100 per year for Norton and the like for the duct tape to hold it together.:p
 
Comment

nuckinfutz

macrumors 603
Jul 3, 2002
5,502
314
Middle Earth
Richie-
No disrespect to BeFS. I was just stating the obvious. I've read Scott Hackers articles on this before and Scott laid it out pretty well so I boosted heheheh

Be's file system is a database, so you may get your wish.

I didn't really expect Apple to have this until 10.4 but I'd be glad to see them introduce this in Panther. Great news



Anyone care to guess how long moving to a FS will take the majority of 3rd party developers? I remember HFS+ taking a bit of time to transition.
 
Comment

Foocha

macrumors 6502a
Jul 10, 2001
588
0
London
Bring it on!

I wonder whether a new file system will simplify or complicate. We already have plenty of metadata going around in OS X - file type, creator code, resource fork, file extension... Trouble is that whilst Apple whats to drop some, like the resource fork, application developers are unwilling to give it up.

A new file system may represent a next generation alternative to the old-Mac conventions like resource forks and creator codes which will finally encourage developers to give the old standards up, however, for a long time we'll just have even more confusion!

I wonder if they'll be able to get Classic to run on the new FS?!
 
Comment

gotohamish

macrumors 65816
Jul 15, 2001
1,072
3
BKLN
Re: Mac OS X 10.3 Panther Details

Originally posted by Macrumors
MacBidouille also claims that Mac OS X 10.3 will feature significant performance boosts over 10.2.

Come on Arn, admit it, you meant to say "snappier" didn't you!?

Can't wait!
 
Comment

Nermal

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 7, 2002
19,081
1,553
New Zealand
Translation

I know somebody's going to ask for it, so here's a (not very good :() translation:

It will add support for a new filesystem format, very similar to BeOS' BFS. This format is supposed to eventually replace HFS+. In particular, it allows journalisation to be much simpler. Apple is still progressing in the optimisation of their OS. The performance improvement between 10.2 and 10.3 is likely to be as significant as what separated 10.1 and 10.2. They would finally have finally optimised most of the code from NeXT. In any event, there will have to be a lot of innovations to the OS in order to encourage customers to buy it.

Send your praise to the Google translator :)
 
Comment

faisal

macrumors member
Mar 26, 2003
31
0
Originally posted by zkmusa
The next version of Windows (codenamed Windows Longhorn due out in the end of 2004, I think) will also have this journaled filesystem, capability, if I'm not mistaken.

Windows NT (2000, XP, etc.) has always had journaling via the NTFS file system. I used it in 1995. Longhorn allegedly adds database functionality to the FS.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.