Quote:>1. I've heard that OS/2 for Windows has to load a copy of
>Windows 3.1 for each Windows app started. Has this changed with
>Warp? How many Windows apps could I expect to be able to run
>with an 8-Meg system?
By default, all Windows apps load into *one* WinOS/2 session. You do
have the option of having as many sessions as you feel your system
can sustain, though. On an 8MB system, the number of Windows apps would
depend on how large they were......Word 6.0 and Excel 5.0 together would
be a fairly heavy load - but they should go just fine, but for the
Windows 64Kb enviroment segment limit. I keep hearing this is a problem
when trying to run these two apps together with data in any quantity.
Perhaps someone can exand on this?
With Warp, you would have about 4-5 Mb free for apps - depending on
how large a disk cahe you want. I recommend 256Kb of cache - maximising
app memory and reducing swapping. Using only one one file system -
FAT or HPFS - will also keep the Ram requirement down as you won't need
to cache both.
Quote:>2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of OS/2's high
>performance file system? Would it be wise to use this, as all
>of my old files are on the older system (FAT file system)
HPFS is more robust than FAT. It detects/handles/recovers from disk
errors much more effectively. It's CHKDSK doesn't just fix directory
errors - it can recover entire file systems by reading the disk byte
by byte......depending on which of the three settings you use.
HPFS takes advantage of the physical characteristics of your disk by
locating the file system components near the seek-centre of the volume
(where your read/write heads are more likely to be) and by allocating
the Fnodes that anchor each file/directory as close to each as possible.
Files are not fragmented on allocation with HPFS as the file system
maintains bitmaps of empty space on the disk and can work out not just
how to allocate it in a single extent - but also *where* to allocate
it in order to keep it close to the Fnode it is anchored to.
Directories can be of any size and are built up from 2KB directory
blocks which are allocated as four consecutive sectors on the disk.
The file system will attempt to allocate directory blocks in the
directory band (located at the seek centre, as above) Once that directory
band is full, the directory blocks are allocated wherever space is
free. The entries in a directory block are sorted in binary lexical
order of their name fields. When searching for a specific name, the file
system goes through the directory block until it either finds
a match - or finds a name that is lexically greater than the target.
When found, the file system then extracts the binary-tree pointer
from the entry.
The net result is faster access to information about files and where
they are stored. Therefore faster access.
Even better, HPFS is more efficient with disk space. This is because
the minimum allocation is 512bytes. FAT's minimum is 2Kb. I did a
test yesterday on a 55MB partition. I installed two identical
warp systems. One on Fat and one on HPFS. the HPFS partition had
1.3Mb more free space - due, I presume to small files not wasting
up to almost 2Kb on every allocation. On larger partitions, the savings
are even greater.
On a 1gig partition, about 50Mb are lost to HPFS file system overheads...
but this is puny compared to what FAT would lose with a minimum
allocation unit if 64KB!!! Imagine each icon getting its own 64Kb
So....HPFS saves you time, space, loss of data (overall - I prefer it
to FAT in this regard) and provides 254 character filenames *and*
the support for Extended Attributes (included with each file) which
form the basis for OS/2's OO user interface.
HPFS has a lot to recommend it. But to use it with your existing
Windows system, you will have to back that up and restore it onto
an HPFS file system to use it. The OS/2 backup program will do the
job - or INFO's ZIP and UNZIP, if you have enough disk space.