View Single Post
Old 16 March 2009, 07:02   #16
(Amigas && Amigos)++

Calgor's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Anrea
Posts: 998
I thought maybe the OS4 version can handle bigger files than the 68k version? And it is faster as not 68K emulated? I never installed the OS4 SFS version. Yes, it is true from what I read not to install OS4 SFS into RDB as it is already in some kicklayout file or something???? (I don't know much about OS4 as I pretty much installed it and that's it).

From memory the 68k SFS partitions show up fine in my OS4 install. Though this is from my memory which is mostly good but not guaranteed.

If it works in OS3.9, almost sounds like OS4 is either using the wrong version of SFS to read your 68k SFS partitions, or the 68K SFS is not compatible with OS4. It should not use the wrong version as the Filesystem ID string should be different for the different types of SFS. Therefore more likely it is not reading the 68K SFS partitions properly as there is a problem reading the 68K SFS from RDB for some reason. Which SFS do you have in the RDB and on your partitions, you should give version and Filesystem String ID. There is also a tool called sfscheck that comes in the full (68k at least) sfs archive you can use to give more info on partitions.

Also, you don't have any special software installed to give you >8GB in OS3.9 which may not be loaded in OS4 do you? I hate special software that makes things incompatible, such as the FastATA optional auto-splitting of partitions. If all your SFS partitions fully under 2GB are also stuffed in OS4, this should not be "the" problem.
Calgor is offline  
Page generated in 0.04025 seconds with 10 queries