HFS+

[fiftyfour123]

i just want some reasons why no one is porting rockbox to HFS+.

[Febs]

Because it already works on FAT32 and no-one wants to write an entire filesystem when there are other more productive things to be done.

[fiftyfour123]

i'll give anyone who ports it to HFS+ a cookie

[Llorean]

I want some reasons why converting to FAT32 isn't good enough. :-P

[fiftyfour123]

because i cant install linux on my ipod from mac when its fat32. i have to have it partitioned wierd for linux, and it takes forever to show up when i plug it into my mac when its fat32

[Llorean]

Why should we care at all about installing Linux? What does installing Linux have to do with HFS+ support in Rockbox?

[saratoga]

Tell the ipodlinux people to look into improving their FAT support. 

[Jon_]

because i cant install linux on my ipod from mac when its fat32. i have to have it partitioned wierd for linux, and it takes forever to show up when i plug it into my mac when its fat32

1st ipodlinux installs on fat32
2nd how long does it take for your mac to reconize FAT32?
3rd have you tried FAT32 formatting, and putting rockbox on your ipod before?

[Jon_]

Why should we care at all about installing Linux? What does installing Linux have to do with HFS+ support in Rockbox?

If your going to answer to two of his statements at the least answer to his third *sighs* 

it takes forever to show up when i plug it into my mac when its fat32

[Llorean]

Because the third still doesn't have anything to do with HFS+ for Rockbox. I mean yes, a slower load time is annoying, but that's more likely something to do with his operating system. The only reason a FAT32 disk would take longer to show up is if the drivers don't support FAT32 well.

That's something he should complain to Apple about, honestly.

In the end, the only reason not to use a FAT32 iPod is that it's less convenient. I think though that the load speed really can't be *that* big of a problem, or the people who suffer from it would've actually tried to do something about it, and coded HFS+ support themselves.

[saratoga]

Why should we care at all about installing Linux? What does installing Linux have to do with HFS+ support in Rockbox?

If your going to answer to two of his statements at the least answer to his third *sighs* 

it takes forever to show up when i plug it into my mac when its fat32

What?

[Jon_]

Why should we care at all about installing Linux? What does installing Linux have to do with HFS+ support in Rockbox?

If your going to answer to two of his statements at the least answer to his third *sighs* 

it takes forever to show up when i plug it into my mac when its fat32

What?

A shush i made him talk more 

[Jon_]

Because the third still doesn't have anything to do with HFS+ for Rockbox. I mean yes, a slower load time is annoying, but that's more likely something to do with his operating system. The only reason a FAT32 disk would take longer to show up is if the drivers don't support FAT32 well.

That's something he should complain to Apple about, honestly.

In the end, the only reason not to use a FAT32 iPod is that it's less convenient. I think though that the load speed really can't be *that* big of a problem, or the people who suffer from it would've actually tried to do something about it, and coded HFS+ support themselves.

Yes i see, i wonder how long it takes for a mac to reconize a FAT32 formated iPod.

Note: I know every mac's different some will load a device quicker than others but whats a adv. range in seconds ?

i'm guessing around 20 - 25 seconds which should be a big deal at all. All you need is patients, and i'm guessing that formating it FAT32 should affect how iTunes reads/writes files to/from the iPod.

[saratoga]

If it takes longer to recognize FAT32 then HFS+, then something is wrong.  I suggest a bug report to Apple. 

[conorkirk]

Tell the ipodlinux people to look into improving their FAT support. 

lets also tell the ipodlinux to go back in time and lose interest, and not discover anything about the ipod