0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Is anyone running PFS on a stock A600 with 2MB Chip mem with real hard drive? I tried it last month and I found it to be slower than FFS when browsing Workbench (icons appear slower than with FFS). I mean, icons appear slowly anyway on a 68000 (8 colour magic workbench) but Commodore FFS definitely had the edge in that department. But ASL reguester/directory lists were definitely faster under PFS.If I was to add some fast memory or upgrade to 020/030 then I'm sure it would probably perform much better than the results I'm getting.PFS ate more ram as well, which is a downside on a 2MB chip only machine.I also had problems when copying large directorys (ie dragging DH0 into DH1 root) - I had PFS requesters sometimes appear saying "Out of memory error (RAM)" or something (allocated too much memory for the operation), which has never happened to me before under FFS. Maybe PFS is a bit dicey on a chip only machine, I don't know but I think I'll stick with FFS.I'm running Workbench 2.05 & Kickstart 37.350.According to docs, SFS needs OS3, so it's PFS or FFS for my machine. Would be nice to use SFS because I know it works well as I've used it for many years on my 1200 without any problems at all.
Author
Topic: Help! I'm trying out PFS3 ver 5.3 (Read 5638 times)
