Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rbpeirce" data-source="post: 1927989" data-attributes="member: 410088">As I said, this is a usage thing not a strict definition.&nbsp; For example, I have an externally mounted drive that happens to be formatted APFS.&nbsp; It has one 1TB container I use for Time Machine backups which, has a single volume called Time Machine, and I just use the other container for anything I want to put into it.&nbsp; If this was formatted HPFS+ under Monterey for example I could have a 1Tb partition for Time Machine and it would be called Time Machine.&nbsp; Both could be mounted and would look the same to the user.&nbsp; That's all I meant.As near as I can tell, APFS just adds another layer to get to the same thing.&nbsp; I have no problem with that and appreciate the added capabilities.BTW, before everybody jumps on me I know Time Machine is supposed to be on a dedicated drive but I've been doing this for years without any problems.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rbpeirce, post: 1927989, member: 410088"] As I said, this is a usage thing not a strict definition. For example, I have an externally mounted drive that happens to be formatted APFS. It has one 1TB container I use for Time Machine backups which, has a single volume called Time Machine, and I just use the other container for anything I want to put into it. If this was formatted HPFS+ under Monterey for example I could have a 1Tb partition for Time Machine and it would be called Time Machine. Both could be mounted and would look the same to the user. That's all I meant. As near as I can tell, APFS just adds another layer to get to the same thing. I have no problem with that and appreciate the added capabilities. BTW, before everybody jumps on me I know Time Machine is supposed to be on a dedicated drive but I've been doing this for years without any problems. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Name this item 🌈