Re: Hey FAT32 users, take advantage of new exFAT file system
- From: "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 03:33:16 -0600
"Terry R." <F1Com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uiPrn6igJHA.2384@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The date and time was Thursday, January 29, 2009 2:14:51 AM, and on a
whim, Lil' Dave pounded out on the keyboard:
"Terry R." <F1Com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O5LlFSagJHA.5556@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The date and time was Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:14:24 AM, and on a
whim, Thee Chicago Wolf (MVP) pounded out on the keyboard:
Microsoft released a successor to FAT32 that allows you take get pastIf Win9x won't be able to read it, I can't see the point of this. I
the limitations of FAT32 with exFAT. For those out there still using
FAT32, this is for you. Get the info and driver here:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/955704/
- Thee Chicago Wolf
have a FAT32 partition for sharing data on the OS's that don't
read/write to NTFS. If xfat isn't backward compatible, why wouldn't an
XP or Vista user continue to use NTFS instead?
Win9X is an acronym for Windows 95 and Windows 98. Windows 95 has 4
variations, one original and 3 subsequent updates A, B, and C. The
original version and version A were stuck at FAT16 only. At version B
and forward 95 went to FAT32 capability and 32 bit operating system. 98
and 98 Second Edition incorporated that capabiliity as well. The max
file size is/was 4 GB, under some circumstances within those operating
systems it may actually be a 2GB file size limitation for FAT32. Those
operating systems also suffer something called bit wrap. This seems to
occur when those operating system "see" a total of more than 128 GB total
of file written data on formatted partitions (multiple partitions) on one
hard drive. When that threshold is exceeded, the following write will
botch that data written, and, foul up the file allocation table of that
partition. Windows Millenium does not suffer from this bit wrap problem
I've described and does not fall under the very broad "9X" description.
My point being in the end part of the previous paragragh is even if the
update did work for "9X" for files larger than 4GB, you would still have
the bit wrap problem. Terribly limiting at the very least.
I only use Win9x to point out DOS versions prior to the NT kernel. I
think most others do too. I have DOS, Win98SE & Me on partitions on this
workstation. I haven't run into the bit wrap issue and I have 3 hard
drives on this workstation, with each drive having multiple partitions,
and the data drive is fat32 and is shared between them. Maybe they don't
total more than 128 gig, I haven't checked.
I actually go into those Win OS's less and less, but continue to use the
DOS partition frequently, as I have it boot to PM8 to create my OS backups
each month.
I'm curious to see how this will play out.
Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
Its 128GB written data per all partitions on a given hard drive. There's no
problem in multiple hard drives. The gotcha is even if some of the
partitions are written NTFS, that written data must also be taken into
account. I know msdos can't "see" NTFS, nevertheless, its still part of the
problem. I don't claim to understand it. Just relaying my observations.
--
Dave
.
- Prev by Date: RE: Reduce photo size to email
- Next by Date: Installing Fresh copy of xp
- Previous by thread: Re: panning desktop
- Next by thread: Installing Fresh copy of xp
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
