Guest jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk Posted August 12, 2007 Posted August 12, 2007 http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm i 've heard that when running an OS , or some OSs, like win xp, from that partition, there can be problems if the capacity is > 32GB I never ran into any problems, but I went to NTFS anyway. But what are the problems, and why ? Or is there reason to believe there are no problems, and it's a myth ? Note: if no OS is on there, e.g. it's just for data, then i don't think the 32GB thing is an issue. i think win xp or an early edition of it didn't let you format a fat32 partition > 32GB or something. I recall a mueller video showing him resizing it with Partition Magic. (next, the 137gb limit ;-) ! )
Guest Rock Posted August 13, 2007 Posted August 13, 2007 Re: what's the story with the FAT32, 32GB limit ? <jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1186963038.228930.166680@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... > http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm > > i 've heard that when running an OS , or some OSs, like win xp, from > that partition, there can be problems if the capacity is > 32GB > > I never ran into any problems, but I went to NTFS anyway. > > But what are the problems, and why ? > Or is there reason to believe there are no problems, and it's a myth ? > > Note: if no OS is on there, e.g. it's just for data, then i don't > think the 32GB thing is an issue. > i think win xp or an early edition of it didn't let you format a fat32 > partition > 32GB or something. I recall a mueller video showing him > resizing it with Partition Magic. > > (next, the 137gb limit ;-) ! ) There is no problem running XP on a FAT32 partition that is greater than 32GB. From within XP you cannot create a FAT32 partition greater than 32GB, but that's just a limitation of the tool in XP. Partitions > 32GB can be created outside of XP and XP will happily use them either for the OS or for data. There are other factors involved when using large FAT partitions including cluster size, lack of security, robustness, etc, but XP runs just fine on it. -- Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]
Guest Shenan Stanley Posted August 13, 2007 Posted August 13, 2007 Re: what's the story with the FAT32, 32GB limit ? jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm > > i 've heard that when running an OS , or some OSs, like win xp, from > that partition, there can be problems if the capacity is > 32GB Not really 'problems' - just that the native tools in Windows XP will not *format* the partition larger than 32GB as FAT32. > I never ran into any problems, but I went to NTFS anyway. > > But what are the problems, and why ? > Or is there reason to believe there are no problems, and it's a > myth ? You lose a ton of feature and limit yourself for no sane reason with FAT32. You have a 4GB file size limit (start recording video or working with large datasets and see if that doesn't hurt a bit) with FAT32. You have no innate file system security with FAT32. > Note: if no OS is on there, e.g. it's just for data, then i don't > think the 32GB thing is an issue. > i think win xp or an early edition of it didn't let you format a > fat32 partition > 32GB or something. I recall a mueller video > showing him resizing it with Partition Magic. See above... > (next, the 137gb limit ;-) ! ) That only exists due to motherboard BIOS and/or pre-sp1 Windows XP installations. -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Guest Paul Randall Posted August 14, 2007 Posted August 14, 2007 Re: what's the story with the FAT32, 32GB limit ? <jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1186963038.228930.166680@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... > http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm > > i 've heard that when running an OS , or some OSs, like win xp, from > that partition, there can be problems if the capacity is > 32GB > > I never ran into any problems, but I went to NTFS anyway. > > But what are the problems, and why ? > Or is there reason to believe there are no problems, and it's a myth ? > > Note: if no OS is on there, e.g. it's just for data, then i don't > think the 32GB thing is an issue. > i think win xp or an early edition of it didn't let you format a fat32 > partition > 32GB or something. I recall a mueller video showing him > resizing it with Partition Magic. > > (next, the 137gb limit ;-) ! ) Up until I started using Vista, I have avoided NTFS. My 300 GB drives work just fine formatted FAT32. I partition/format with GDisk.exe, a DOS program provided with Norton Ghost. W98 DOS accesses these files just fine. Norton's DOS Disk Edit can play with the contents (master boot record, partition table, directory, individual file contents, or any sector of my choice) just the way I want it to. The applications that I use that handle large files automatically split files so that none has to exceed 2GB. NTFS is a black box which I know I will have to learn to trust. I'm not quite there yet. What 137 GB limit? -Paul Randall
Guest jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk Posted August 15, 2007 Posted August 15, 2007 Re: what's the story with the FAT32, 32GB limit ? On Aug 14, 11:49 pm, "Paul Randall" <paulr...@cableone.net> wrote: > <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:1186963038.228930.166680@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > >http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm > > > i 've heard that when running an OS , or some OSs, like win xp, from > > that partition, there can be problems if the capacity is > 32GB > > > I never ran into any problems, but I went to NTFS anyway. > > > But what are the problems, and why ? > > Or is there reason to believe there are no problems, and it's a myth ? > > > Note: if no OS is on there, e.g. it's just for data, then i don't > > think the 32GB thing is an issue. > > i think win xp or an early edition of it didn't let you format a fat32 > > partition > 32GB or something. I recall a mueller video showing him > > resizing it with Partition Magic. > > > (next, the 137gb limit ;-) ! ) > > Up until I started using Vista, I have avoided NTFS. My 300 GB drives work > just fine formatted FAT32. I partition/format with GDisk.exe, a DOS program > provided with Norton Ghost. W98 DOS accesses these files just fine. > Norton's DOS Disk Edit can play with the contents (master boot record, > partition table, directory, individual file contents, or any sector of my > choice) just the way I want it to. The applications that I use that handle > large files automatically split files so that none has to exceed 2GB. NTFS > is a black box which I know I will have to learn to trust. I'm not quite > there yet. > You can access NTFS from DOS too, there are programs like NTFS Pro. It's not a GUI shell. It's more like a TSR program, and you wouldn't know it's there, and you can access all your drives. It does the job properly. I recall that it didn't let me do a virus check on an NTFS drive from DOS though! maybe that used too much RAM or more memory than NTFS Pro was banking on! But it's very good. There may be other free ones (that can read and write). Another great alternative, and why many people don't even use that program anymore. Is Win XP PE. booting a rubbishy version of win xp off a CD. (win xp has no prob reading NTFS). Maybe a linux boot disk can do it too. All these options are easier than putting the drive in another machine that runs win xp or an OS that sees NTFS. Regarding Norton DOS Disk edit. I kow I guess it lets you read/write at the byte level, and sounds very cool. But what have/can you use it for ? e.g. what have you done playing with partitions ? the boot record ? files ? at that level.. > What 137 GB limit? > Win xp pre sp1 didn't let you create a partition or format, to more than 137GB. So you had to resize it with a prog like partition magic.
Guest 247SPY Posted August 16, 2007 Posted August 16, 2007 AW: what's the story with the FAT32, 32GB limit ? AW: what's the story with the FAT32, 32GB limit ? My explanation of yo questions: 1. FAT Yes, it's true that FAT32 (FAT is the FileAllocationTable, something like pointers, showing to the real physical location 'files' are located (as you know, there are just 0s and 1s - binary data) was originally limited to 32GB (FAT16 to 16GB), and it has got something to do with the physical design of elder HDDs and the ability to handle the adresses, sectors, clusters etc.). Later there were 'tricks' used to ship around those limitations (as everybody knows, FAT was developed by MicroShit (also NTFS) and as everybody knows, they don't know much about their own techniques (and therefore don't give rich infos about their products ;-). 2. DOS Bill once said (in DOS days), that noone will ever need a bigger RAM than a few kBytes, which has been the reason for some smart programmers to 'imitate' a bigger one (EMM386) for DOS, to have the possibilitiy using larger Programs under DOS. 3. NTFS And the same for NTFS: invented by M$, designed for NT (counter player to UNIX), not readable (except with tricky little programs) by FAT OSes like Win98, Win95, Win 1 to 3...... Because of the new technique of hiding files, crypting files, setting access permissions of files, HDDs etc. Integrated in NTFS there is the ACL (Access Control List), where all the permissions etc. are written down (something like a map for your NTFS formatted HD). File-/HD-size limits are given by the (imperfect) design and only thinking as far as they can see (even if there's misty weather ;-)) or simply not beeing able to create a bigger one (because of development of technology). So if you can read a NTFS partition on a non-NTFS OS, you need to install (perhaps by M$-update) a program, that can decrypt the file-system on a local computer. And when you download a file from a NTFS server to a FAT partition? Well, quite easy to explain: In the Network you don't have direct access to the partition, only to the File list of the server (as I said, all data is binary), and the server decrypts the file on his side, then sends it to your Network Card (by IP and MAC) and your PC stores it in the right format (because the File-System has got nothing to do with the file itself, it only says, how and where the data is saved on disk) As you can see, you need a bit of techniqual knowledge and 'history' of Computers, to understand, what noone can understand at first sight. As you can see: The one and only reason is a mix of development in key technologies (e.g. older parts for older HDs would have been too big, to integrate them in a 5,25" shelter). Hope, this helped you a little, to understand, why silly things happen in Computer industry (but also in other industries, like car. Why don't they build economical cars? Answer: 1.They first have to sell the bad versions, to manipulate the customers for wanting a better product, and therefore buy something new. 2. The Oil-industry wants to sell more, not less oil in a year But don't think about that, consume! 4. Partition Magic: As you can read above, there are software tricks used, if the hardware is limitted. Why do you think M$ bought SysInternals???? Because they knew more about Windows than M$ itself, and therefore wrote better programs than M$ would ever release...... Sorry, if you can't cope with my english, but I'm german - and no, I don't have problems to understand, what you are talking about ;-)))))))) But that's really enough for now, cheers jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk: > On Aug 14, 11:49 pm, "Paul Randall" <paulr...@cableone.net> wrote: >> <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> news:1186963038.228930.166680@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm >> >> > i 've heard that when running an OS , or some OSs, like win xp, from >> > that partition, there can be problems if the capacity is > 32GB >> >> > I never ran into any problems, but I went to NTFS anyway. >> >> > But what are the problems, and why ? >> > Or is there reason to believe there are no problems, and it's a myth ? >> >> > Note: if no OS is on there, e.g. it's just for data, then i don't >> > think the 32GB thing is an issue. >> > i think win xp or an early edition of it didn't let you format a fat32 >> > partition > 32GB or something. I recall a mueller video showing him >> > resizing it with Partition Magic. >> >> > (next, the 137gb limit ;-) ! ) >> >> Up until I started using Vista, I have avoided NTFS. My 300 GB drives work >> just fine formatted FAT32. I partition/format with GDisk.exe, a DOS program >> provided with Norton Ghost. W98 DOS accesses these files just fine. >> Norton's DOS Disk Edit can play with the contents (master boot record, >> partition table, directory, individual file contents, or any sector of my >> choice) just the way I want it to. The applications that I use that handle >> large files automatically split files so that none has to exceed 2GB. NTFS >> is a black box which I know I will have to learn to trust. I'm not quite >> there yet. >> > > You can access NTFS from DOS too, there are programs like NTFS Pro. > It's not a GUI shell. It's more like a TSR program, and you wouldn't > know it's there, and you can access all your drives. It does the job > properly. > > I recall that it didn't let me do a virus check on an NTFS drive from > DOS though! maybe that used too much RAM or more memory than NTFS Pro > was banking on! But it's very good. There may be other free ones (that > can read and write). > > Another great alternative, and why many people don't even use that > program anymore. Is Win XP PE. booting a rubbishy version of win xp > off a CD. (win xp has no prob reading NTFS). > > Maybe a linux boot disk can do it too. > > All these options are easier than putting the drive in another machine > that runs win xp or an OS that sees NTFS. > > Regarding Norton DOS Disk edit. I kow I guess it lets you read/write > at the byte level, and sounds very cool. But what have/can you use it > for ? > e.g. what have you done playing with partitions ? the boot record ? > files ? at that level.. > > > > > > >> What 137 GB limit? >> > > Win xp pre sp1 didn't let you create a partition or format, to more > than 137GB. So you had to resize it with a prog like partition magic.
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted August 16, 2007 Posted August 16, 2007 Re: AW: what's the story with the FAT32, 32GB limit ? Re: AW: what's the story with the FAT32, 32GB limit ? On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:58:24 +0200, "247SPY" <nospam@invalid> wrote: > My explanation of yo questions: > > > 1. FAT > > Yes, it's true that > > FAT32 (FAT is the FileAllocationTable, something like pointers, showing > to the real physical location 'files' are located (as you know, there > are just 0s and 1s - binary data) was originally limited to 32GB (FAT16 > to 16GB), and it has got something to do with the physical design of > elder HDDs and the ability to handle the adresses, sectors, clusters > etc.). Later there were 'tricks' used to ship around those limitations > (as everybody knows, FAT was developed by MicroShit (also NTFS) and as > everybody knows, they don't know much about their own techniques (and > therefore don't give rich infos about their products ;-). > > > 2. DOS > > Bill once said (in DOS days), that noone will ever need a bigger RAM > than a few kBytes, which has been the reason for some smart programmers > to 'imitate' a bigger one (EMM386) for DOS, to have the possibilitiy > using larger Programs under DOS. > > > 3. NTFS > > And the same for NTFS: > > invented by M$, designed for NT (counter player to UNIX), not readable > (except with tricky little programs) by FAT OSes like Win98, Win95, Win > 1 to 3...... Because of the new technique of hiding files, crypting > files, setting access permissions of files, HDDs etc. Integrated in NTFS > there is the ACL (Access Control List), where all the permissions etc. > are written down (something like a map for your NTFS formatted HD). > File-/HD-size limits are given by the (imperfect) design and only > thinking as far as they can see (even if there's misty weather ;-)) or > simply not beeing able to create a bigger one (because of development of > technology). > So if you can read a NTFS partition on a non-NTFS OS, you need to > install (perhaps by M$-update) a program, that can decrypt the > file-system on a local computer. > And when you download a file from a NTFS server to a FAT partition? > Well, quite easy to explain: In the Network you don't have direct access > to the partition, only to the File list of the server (as I said, all > data is binary), and the server decrypts the file on his side, then > sends it to your Network Card (by IP and MAC) and your PC stores it in > the right format (because the File-System has got nothing to do with the > file itself, it only says, how and where the data is saved on disk) > > As you can see, you need a bit of techniqual knowledge and 'history' of > Computers, to understand, what noone can understand at first sight. As > you can see: The one and only reason is a mix of development in key > technologies (e.g. older parts for older HDs would have been too big, to > integrate them in a 5,25" shelter). > > Hope, this helped you a little, to understand, why silly things happen > in Computer industry (but also in other industries, like car. Why don't > they build economical cars? Answer: > 1.They first have to sell the bad versions, to manipulate the customers > for wanting a better product, and therefore buy something new. > 2. The Oil-industry wants to sell more, not less oil in a year > > But don't think about that, consume! > > 4. Partition Magic: As you can read above, there are software tricks > used, if the hardware is limitted. > Why do you think M$ bought SysInternals???? Because they knew more > about Windows than M$ itself, and > therefore wrote better programs than M$ would ever release...... > > Sorry, if you can't cope with my english, but I'm german - and no, I > don't have problems to understand, what you are talking about > ;-)))))))) > But that's really enough for now, cheers > > > > jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk: > > On Aug 14, 11:49 pm, "Paul Randall" <paulr...@cableone.net> wrote: > >> <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > >> > >> news:1186963038.228930.166680@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm > >> > >> > i 've heard that when running an OS , or some OSs, like win xp, > from > >> > that partition, there can be problems if the capacity is > 32GB > >> > >> > I never ran into any problems, but I went to NTFS anyway. > >> > >> > But what are the problems, and why ? > >> > Or is there reason to believe there are no problems, and it's a > myth ? > >> > >> > Note: if no OS is on there, e.g. it's just for data, then i don't > >> > think the 32GB thing is an issue. > >> > i think win xp or an early edition of it didn't let you format a > fat32 > >> > partition > 32GB or something. I recall a mueller video showing > him > >> > resizing it with Partition Magic. > >> > >> > (next, the 137gb limit ;-) ! ) > >> > >> Up until I started using Vista, I have avoided NTFS. My 300 GB > drives work > >> just fine formatted FAT32. I partition/format with GDisk.exe, a DOS > program > >> provided with Norton Ghost. W98 DOS accesses these files just fine. > >> Norton's DOS Disk Edit can play with the contents (master boot > record, > >> partition table, directory, individual file contents, or any sector > of my > >> choice) just the way I want it to. The applications that I use that > handle > >> large files automatically split files so that none has to exceed 2GB. > NTFS > >> is a black box which I know I will have to learn to trust. I'm not > quite > >> there yet. > >> > > > > You can access NTFS from DOS too, there are programs like NTFS Pro. > > It's not a GUI shell. It's more like a TSR program, and you wouldn't > > know it's there, and you can access all your drives. It does the job > > properly. > > > > I recall that it didn't let me do a virus check on an NTFS drive from > > DOS though! maybe that used too much RAM or more memory than NTFS Pro > > was banking on! But it's very good. There may be other free ones > (that > > can read and write). > > > > Another great alternative, and why many people don't even use that > > program anymore. Is Win XP PE. booting a rubbishy version of win xp > > off a CD. (win xp has no prob reading NTFS). > > > > Maybe a linux boot disk can do it too. > > > > All these options are easier than putting the drive in another > machine > > that runs win xp or an OS that sees NTFS. > > > > Regarding Norton DOS Disk edit. I kow I guess it lets you read/write > > at the byte level, and sounds very cool. But what have/can you use it > > for ? > > e.g. what have you done playing with partitions ? the boot record ? > > files ? at that level.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> What 137 GB limit? > >> > > > > Win xp pre sp1 didn't let you create a partition or format, to more > > than 137GB. So you had to resize it with a prog like partition magic. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk Posted August 17, 2007 Posted August 17, 2007 Re: what's the story with the FAT32, 32GB limit ? On 16 Aug, 20:58, "247SPY" <nospam@invalid> wrote: > My explanation of yo questions: > > 1. FAT > > Yes, it's true that > > FAT32 (FAT is the FileAllocationTable, something like pointers, showing > to the real physical location 'files' are located (as you know, there > are just 0s and 1s - binary data) was originally limited to 32GB (FAT16 > to 16GB), and it has got something to do with the physical design of > elder HDDs and the ability to handle the adresses, sectors, clusters > etc.). Later there were 'tricks' used to ship around those limitations > (as everybody knows, FAT was developed by MicroShit (also NTFS) and as > everybody knows, they don't know much about their own techniques (and > therefore don't give rich infos about their products ;-). > I once saw a similar problem, and it may have been 32GB .. My BIOS wouldn't recognise a hard drive > 40GB. (40GB as an advertised capacity on a HDD. Though it could see 40GB.. which are 33.5GB (40/1.048676) ) I had bought a 70GB dirve that wasn't recognised. But had other smaller drives that were recognised. I went through the MBRD manual, and came to such a conclusion, it was a while ago and i don't remember the exact number. But looking at max values for cylinders, heads and stuff, it couldn't get to 70GB, it had a max of like 32GB. I had to update the BIOS. But that had nothing to do with whether the drive was FAT32 or NTFS. This is pre that. The BIOS couldn't recognise the drive. But that is a different problem to what you describe. Since If what you say is correct.. that there is a 32GB issue with FAT32 file system. But OSs can see it, hence some have said it's just a limitation with the format tool. In which case, i'd expect it to be an OS issue, and i'd expect some early versions of OSs to not recognise a drive > 32GB. Is this the case? e.g. does DOS 6 recognise > 32GB Fat32 ? DOS 5 ? e.t.c. > 2. DOS > > Bill once said (in DOS days), that noone will ever need a bigger RAM > than a few kBytes, which has been the reason for some smart programmers > to 'imitate' a bigger one (EMM386) for DOS, to have the possibilitiy > using larger Programs under DOS. > Anybody that knew DOS made use of the EMM386 line in their AUTOEXEC.BAT, (whether EMM386.exe RAM or EMM386.exe NOEMS, or RAM HIGHSCAN if you wanted to push it!) Whether programmers or not. It just changed the "conventional memory" (as shown by the MEM command ), and made things work <snip> > Sorry, if you can't cope with my english, but I'm german - and no, I > don't have problems to understand, what you are talking about > ;-)))))))) > But that's really enough for now, cheers > english is fine! <snip>
Guest cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) Posted September 6, 2007 Posted September 6, 2007 Re: what's the story with the FAT32, 32GB limit ? On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:24:15 -0500, "Shenan Stanley" >You lose a ton of feature and limit yourself for no sane reason with FAT32. You lose NTFS permissions, smaller cluster size, more efficient indexed directory structure, support for files > 4G in size, and other NTFS features such as per-file compression, sparse files, etc. You gain some survivability and recoverability, especially if you stay under 137G, suppression of ADS risks, and compatibility with OSs other than XP, Vista etc. So it's win some, lose some. For me, the ability to repair file system errors under my own control via DOS mode Scandisk and recover data via DiskEdit are big reasons to avoid NTFS, but those benefits are lost when the volume is over the 137G mark. >You have a 4GB file size limit (start recording video or working with large >datasets and see if that doesn't hurt a bit) with FAT32. You have no innate >file system security with FAT32. You also have no ADS hiding places, which I see as a plus. >> (next, the 137gb limit ;-) ! ) >That only exists due to motherboard BIOS and/or pre-sp1 Windows XP >installations. XP SP1 can trash > 137G under certain circumstances that may only apply to "C:", as some code is not >137G-aware. The contexts I saw mentioned were things like crash dumps written to the page file, etc. which are unusual enough to avoid during the OS installation process, but may bite you months later, by which time there's data to lose. So I might install with XP SP1, but I'd then upg it to SP2. >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - To one who only has a hammer, everything looks like a nail >--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Recommended Posts