Guest M.I.5¾ Posted August 16, 2007 Posted August 16, 2007 Re: Is FAT32 format gone? "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote in message news:Xns998D6B1668A8ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30... > Anna added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... > >>>>> That will work or else you can use 3rd party partitioning >>>>> software as XP will recognize fat32 partitions over 32 >>>>> gigs...(it just can't create them) >>>> >>>>There's still a limit on partition size. Please don't hold me >>>>to this number, but it is in the range of 150 gig for any >>>>single partitition. >>> >>> The theoretical limit for a FAT32 partition is 2 terabytes. >>> The theoretical limit for an NTFS volume is 2**64 allocation >>> units, though current implementations are limited to 2**32 >>> allocation units, which is still much larger than any disk >>> you'll find. >> >> >> "Tim Slattery" <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote in message >> news:r0u5c39gmv72e0oi2fil6fugon3onclk3b@4ax.com... >>> Look here: >>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/r >>> eskit/core/fncc_fil_tvjq.mspx?mfr=true >> >> As Tim has pointed out, for all practical purposes there >> really is no limit to partition size re FAT32-formatted >> partitions. If, for one reason or another, a user desires to >> use the FAT32 file system in a WinXP environment, he or she >> can do so. As we all know there is that 32 GB limitation >> involving *creating* FAT32 partitions from within XP, i.e., >> through the Disk Management utility, however these > 32 GB >> FAT32 partitions can be created through other means, primarily >> using the FDISK/FORMAT commands from a DOS boot disk, e.g., a >> Win9x/Me "Startup Disk". And then the XP OS will happily use >> those > 32 GB FAT32 partitions. >> >> There was (and is) a problem with large-capacity disks, i.e., >> > 127 GB binary, when used with a Win9x/Me OS. For one thing >> problems arise in those operating systems with using the >> defragmentation & disk scanning utilities. We've also run into >> serious disk corruption errors in general which we attributed >> to those large-capacity FAT32-formatted drives. Our general >> recommendation to users of those operating systems is to >> install no HDD > 120 GB. > > I still don't understand, Anna, why I can't get Partition Magic > to format larger than in the 150 gig range. Is it wounded or > defective? As you know, Symantec bought it but never ever updated > it. And, other competitive products seem to have similar > problems, although I cannot personally vouch for any limits on > partition size. > In fact I used Partition Magic to create my 400 GB FAT32 partition. I can't think of any other way I would have done it.
Guest HEMI-Powered Posted August 16, 2007 Posted August 16, 2007 Re: Is FAT32 format gone? Anna added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/r > eskit/core/fncc_fil_tvjq.mspx?mfr=true>> -->> Tim Slattery>> > MS MVP(DTS)>> Slattery_T@bls.gov>> > http://members.cox.net/slatteryt"Anna" <myname@myisp.net> > wrote in > messagenews:%23s0v%23N03HHA.5424@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...> As > Tim has pointed out, for all practical purposes there really > is nolimit> to partition size re FAT32-formatted partitions. > If, for one reason or> another, a user desires to use the > FAT32 file system in a WinXPenvironment,> he or she can do > so. As we all know there is that 32 GB limitationinvolving> > *creating* FAT32 partitions from within XP, i.e., through the > Disk> Management utility, however these > 32 GB FAT32 > partitions can be created> through other means, primarily > using the FDISK/FORMAT commands from a> DOS boot disk, e.g., > a Win9x/Me "Startup Disk". And then the XP OS will> happily > use those > 32 GB FAT32 partitions.>> There was (and is) a > problem with large-capacity disks, i.e., > 127 GB> binary, > when used with a Win9x/Me OS. For one thing problems arise > inthose> operating systems with using the defragmentation & > disk scanningutilities.> We've also run into serious disk > corruption errors in general which we> attributed to those > large-capacity FAT32-formatted drives. Our general> > recommendation to users of those operating systems is to > install no HDD >> 120 GB.>> Like virtually all other > commentators, for a variety of reasons, we> ordinarily > recommend using the NTFS file system in an XP environment.> > However, as one or more posters has commented, we too have > run into> situations - primarily involving custom-designed > programs specialized for> use in a business - where the > program simply refused to work or worked> erratically within > an NTFS file system but had no problem when installedin> a > FAT32 file system in an XP environment. So in those cases the > user had> little or no choice to use the FAT32 file system.> > Anna"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote in > messagenews:Xns998D6B1668A8ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...> I > still don't understand, Anna, why I can't get Partition > Magic> to format larger than in the 150 gig range. Is it > wounded or> defective? As you know, Symantec bought it but > never ever updated> it. And, other competitive products seem > to have similar> problems, although I cannot personally vouch > for any limits on> partition size.>> Just for the record, how > would I format a FAT32 partition on,> say, a 500 gig external > to over 150? I know and understand FDISK> but am very > skittish about it because a minor mistep can wipe out> my > primary. Yes, I am cautious, some would say overly cautious,> > but I've found in my 60 year life that it pays to not lead > with> my chin.>> Thanks for your comments.(SNIP)> Incidently, > do you have an opinion on my observation that FAT32> is much > faster on read/writes than NTFS as well as far faster to> > just bring up a folder tree? For awhile, NTFS on my extended> > partitions (I have two) and my external were SO slow, many> > minutes to just get a tree, that I reformatted them as FAT32. > For> other reasons, primarily the need to store very large > Acronis> True Image image files, I was forced to go back to > NTFS. It was> as if a miracle had occurred. I've had little > trouble since,> although my Maxtor 300 gig with 2 NTFS > partitions (I wanted 2 to> separate the data on the drive > logically) normally works fine,> there ARE occasions when > it'll go away for a minute or two trying> to access one of > the partitions in Explorer.>> Again, thanks for your > observations. Am I correc that you are the> same "Anna" that > posted that excellent True Image tutorial some> time back? > Very nicely written and quite helpful.> --> HP, aka > JerryJerry:I honestly don't know why you're having trouble > using the Partition Magicprogram (I assume you're using the > 8.01 version) to create one or more FAT32partitions. It's > usually a very "cut & dried" procedure with PM. Although > Ihave to admit it's been a very long time since we used that > program tocreate large FAT32 partitions. In the event we *do* > find it necessary, weinvariably use the FDISK & FORMAT > commands from a DOS boot floppy disk or CDto create FAT32 > partitions.As to formatting a FAT32 partition on your > external 500 GB HDD...I'm assuming it's a USB external HDD, > right? If so, you really won't be ableto use the FDISK/FORMAT > commands in that situation because of the USBinterface. It > will be necessary to install the disk as an *internal* HDD > inyour system and then boot to the DOS boot disk to invoke > the FDISK/FORMATcommands. Then, of course, reinstall the disk > in its USB enclosure.Now, there *is* ostensibly a program > that purports to format FAT32partitions > 32 GB from *within* > WinXP. It's a Linux-based program - themkdosfs.exe program > that you can download in ZIP format > fromhttp://www.mager.org/mkdosfs/Basically the process is to > create the partition on your USB external HDDusing the Disk > Management utility in XP and format the > 32 GB partition > inNTFS. Then use the mkdosfs.exe program which will be > installed in your XPsystem to format that partition FAT32. > We've used this program a number oftimes and for the most > part it "worked". But I have to tell you that in acouple of > cases we later ran into some data corruption issues which, > whilewe couldn't *prove* they were caused by the mkdosfs > FAT32-formattingprocess, we were (and continue to be) uneasy > about using the program again.So you may first want to > experiment with this program by testing it withsome > non-critical data. But I would be cautious about using it > without anyreservations until you're confident of its > effectiveness.In any event, if you are able to uninstall the > 500 GB HDD from its USBenclosure and then install it as an > internal HDD in your XP system, I wouldgo ahead and use the > FDISK/FORMAT commands as indicated above. As youprobably know > it's a rather straightforward process and shouldn't cause > youany difficulty. Just take your time and understand those > commands' optionsas you go through the process.As to your > questions re the differences between the FAT32 & NTFS > filesystems as to performance (speed of read/writes). I > really can't concludethe FAT32 file system is faster in this > regard. As I previously stated,unless the user has some > special need to use the FAT32 file system becauseof some > program/system compatibility issues, we strongly recommend > employingthe NTFS file system in an XP environment.And yes, > I'm the very same "Anna" and thank you for your nice comment. > I'mglad to hear you found those Acronis True Image > step-by-step instructionshelpful. I might mention in passing > that we've actually been using anotherdisk cloning program > since earlier this year and we've been quite impressedwith > it. To the point where it's our disk-cloning program of > choice and weprefer it over the ATI program. It's the Casper > 4.0 program (seehttp://www.fssdev.com)Perhaps you've come > across a couple of my postings in which I extolled thevirtues > of this program and provided some details as to using it. > It'scertainly worth looking into. In this connection you > might want to take alook at my post to this newsgroup of > August 7 - the subject being "Re: needa good backup method or > program".(BTW, I'm leaving for a two-month overseas > assignment tomorrow morning andwill not have access to this & > other newsgroups during that time. I mentionthis only because > I probably won't have an opportunity to respond to anyfurther > posts over the next few months.)Anna > Thank you immensely, Anna, I've saved your excellent reply for future reference. -- HP, aka Jerry
Guest HEMI-Powered Posted August 16, 2007 Posted August 16, 2007 Re: Is FAT32 format gone? Tim Slattery added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... >> Incidently, do you have an opinion on my observation that >> FAT32 is much >>faster on read/writes than NTFS as well as far faster to just >>bring up a folder tree? > > I doubt there's much difference in reads and writes, once you > have a file open. NTFS stores files within a directory in a > Btree structure, while FAT32 simply has a sequential list. > That means that it will be faster to get the entire list from > the FAT-style directory, but it will be *lots* faster to find > one file in a large NTFS directory. (And, of course, there's > no limit on number of files in an NTFS directory.) > I didn't know that, but fully believe that is what I am experiencing exactly. I have timed small, medium, and large reads and writes to both systems and found FAT32 to be faster, but what used to plague me severely, and occasionally does today only less so, is building the B-Tree, hence I have to sit on my hands until it refreshes that. Theoretically, and you know how much I hate theory vs. reality, this should only have to be done once unless something drastically changes, but my symptoms seem to indicate that the cached tree sturcture somehow ages and XP/NTFS decides it needs to rebuild it, hence I have the problem. I never figured out why it was so severe initially upon getting SP2/NTFS and never figured out how/why it pretty much went away, but I don't look gift horses in the mouth! <grin> I keep an orderly system, with Windows and my apps on C:\ and NO data, non-graphics data of all types on D:\ and graphics-only data on E:\. That enables me to not only do a more efficient and effective job of file management, but the smaller tree is faster for Windows and my apps to access. Thanks for answering my question that I've been wondering about for almost 2 years. -- HP, aka Jerry
Guest HEMI-Powered Posted August 16, 2007 Posted August 16, 2007 Re: Is FAT32 format gone? Tim Slattery added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... > "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote: > > >>OK, I stand/sit corrected; I did a quick 2^32 in Excel. So, >>why is it that PM won't format over abut 150 gig do you >>think? > > I think you'd have to ask Symantec that question. We've heard > in this newsgroup from people who have used FAT32 partitions > larger than 150GB (one poster reported a FAT32 partition of > 300GB! Not for me, thanks), so it's certainly possible to do. > Symantec is no help. First, their tech support is in India where they speak English but not American and NOT technical. Second, they have steadfastly refused to update Partition Magic after they bought it. So, it is pointless. This is more of an annoyance to me than a major problem, so I just live with the limitation. I know I can use FDISK but don't like it because it is risky if anything goes wrong, and I have no real need for a PM replacement, plus I've heard bad things of other sorts from its major competitors. I do not dispute what people actually experience, as I am not sitting next to them at the PC. Equally, though, people shouldn't overly dispute me for the same reason. Better, I think to ask questions politely than to speak "facts" which may not be facts. Hence, besides FDISK or some other Windows-based partitioning and formatting utility, I am stuck for now, but that really is OK. Should I get a really large external, I would likely no longer use FAT32 again, as I resolved by accident the slowness that I initially experience with NTFS, hence this is an academic exercise. No, I was NOT trolling by getting into this, I was trying to learn. I'm still not at all clear, but I am still in learning mode. -- HP, aka Jerry
Guest HEMI-Powered Posted August 16, 2007 Posted August 16, 2007 Re: Is FAT32 format gone? Ken Blake, MVP added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... >> > That will work or else you can use 3rd party partitioning >> > software as XP will recognize fat32 partitions over 32 >> > gigs...(it just can't create them) >> >> There's still a limit on partition size. Please don't hold me >> to this number, but it is in the range of 150 gig for any >> single partitition. > > > No, it's *much* greater than 150GB. The maximum FAT32 volume > size is 2TB (2048GB)--greater than any hard drive available > today. > That is what the bit-length calculates out to, Ken, as has been discussed. However, getting there in a practical way in the real world involves software I do not at all understand. But, this much I do understand: I cannot do a FAT32 partition at all with XP and would need to resort to the risks of FDISK or some 3rd party solution. -- HP, aka Jerry
Guest HEMI-Powered Posted August 16, 2007 Posted August 16, 2007 Re: Is FAT32 format gone? M.I.5¾ added these comments in the current discussion du jour .... >> I still don't understand, Anna, why I can't get Partition >> Magic to format larger than in the 150 gig range. Is it >> wounded or defective? As you know, Symantec bought it but >> never ever updated it. And, other competitive products seem >> to have similar problems, although I cannot personally vouch >> for any limits on partition size. > > In fact I used Partition Magic to create my 400 GB FAT32 > partition. I can't think of any other way I would have done > it. I have what I believe to be the latest version, I think it is 8.01, and it refuses to do that on the 3 external HDs I tried it on. Eventually, though, I worked around the reason I wanted to use FAT32, performance, AND found a direct requirement for NTFS, which was 5+ GB image files from Acronis True Image that could not be written to FAT32 in over about 2.5 gig pieces. Now, I'm probably going to start another firestorm of protest with this assertion, but I have found in my life that reality trumps all the other cards in the game, so I went to Acronis's web site and checked in with tech support. THEY told me that FAT32 cannot handle a 5 gig file, so I switched rather than fight the obvious. -- HP, aka Jerry
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted August 16, 2007 Posted August 16, 2007 Re: Is FAT32 format gone? On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:44:47 -0000, "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote: > Ken Blake, MVP added these comments in the current discussion du > jour ... > > >> > That will work or else you can use 3rd party partitioning > >> > software as XP will recognize fat32 partitions over 32 > >> > gigs...(it just can't create them) > >> > >> There's still a limit on partition size. Please don't hold me > >> to this number, but it is in the range of 150 gig for any > >> single partitition. > > > > > > No, it's *much* greater than 150GB. The maximum FAT32 volume > > size is 2TB (2048GB)--greater than any hard drive available > > today. > > > That is what the bit-length calculates out to, Ken, as has been > discussed. However, getting there in a practical way in the real > world involves software I do not at all understand. From a practical standpoint, since there are no drives that big, it doesn't matter. In practice, you can have a FAT32 partition as big as any drive made today. > But, this much > I do understand: I cannot do a FAT32 partition at all You mean "over 32GB," I assume, not "at all." > with XP and > would need to resort to the risks of FDISK or some 3rd party > solution. Correct. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted August 16, 2007 Posted August 16, 2007 Re: Is FAT32 format gone? On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:48:00 -0000, "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote: > THEY told me that FAT32 cannot handle a 5 gig file, > so I switched rather than fight the obvious. Yes, The file size limit for FAT32 is 4GB. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest HEMI-Powered Posted August 16, 2007 Posted August 16, 2007 Re: Is FAT32 format gone? Ken Blake, MVP added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... > From a practical standpoint, since there are no drives that > big, it doesn't matter. In practice, you can have a FAT32 > partition as big as any drive made today. Ken, I'm going to voluntarily stand down here. It is both academic and moot for me, since my NTFS complaints somehow repaired themselves and I have no reason to use FAT32 any longer. I appreciate your observations and that of others, and while I am still pretty fuzzy, I don't want to continue a debate for a personal thing that is no longer crucial to me. As to others, if they still have a FAT32 issue, they should certainly voice it, and we'll just stay away from more debate on what any practical limits to partition size may or may not be. Thank you. > >> But, this much >> I do understand: I cannot do a FAT32 partition at all > > > You mean "over 32GB," I assume, not "at all." > > >> with XP and >> would need to resort to the risks of FDISK or some 3rd party >> solution. > > > Correct. > -- HP, aka Jerry
Guest HEMI-Powered Posted August 16, 2007 Posted August 16, 2007 Re: Is FAT32 format gone? Ken Blake, MVP added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... >> THEY told me that FAT32 cannot handle a 5 gig file, so I >> switched rather than fight the obvious. > > Yes, The file size limit for FAT32 is 4GB. > OK, thanks for straigtening me out, Ken. Somehow, I had 2.5 gig in my addled brain but now that you mention it, that IS what Acronis said - 4 gig. I write my images, which get up into the 5-6 gig range, to an external HD, then occasionally create a dual-layer DVD as backup to the backup. It is very problematical to me to envision True Image being able to fully use even its own multi-part files if the Windows damage is severe enough. And, with my system being relatively lightly loaded, I think I will be able to get it all onto a dual-layer DVD. Incidently, one of the things I do before I run TI is to delete my swapfile, clean out all the temp files, move anything off C:\ that isn't crucial, and most importantly, do the most comprehensive malware scans I possibly can. It makes absolutely no sense to image an infected system. The reason I kill the swap file, which is almost 800MB for me, is that I don't see need for backing up 800 meg of nothing. Am I correct in doing this? -- HP, aka Jerry
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted August 16, 2007 Posted August 16, 2007 Re: Is FAT32 format gone? On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:04:41 -0000, "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote: > Ken Blake, MVP added these comments in the current discussion du > jour ... > > >> THEY told me that FAT32 cannot handle a 5 gig file, so I > >> switched rather than fight the obvious. > > > > Yes, The file size limit for FAT32 is 4GB. > > > OK, thanks for straigtening me out, Ken. You're welcome. Always glad to help. > Incidently, one of the things I do before I run TI is to delete my > swapfile, clean out all the temp files, move anything off C:\ that > isn't crucial, and most importantly, do the most comprehensive > malware scans I possibly can. It makes absolutely no sense to image > an infected system. The reason I kill the swap file, which is > almost 800MB for me, is that I don't see need for backing up 800 > meg of nothing. Am I correct in doing this? There's no *need* to back up the swap file, but unless the media you are backing up to doesn't have enough room for it, there's no pressing need to delete it. Personally, I've never bothered doing it, but I don't see any reason why doing it should hurt. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest HEMI-Powered Posted August 16, 2007 Posted August 16, 2007 Re: Is FAT32 format gone? Ken Blake, MVP added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... >> Incidently, one of the things I do before I run TI is to >> delete my swapfile, clean out all the temp files, move >> anything off C:\ that isn't crucial, and most importantly, do >> the most comprehensive malware scans I possibly can. It makes >> absolutely no sense to image an infected system. The reason I >> kill the swap file, which is almost 800MB for me, is that I >> don't see need for backing up 800 meg of nothing. Am I >> correct in doing this? > > There's no *need* to back up the swap file, but unless the > media you are backing up to doesn't have enough room for it, > there's no pressing need to delete it. Personally, I've never > bothered doing it, but I don't see any reason why doing it > should hurt. > That's what I thought, Ken, but thought I'd ask since it is obliquely relevant to where this thread went wrt to max size for a single file on FAT32. I am OK for now, and probably will be for some time, as a dual-layer DVD is what, 8.4 gig I think, and my image files are under 6. It would be when I approach 8 gig even on maximum compression in Acronis True Image that I'd begin to worry, as I'd prefer not to have a multi-disc backup. Just too many places to hiccup. I think your logic is compelling, though. Since I am so far from filling the DVD, in addition to what is on two separate external HDs (for safety), I guess I'm pretty much wasting my time doing all that for 768 MB or something that is being compressed anyway. Again, thanks for the tips! -- HP, aka Jerry
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted August 16, 2007 Posted August 16, 2007 Re: Is FAT32 format gone? On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:15:33 -0000, "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote: > Ken Blake, MVP added these comments in the current discussion du > jour ... > > > There's no *need* to back up the swap file, but unless the > > media you are backing up to doesn't have enough room for it, > > there's no pressing need to delete it. Personally, I've never > > bothered doing it, but I don't see any reason why doing it > > should hurt. > > > That's what I thought, Ken, but thought I'd ask since it is > obliquely relevant to where this thread went wrt to max size for a > single file on FAT32. I am OK for now, and probably will be for > some time, as a dual-layer DVD is what, 8.4 gig I think, and my > image files are under 6. It would be when I approach 8 gig even on > maximum compression in Acronis True Image that I'd begin to worry, > as I'd prefer not to have a multi-disc backup. Just too many places > to hiccup. > > I think your logic is compelling, though. Since I am so far from > filling the DVD, in addition to what is on two separate external > HDs (for safety), I guess I'm pretty much wasting my time doing all > that for 768 MB or something that is being compressed anyway. > > Again, thanks for the tips! Any time. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Lil' Dave Posted August 18, 2007 Posted August 18, 2007 Re: Is FAT32 format gone? "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message news:%23s0v%23N03HHA.5424@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > >> "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote: >> >>>philo added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... >>> >>>> That will work or else you can use 3rd party partitioning >>>> software as XP will recognize fat32 partitions over 32 >>>> gigs...(it just can't create them) >>> >>>There's still a limit on partition size. Please don't hold me to >>>this number, but it is in the range of 150 gig for any single >>>partitition. >> >> The theoretical limit for a FAT32 partition is 2 terabytes. The >> theoretical limit for an NTFS volume is 2**64 allocation units, though >> current implementations are limited to 2**32 allocation units, which >> is still much larger than any disk you'll find. > > > "Tim Slattery" <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote in message > news:r0u5c39gmv72e0oi2fil6fugon3onclk3b@4ax.com... >> Look here: >> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/core/fncc_fil_tvjq.mspx?mfr=true >> >> -- >> Tim Slattery >> MS MVP(DTS) >> Slattery_T@bls.gov >> http://members.cox.net/slatteryt > > > As Tim has pointed out, for all practical purposes there really is no > limit to partition size re FAT32-formatted partitions. If, for one reason > or another, a user desires to use the FAT32 file system in a WinXP > environment, he or she can do so. As we all know there is that 32 GB > limitation involving *creating* FAT32 partitions from within XP, i.e., > through the Disk Management utility, however these > 32 GB FAT32 > partitions can be created through other means, primarily using the > FDISK/FORMAT commands from a DOS boot disk, e.g., a Win9x/Me "Startup > Disk". And then the XP OS will happily use those > 32 GB FAT32 partitions. > > There was (and is) a problem with large-capacity disks, i.e., > 127 GB > binary, when used with a Win9x/Me OS. For one thing problems arise in > those operating systems with using the defragmentation & disk scanning > utilities. We've also run into serious disk corruption errors in general > which we attributed to those large-capacity FAT32-formatted drives. Our > general recommendation to users of those operating systems is to install > no HDD > 120 GB. > There is a problem with the NATIVE defrag and scandisk in 98/98SE. Not with Millenium's counterpart per posts at the 98 general newsgroup. The data corruption problem lies deeper than the partition size when there is file data in excess of 128GB. Whether the OS (98) can "see" another partition is not of consequence. For example, a FAT32 partition at 120GB and an NTFS partition at 66GB on a "200GB" capacity hard drive. If the combined partitions have file data in excess of 128GB, any further writes in the FAT32 partition by 98 will result in corruption of both the file system and file data. The end recommendation of a hard drive of 120GB or less is still the same. The reasons, however, are not exactly the same as you stated. An example where this may be attempted is a 98/XP dual boot configuration. Dave
Guest Lil' Dave Posted August 18, 2007 Posted August 18, 2007 Re: Is FAT32 format gone? Don't use fdisk. There's a partition size reporting problem with its partition when in excess of its intended maximum size. 98 - 64gb, downloadable updated version - 128GB. The hard drive makers provide a more current downloadable partition/formatting tool for FAT32. May be part of a larger program (within that program). May be in bootable media, or work within XP. There's no problem that I'm aware of with these. Dave "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote in message news:Xns998D6B1668A8ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30... > Anna added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... > >>>>> That will work or else you can use 3rd party partitioning >>>>> software as XP will recognize fat32 partitions over 32 >>>>> gigs...(it just can't create them) >>>> >>>>There's still a limit on partition size. Please don't hold me >>>>to this number, but it is in the range of 150 gig for any >>>>single partitition. >>> >>> The theoretical limit for a FAT32 partition is 2 terabytes. >>> The theoretical limit for an NTFS volume is 2**64 allocation >>> units, though current implementations are limited to 2**32 >>> allocation units, which is still much larger than any disk >>> you'll find. >> >> >> "Tim Slattery" <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote in message >> news:r0u5c39gmv72e0oi2fil6fugon3onclk3b@4ax.com... >>> Look here: >>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/r >>> eskit/core/fncc_fil_tvjq.mspx?mfr=true >> >> As Tim has pointed out, for all practical purposes there >> really is no limit to partition size re FAT32-formatted >> partitions. If, for one reason or another, a user desires to >> use the FAT32 file system in a WinXP environment, he or she >> can do so. As we all know there is that 32 GB limitation >> involving *creating* FAT32 partitions from within XP, i.e., >> through the Disk Management utility, however these > 32 GB >> FAT32 partitions can be created through other means, primarily >> using the FDISK/FORMAT commands from a DOS boot disk, e.g., a >> Win9x/Me "Startup Disk". And then the XP OS will happily use >> those > 32 GB FAT32 partitions. >> >> There was (and is) a problem with large-capacity disks, i.e., >> > 127 GB binary, when used with a Win9x/Me OS. For one thing >> problems arise in those operating systems with using the >> defragmentation & disk scanning utilities. We've also run into >> serious disk corruption errors in general which we attributed >> to those large-capacity FAT32-formatted drives. Our general >> recommendation to users of those operating systems is to >> install no HDD > 120 GB. > > I still don't understand, Anna, why I can't get Partition Magic > to format larger than in the 150 gig range. Is it wounded or > defective? As you know, Symantec bought it but never ever updated > it. And, other competitive products seem to have similar > problems, although I cannot personally vouch for any limits on > partition size. > > Just for the record, how would I format a FAT32 partition on, > say, a 500 gig external to over 150? I know and understand FDISK > but am very skittish about it because a minor mistep can wipe out > my primary. Yes, I am cautious, some would say overly cautious, > but I've found in my 60 year life that it pays to not lead with > my chin. > > Thanks for your comments. > >> Like virtually all other commentators, for a variety of >> reasons, we ordinarily recommend using the NTFS file system in >> an XP environment. However, as one or more posters has >> commented, we too have run into situations - primarily >> involving custom-designed programs specialized for use in a >> business - where the program simply refused to work or worked >> erratically within an NTFS file system but had no problem when >> installed in a FAT32 file system in an XP environment. So in >> those cases the user had little or no choice to use the FAT32 >> file system. Anna >> > Here, you're talking about my nephew's experience in getting > proprietary SW to run on newer versions of Windows that he wants > for various computer-controlled machine tools or measuring > devices, as well as some versions of smaller CAD or CAM cutter > path SW, or even apps designed to program things like so-called > "programmable controllers" for CNC-anything, robots, and the > like. > > Incidently, do you have an opinion on my observation that FAT32 > is much faster on read/writes than NTFS as well as far faster to > just bring up a folder tree? For awhile, NTFS on my extended > partitions (I have two) and my external were SO slow, many > minutes to just get a tree, that I reformatted them as FAT32. For > other reasons, primarily the need to store very large Acronis > True Image image files, I was forced to go back to NTFS. It was > as if a miracle had occurred. I've had little trouble since, > although my Maxtor 300 gig with 2 NTFS partitions (I wanted 2 to > separate the data on the drive logically) normally works fine, > there ARE occasions when it'll go away for a minute or two trying > to access one of the partitions in Explorer. > > Again, thanks for your observations. Am I correc that you are the > same "Anna" that posted that excellent True Image tutorial some > time back? Very nicely written and quite helpful. > > -- > HP, aka Jerry
Guest Lil' Dave Posted August 18, 2007 Posted August 18, 2007 Re: Is FAT32 format gone? "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote in message news:Xns998E85182796DReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30... > Ken Blake, MVP added these comments in the current discussion du > jour ... > >>> THEY told me that FAT32 cannot handle a 5 gig file, so I >>> switched rather than fight the obvious. >> >> Yes, The file size limit for FAT32 is 4GB. >> > OK, thanks for straigtening me out, Ken. Somehow, I had 2.5 gig in > my addled brain but now that you mention it, that IS what Acronis > said - 4 gig. I write my images, which get up into the 5-6 gig > range, to an external HD, then occasionally create a dual-layer DVD > as backup to the backup. It is very problematical to me to envision > True Image being able to fully use even its own multi-part files if > the Windows damage is severe enough. And, with my system being > relatively lightly loaded, I think I will be able to get it all > onto a dual-layer DVD. > > Incidently, one of the things I do before I run TI is to delete my > swapfile, clean out all the temp files, move anything off C:\ that > isn't crucial, and most importantly, do the most comprehensive > malware scans I possibly can. It makes absolutely no sense to image > an infected system. The reason I kill the swap file, which is > almost 800MB for me, is that I don't see need for backing up 800 > meg of nothing. Am I correct in doing this? > > -- > HP, aka Jerry Imaging programs do not backup the swapfile or hiberfil.sys. There's no need. Dave
Guest HEMI-Powered Posted August 18, 2007 Posted August 18, 2007 Re: Is FAT32 format gone? Lil' Dave added these comments in the current discussion du jour .... > Don't use fdisk. There's a partition size reporting problem > with its partition when in excess of its intended maximum > size. 98 - 64gb, downloadable updated version - 128GB. > > The hard drive makers provide a more current downloadable > partition/formatting tool for FAT32. May be part of a larger > program (within that program). May be in bootable media, or > work within XP. There's no problem that I'm aware of with > these. Dave Thanks, Dave. I won't go on as I promised not to extend this debate as it is now academic, I'm full NTFS now. -- HP, aka Jerry
Guest HEMI-Powered Posted August 18, 2007 Posted August 18, 2007 Re: Is FAT32 format gone? Lil' Dave added these comments in the current discussion du jour .... [snip my own testimony] > Imaging programs do not backup the swapfile or hiberfil.sys. > There's no need. Really?! Thanks again, Dave! I wondered if True Image might be smart enough not to as I see little/no difference in the image file sizes whether I do or don't delete my 768 meg pagefile. I'm not sure I know what hiberfil.sys is, but I think it is the hibernate thingy, is that right? I'm still in the middle of an XP Search but I not think I have it, as I have hibernet for all my HW turned off. -- HP, aka Jerry
Guest Lil' Dave Posted August 19, 2007 Posted August 19, 2007 Re: Is FAT32 format gone? "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote in message news:Xns999087C925C2EReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30... > Lil' Dave added these comments in the current discussion du jour > ... > >> Don't use fdisk. There's a partition size reporting problem >> with its partition when in excess of its intended maximum >> size. 98 - 64gb, downloadable updated version - 128GB. >> >> The hard drive makers provide a more current downloadable >> partition/formatting tool for FAT32. May be part of a larger >> program (within that program). May be in bootable media, or >> work within XP. There's no problem that I'm aware of with >> these. Dave > > Thanks, Dave. I won't go on as I promised not to extend this debate > as it is now academic, I'm full NTFS now. > > -- > HP, aka Jerry Be aware that you're not the only one reading this thread, and, may act upon a recommendation made. Dave
Guest John McGaw Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 Re: Is FAT32 format gone? Brightbelt wrote: > Hi, > I'm trying to use my XP laptop to format a drive with FAT32 so it will be > compatible with an Intel Mac. > > But when I right-click the drive and choose 'Format', NTFS is the only > choice there, like a default. > > Is there something I'm missing? How can I get it to format with FAT32? > > I appreciate any assistance on this,....Frank B. http://www.ridgecrop.demon.co.uk/index.htm?fat32format.htm has worked well formatting several 200gB drives I've installed in USB enclosures. No limitations that I've found or heard of and it works amazingly quickly. John McGaw http://johnmcgaw.com
Guest HEMI-Powered Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 Re: Is FAT32 format gone? Lil' Dave added these comments in the current discussion du jour .... >> Thanks, Dave. I won't go on as I promised not to extend this >> debate as it is now academic, I'm full NTFS now. >> > Be aware that you're not the only one reading this thread, > and, may act upon a recommendation made. I understand the value to lurkers, Dave, but some people were becoming quite vocal about my OT or near-OT comments in this thread, so /I/ backed off since FAT32 is to ME both academic and moot. If you want to help others or the discussion evolves in a new direction, that's fine, but I probably won't tie up everybody's headers with my inane questions on something no longer of importance to me personally. Now, FOR the lurkers: when I first started using my current XP Pro SP2 box with NTFS everywhere, it used to take 2-3, sometimes more minutes just to bring up a file/folder tree in Explorer. So, I reformatted my extended partitions to FAT32, but eventually had to go back to NTFS because I was saving files larger than its 4 gig max. Curiously, I've had very little trouble since. Sometimes, it'll "go away" for 15-20 seconds, but that's fine. Thanks for all your comments and observations. -- HP, aka Jerry
Recommended Posts