Notices

Overclockers Forums > Hardware > Storage
Storage SSDs, HDDs, CD/DVD/Bluray
Forum Jump

Fat64???

Post Reply New Thread Subscribe Search this Thread
 
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-01-03, 03:18 PM Thread Starter   #1
petreza
Member

 
petreza's Avatar 

Join Date: Jan 2002

 
Fat64???


Is there such a thing as FAT64?

If so:
Will it allow files bigger than 4GB?
Will it be usable under DOS and DOS utillities (partitioning etc.)?

I know that NTFS breaks the 4GB limit but I don't use it because it is not usable under DOS.
petreza is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 04-01-03, 03:31 PM   #2
UnseenMenace
UnseenModerator

 
UnseenMenace's Avatar 

Join Date: Apr 2001

10 Year Badge
 
As far as I am aware there is NO fat64 and as far as I understand fat32 allows you to exceed 4 gb drive space.
As for file size I was not aware of a limit on either fat or ntfs... what are you actually doing to create 4gb files ? and more importantly what do you store the files on ?
You could say im a little curious

__________________
one M15x is never enough
UnseenMenace is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 04-01-03, 03:47 PM   #3
Linux Haxxor
Disabled



Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Under the Sea

 
there were some rumours of it being in blackcomb, but it doesn't exist
Linux Haxxor is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 04-01-03, 05:08 PM   #4
JigPu
Inactive Pokémon Moderator

 
JigPu's Avatar 

Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Vancouver, WA

10 Year Badge
 
FAT32 allows for maximum of 2GB files, but up to XXGB drives (I forgot the number ). FAT64 would allow for even larger drives and probably files, however since M$ dosen't support DOS anymore, I doubt that they would make patches for it to support it. Also, I haven't heard of any FAT64.....

Also, any utilities designed for FAT16/32 would not be able to make full use (if they could use at all) of a FAT64 drive. So it really isn't a problem of wether M$ makes DOS support it, it's of wether the software makers support if if M$ does support it in DOS.

I could go for >2GB files with my prime number program.... Except that it's file routines limit me to only 2GB outputs at a time ^_^

JigPu

__________________
.... ASRock Z68 Extreme3 Gen3
.... Intel Core i5 2500 ........................ 4 thread ...... 3300 MHz ......... -0.125 V
2x ASUS GTX 560 Ti ............................... 1 GiB ....... 830 MHz ...... 2004 MHz
.... G.SKILL Sniper Low Voltage ............. 8 GiB ..... 1600 MHz ............ 1.25 V
.... OCZ Vertex 3 ................................. 120 GB ............. nilfs2 ..... Arch Linux
.... Kingwin LZP-550 .............................. 550 W ........ 94% Eff. ....... 80+ Plat
.... Nocuta NH-D14 ................................ 20 dB ..... 0.35 C°/W ................ 7 V


"In order to combat power supply concerns, Nvidia has declared that G80 will be the first graphics card in the world to run entirely off of the souls of dead babies. This will make running the G80 much cheaper for the average end user."
"GeForce 8 Series." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 7 Aug 2006, 20:59 UTC. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 8 Aug 2006.
JigPu is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 04-01-03, 10:20 PM   #5
Doc_Skurlock
Member

 
Doc_Skurlock's Avatar 

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grapevine, Texas

 
From what I understand, the FAT system allows up to 500 Petabytes, or something. It's an outrageous number that we'll never see. Remember when 512mb drives were all we'd ever need?
Doc
Doc_Skurlock is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 04-02-03, 04:35 AM   #6
XWRed1
Senior Member

 
XWRed1's Avatar 

Join Date: Oct 2001

 
Fat64 would be retarded. There is no reason to make anything like that.

I've never heard of a fat64 in Blackcomb either. If I did, I'd call it retarded and false.
XWRed1 is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 04-02-03, 02:34 PM Thread Starter   #7
petreza
Member

 
petreza's Avatar 

Join Date: Jan 2002

 
Sorry, my bad! I meant 2GB! (4GB is the memory limit)

XWRed1: recording video can give you files bigger than 2GB, for example
petreza is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 04-02-03, 06:44 PM   #8
Intrepid
Member

 
Intrepid's Avatar 

Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Boise, ID, USA

 
512mb drives... I remember by 256mb drive... I have RAM bigger than that old beast now

__________________

.......OOOOOO.......**********************************
......O......O......**********************************
.....O.SSSSSS.O.....**********************************
....O.S......S
.O....**********************************
...O.S..U..U..S.O...**********************************
..O...S.U..U...S.O..**********************************
.O......USSU......O.**********************************
..O.S...U..U.S...O..**********************************
...O.S...UU...S.O...**********************************
....O.S......S.O....**********************************
.....O.SSSSSS.O.....**********************************
......O......O......**********************************
.......OOOOOO.......**********************************
Intrepid is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 04-03-03, 01:11 AM   #9
XWRed1
Senior Member

 
XWRed1's Avatar 

Join Date: Oct 2001

 
Quote:
Originally posted by petreza
Sorry, my bad! I meant 2GB! (4GB is the memory limit)

XWRed1: recording video can give you files bigger than 2GB, for example
Sorry to me? I don't recall bringing any point on you.

NTFS already lets you have files > 2gb, and its already been better for YEARS than what fat64 would be if it were real.

If you aren't using ntfs, then use it. No good reason not to.
XWRed1 is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 04-03-03, 01:18 AM   #10
cack01
Member

 
cack01's Avatar 

Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San diego or UC Davis

 
All questions will be answered... go on take a peak.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tre...c_fil_tdrn.asp

__________________
LianLi PC70
Dual PIII 1.0@1.2 (7.5*160) on ABIT VP6
768 PC-133
Geforce 4 TI4200 310/580
Sound Blaster Audigy Platinum
2x 40 GB Seagate 5400 w/Striping
1x 80 GB Seagate 7200
24X Yamaha CD-RW
Sony 520GS 21"
cack01 is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 04-03-03, 03:32 PM Thread Starter   #11
petreza
Member

 
petreza's Avatar 

Join Date: Jan 2002

 
Quote:
Originally posted by XWRed1


Sorry to me? I don't recall bringing any point on you.

......

No, that wasn't for you. That's why I put "XWRed1:" below it.
petreza is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 04-03-03, 03:33 PM Thread Starter   #12
petreza
Member

 
petreza's Avatar 

Join Date: Jan 2002

 
Quote:
Originally posted by cack01
All questions will be answered... go on take a peak.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tre...c_fil_tdrn.asp
Thank you!
petreza is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 04-03-03, 10:57 PM   #13
PalominoBURN
Member

 
PalominoBURN's Avatar 

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dallas

 
FAT32 vs. NTFS


Ntfs is great, for big drives. If your running small drives (less then 20gigs) I recommend FAT32 for performance. Also NTFS is not as good for LINUX. Linux works better with FAT32, where has ntfs requires more frustration.

Don't make your decision based on other's opinons of the facts. Simply put FAT32 is not extinct, if it was it wouldn't still be used so often. If FAT32 is properly set up with large clusters, then it can provide great performance on a small drive in comparision to NTFS.

THE FACTS
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ntfs/index3.html
PalominoBURN is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 04-04-03, 12:25 AM   #14
XWRed1
Senior Member

 
XWRed1's Avatar 

Join Date: Oct 2001

 
What're you proposing? Using 32k clusters with fat32 for performance? That'll result in more wasted space, and all that speed will be handy when the partition corrupts itself.

Yes.. playing nice with Linux is a good thing.. but Linux can read ntfs fine and write to it also if you are not faint of heart.

If you really want to be Linux friendly... use ext3 or reiser or xfs.
XWRed1 is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 04-06-03, 09:16 AM   #15
n2d2
New Member



Join Date: Feb 2003

 
Re: FAT32 vs. NTFS


[QUOTE]Originally posted by PalominoBURN
[B]Ntfs is great, for big drives. If your running small drives (less then 20gigs) I recommend FAT32 for performance. Also NTFS is not as good for LINUX. Linux works better with FAT32, where has ntfs requires more frustration.

Using NTFS or FAT (any of them) in linux unless you are just testing, would be just retarded
n2d2 is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 04-06-03, 06:28 PM   #16
UnseenMenace
UnseenModerator

 
UnseenMenace's Avatar 

Join Date: Apr 2001

10 Year Badge
 
Re: Re: FAT32 vs. NTFS


Quote:
Originally posted by n2d2
Using NTFS or FAT (any of them) in linux unless you are just testing, would be just retarded
I do not thing that he was suggesting to use NTFS or FAT with Linux but just pointing out the fact that Linux can read and write to FAT partitions while NTFS partitions can only be sucessfully read from with write only being experimental at this time (it has been known to damage NTFS partitions)

__________________
one M15x is never enough
UnseenMenace is offline   QUOTE Thanks
Old 04-06-03, 09:02 PM   #17
cack01
Member

 
cack01's Avatar 

Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San diego or UC Davis

 
Re: Re: Re: FAT32 vs. NTFS


Quote:
Originally posted by UnseenMenace


NTFS ... write only being experimental at this time (it has been known to damage NTFS partitions)
This is very true, I am speaking from experience. IMHO if your doing linux and 2k/XP, have a extra Fat32 partition which you can use to transfer/share files. Don't try messing with the NTFS partition.

__________________
LianLi PC70
Dual PIII 1.0@1.2 (7.5*160) on ABIT VP6
768 PC-133
Geforce 4 TI4200 310/580
Sound Blaster Audigy Platinum
2x 40 GB Seagate 5400 w/Striping
1x 80 GB Seagate 7200
24X Yamaha CD-RW
Sony 520GS 21"
cack01 is offline   QUOTE Thanks

Post Reply New Thread Subscribe


Overclockers Forums > Hardware > Storage
Storage SSDs, HDDs, CD/DVD/Bluray
Forum Jump

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Mobile Skin
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:37 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
You can add these icons by updating your profile information to include your Heatware ID, Benching Profile ID or your Folding/SETI profile ID. Edit your profile!
X

Welcome to Overclockers.com

Create your username to jump into the discussion!

New members like you have made this the best community on the Internet since 1998!


(4 digit year)

Why Join Us?

  • Share experience
  • Max out your hardware
  • Best forum members anywhere
  • Customized forum experience

Already a member?