[petreza]

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.

[UnseenMenace]

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

[Linux Haxxor]

there were some rumours of it being in blackcomb, but it doesn't exist

[JigPu]

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

[Doc_Skurlock]

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

[XWRed1]

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.

[petreza]

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

XWRed1: recording video can give you files bigger than 2GB, for example

[Intrepid]

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

[XWRed1]

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.

[cack01]

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

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

[petreza]

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]

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!

[PalominoBURN]

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

[XWRed1]

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.

[n2d2]

[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

[UnseenMenace]

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)

[cack01]

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.