Can't format 64 GB USB flash drives as FAT32?

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sat, 26 Nov 2016 01:31:16 +0000, Brian
Gregory wrote:

On 26/11/2016 00:56, VanguardLH wrote:
Ant wrote:

I noticed both updated 64bit Windows 7 HPE SP1 & 10 EE won't let me
reformat my new 64 GB flash drives as FAT32 (default originally). Their
Explorers only gave me NTFS & exFAT. Why no old FAT32?

Open a command shell (cmd.exe) with admin privileges. Use the
format.exe program inside the command shell. Run "format /?" for help.
You'll need to use the /fs:fat32 argument. explorer.exe has code to fix
the limitation to 32GB hence why you cannot use it beyond that capacity.
This was a deliberate ploy to get users to move to NTFS.

Or use a 3rd party (non-Microsoft) partition manager if you need a GUI.


I think this supposed "limitation" appeared when Microsoft introduced
their proprietary ExFAT format.

I think even Microsoft know NTFS isn't a good idea on flash storage that
doesn't have wear levelling.

So would ExFAT be better than FAT32 also, for the sake of wear?

On 11/25/2016 10:25 PM, pjp wrote:
I was under the understanding Mac's read/write to exFat. I even
formatted one of my externals once to facilitate visiting a Mac friend
once. Visit didn't happen so still don't know for sure. Can't see Apple
paying MS to support it's file system?

Sure, why wouldn't Apple pay Microsoft?

Yousuf Khan

In message om, Ed
Light writes:
On 11/25/2016 7:01 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:

ExFAT has some of the security
descriptors from NTFS, without any of the journaling features which can
be used in fixing filesystem errors. Etc.

Yousuf Khan

I always format usb drives ntfs, because I remember how easily FAT 32
got wrecked when Win 98 crashed. Many errors to fix. I don't know if
it's true, but I read an article saying that ntfs is faster on clusters
of small files than fat 32.

I _once_ had a FAT system crash, and it did indeed right royally screw
up the file system: I think irretrievably, certainly with the knowledge
I had then: directories (including the root) full of filenames with
random characters in them. But I only had it once. (I also can't be
_sure_ it was the file system that was responsible; I to some extent
suspect not, or not entirely, though don't ask me why: I still feel FAT,
being somewhat simpler, is _less_ likely to go wrong in that way. But I
don't know enough about the inner workings of either to be sure.)

I haven't thought of using it on USB sticks - I don't use them enough,
mainly just for moving files between devices (and there the universality
of FAT probably wins) - but I have a simple reason for using NTFS on any
new HD partition: as far as I can see, Everything (the search utility)
doesn't appear to work on FAT. It's a trivial reason, but I find
Everything so useful that it was sufficient to make me change my policy
in this respect.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A man does not have to be an angel in order to be saint.
Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965)

In message , Yousuf Khan
writes:
[]
ExFAT is proprietary, Microsoft wants to charge money for using it. The
patents on FAT32 and NTFS ran out long ago, that's why Linux can now
[]
And Neill Massello says:

That's my understanding of why Apple doesn't provide full support for
NTFS: it's proprietary.

I guess you _could_ both be right! Though I saw Yousuf's post first.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A man does not have to be an angel in order to be saint.
Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965)

On 11/26/2016 12:59 AM, Ed Light wrote:
I always format usb drives ntfs, because I remember how easily FAT 32
got wrecked when Win 98 crashed. Many errors to fix. I don't know if
it's true, but I read an article saying that ntfs is faster on clusters
of small files than fat 32.

It's a legitimate filesystem to put on a USB stick, if all you ever want
to do is have it read by other PC's. I sometimes use my USB sticks in
settop boxes and DVD players too, and they don't read NTFS. But the NTFS
is a more robust filesystem, for sure.

Yousuf Khan

Paul wrote:

One thing about foreign NTFS access, is the risk depends
on what you're doing with it.

True. Access with Linux can harm as easily as it can fix if you don't
know what you are doing since all are just files...


If you bring an NTFS data drive to a foreign computer,
the risk with analogs of the NTFS-3G driver are low.

Just be careful what you do to C: (OS) partitions over there.
I've trashed Win7 C: via Linux, while reading files in
C:\System Volume Information. Luckily, I had a backup
image made two hours earlier at the time. You don't get
that lucky very often. I tried to repair with CHKDSK but
it didn't work. Whatever the problem was, it was that bad.


Well futzing with the System Volume Information can get you in trouble
regardless of the OS, but I have repaired a number of Windows systems
with Linux. Removed corrupted Windows-invalid named files, caused by
drive corruption, infections, and copy "protection". Hunted down hidden
regenerating malware. Only issue that I ever noticed while piecing
together corrupted Windows profiles with Linux is transferred files
where missing the 8.3 old DOS listings.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On 2016-11-25 6:06 PM, Ant wrote:
Hello.

I noticed both updated 64bit Windows 7 HPE SP1 & 10 EE won't let me
reformat my new 64 GB flash drives as FAT32 (default originally). Their
Explorers only gave me NTFS & exFAT. Why no old FAT32? Not everything
know exFAT & NTFS.

Thank you in adance.

There are limitations to FAT32 partition sizes as far as I know. The
same way that FAT16 was limited to 2GB (if I remember correctly), FAT32
has limitations of 4GB for file sizes so it would be an issue for you
going forward and the filesystem is therefore to be avoided.

https://wiki.vuze.com/w/FAT32_file_size_limit


--
Silver Slimer
Fingerprint: e58428b2633833a3b0c9bb7e40819166642245b7
Gab.ai: @silverslimer

In message , Silver Slimer
writes:
On 2016-11-25 6:06 PM, Ant wrote:
Hello.

I noticed both updated 64bit Windows 7 HPE SP1 & 10 EE won't let me
reformat my new 64 GB flash drives as FAT32 (default originally). Their
Explorers only gave me NTFS & exFAT. Why no old FAT32? Not everything
know exFAT & NTFS.

Thank you in adance.

There are limitations to FAT32 partition sizes as far as I know. The
same way that FAT16 was limited to 2GB (if I remember correctly), FAT32
has limitations of 4GB for file sizes so it would be an issue for you
going forward and the filesystem is therefore to be avoided.

https://wiki.vuze.com/w/FAT32_file_size_limit

Only if (a) he _wants_ to move files bigger than 4G (b) everywhere he
might want to use the stick can handle NTFS.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I
have one. -Cato the Elder, statesman, soldier, and writer (234-149 BCE)

On 11/25/2016 at 6:06 PM, Ant's prodigious digits fired off:
Hello.

I noticed both updated 64bit Windows 7 HPE SP1 & 10 EE won't let me
reformat my new 64 GB flash drives as FAT32 (default originally). Their
Explorers only gave me NTFS & exFAT. Why no old FAT32? Not everything
know exFAT & NTFS.

Thank you in adance.


http://www.partition-tool.com/resource/manage-partition/format-64gb-sd-card-to-fat32.html

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
It's lonely at the top, but you eat better.

On 26/11/2016 09:11, micky wrote:
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sat, 26 Nov 2016 01:31:16 +0000, Brian
Gregory wrote:

On 26/11/2016 00:56, VanguardLH wrote:
Ant wrote:

I noticed both updated 64bit Windows 7 HPE SP1 & 10 EE won't let me
reformat my new 64 GB flash drives as FAT32 (default originally). Their
Explorers only gave me NTFS & exFAT. Why no old FAT32?

Open a command shell (cmd.exe) with admin privileges. Use the
format.exe program inside the command shell. Run "format /?" for help.
You'll need to use the /fs:fat32 argument. explorer.exe has code to fix
the limitation to 32GB hence why you cannot use it beyond that capacity.
This was a deliberate ploy to get users to move to NTFS.

Or use a 3rd party (non-Microsoft) partition manager if you need a GUI.


I think this supposed "limitation" appeared when Microsoft introduced
their proprietary ExFAT format.

I think even Microsoft know NTFS isn't a good idea on flash storage that
doesn't have wear levelling.

So would ExFAT be better than FAT32 also, for the sake of wear?


Not as far as I know.

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.