Came across this article the other day, it's a description of
Microsoft's latest FAT file system driver, meant mainly for use with the
newest generation of bigger thumb drives. It's called exFAT (extended),
and it's the successor to FAT32.

Description of the exFAT file system driver update package
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/955704

Looks like it's got support for Windows CE, XP, and Vista. And it'll
handle theoretical file systems upto 64 ZB, and files theoretically upto
64 ZB too. The recommended sizes for both file system and files is 512
TB, however.

I guess NTFS is too complex or too proprietary for thumb drives.

Yousuf Khan

On Aug 28, 11:21*am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Came across this article the other day, it's a description of
> Microsoft's latest FAT file system driver, meant mainly for use with the
> newest generation of bigger thumb drives. It's called exFAT (extended),
> and it's the successor to FAT32.

IMHO, it's another crap from M$.

According to extFAT wiki, the disadvantages are:

1. devices formatted using exFAT cannot be read by Windows
Me, Windows 2000, and Windows Server 2003 or earlier,
and most other non-Microsoft operating systems

2. 32-bit Windows XP requires an update to be applied in
order to support exFAT

3. 64-bit Windows XP does not offer exFAT support

4. devices using exFAT are unable to use Windows Vista's
ReadyBoost capability (but Windows 7 does support the
new exFAT file system with ReadyBoost and also enables
a bigger ReadyBoost cache due to the bigger space limit
with exFAT)

5. Microsoft has not released the official exFAT file
specification, and a licence from Microsoft is required
in order to make and distribute exFAT implementations[8]

6. limited or no support outside PC environment at present —
most current consumer electronics, such as televisions
and A/V receivers, can only handle previous FAT versions
(this may change with the new SDXC cards requiring exFAT).

The only feasible advantage is that, if you have files bigger than
4GB to be carried .....

Harry <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Aug 28, 11:21?am, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Came across this article the other day, it's a description of
>> Microsoft's latest FAT file system driver, meant mainly for use with the
>> newest generation of bigger thumb drives. It's called exFAT (extended),
>> and it's the successor to FAT32.

> IMHO, it's another crap from M$.

> According to extFAT wiki, the disadvantages are:

> 1. devices formatted using exFAT cannot be read by Windows
> Me, Windows 2000, and Windows Server 2003 or earlier,
> and most other non-Microsoft operating systems

And there is the clue: They are (again) trying to be
as incompatible as possible. Just what you expect from
a low-quality vendor.

> 2. 32-bit Windows XP requires an update to be applied in
> order to support exFAT

> 3. 64-bit Windows XP does not offer exFAT support

> 4. devices using exFAT are unable to use Windows Vista's
> ReadyBoost capability (but Windows 7 does support the
> new exFAT file system with ReadyBoost and also enables
> a bigger ReadyBoost cache due to the bigger space limit
> with exFAT)

I thought ReadyBoost was a dud anyways?

> 5. Microsoft has not released the official exFAT file
> specification, and a licence from Microsoft is required
> in order to make and distribute exFAT implementations[8]

See my comment at 1.

> 6. limited or no support outside PC environment at present ?
> most current consumer electronics, such as televisions
> and A/V receivers, can only handle previous FAT versions
> (this may change with the new SDXC cards requiring exFAT).

> The only feasible advantage is that, if you have files bigger than
> 4GB to be carried .....

Just another effort to lock the competition out or to have
it pay money to be in the market. The anti-market tactics
of scum.

Arno

On Aug 28, 5:10*pm, Harry <harryooopot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 5. Microsoft has not released the official exFAT file
> * * specification, and a licence from Microsoft is required
> * * in order to make and distribute exFAT implementations[8]
>
> 6. limited or no support outside PC environment at present —
> * * most current consumer electronics, such as televisions
> * * and A/V receivers, can only handle previous FAT versions
> * * (this may change with the new SDXC cards requiring exFAT).
>
> The only feasible advantage is that, if you have files bigger than
> 4GB to be carried .....

If Microsoft is licensing it, then I can't see why flash disk vendors
would even bother with it? Typical of Microsoft.

Yousuf Khan

YKhan wrote
> Harry <harryooopot...@hotmail.com> wrote

>> 5. Microsoft has not released the official exFAT file
>> specification, and a licence from Microsoft is required
>> in order to make and distribute exFAT implementations[8]

>> 6. limited or no support outside PC environment at present —
>> most current consumer electronics, such as televisions
>> and A/V receivers, can only handle previous FAT versions
>> (this may change with the new SDXC cards requiring exFAT).

>> The only feasible advantage is that, if you have files bigger than 4GB to be carried .....

> If Microsoft is licensing it, then I can't see why
> flash disk vendors would even bother with it?

Because it fixes the 4GB problem.

> Typical of Microsoft.

Havent seen anyone else fix the 4GB problem tho.

On Aug 29, 2:18*pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> YKhan wrote
> > If Microsoft is licensing it, then I can't see why
> > flash disk vendors would even bother with it?
>
> Because it fixes the 4GB problem.
>
> > Typical of Microsoft.
>
> Havent seen anyone else fix the 4GB problem tho.

Isn't there any number of open-source sophisticated file systems that
fix the 4GB problem? With the additional features of exFAT such as
cluster bitmaps and stuff, the overhead of the metadata might not be
much larger between them. Most vendors adopted FAT on flash drives
because of the small overhead of the metadata, and the fact that most
implementations of FAT were already public domain.

I guess we'll have to wait to see if flash vendors adopt exFAT.

Yousuf Khan

In article <4a98202d$(E-Mail Removed)>, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)>
writes

>Came across this article the other day, it's a description of
>Microsoft's latest FAT file system driver, meant mainly for use with the
>newest generation of bigger thumb drives. It's called exFAT (extended),
>and it's the successor to FAT32.

Would have thought it's more likely to be an underhand way of
reinforcing their patent claim on the FAT filing system, to be surer of
extracting licencing fees.

--
(\__/)
(='.'=) Bunny says Windows 7 is Vi$ta reloaded.
(")_(") http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png

YKhan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2:18?pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> YKhan wrote
>> > If Microsoft is licensing it, then I can't see why
>> > flash disk vendors would even bother with it?
>>
>> Because it fixes the 4GB problem.
>>
>> > Typical of Microsoft.
>>
>> Havent seen anyone else fix the 4GB problem tho.

> Isn't there any number of open-source sophisticated file systems that
> fix the 4GB problem?

Basically all modern ones. I guss the comment is about FAT with
> 4GB support. However, given that almost nothing needs files > 4GB
on mobile storage devices, I guess calling it a "problem" is a
bit of an overstatement.

> With the additional features of exFAT such as
> cluster bitmaps and stuff, the overhead of the metadata might not be
> much larger between them. Most vendors adopted FAT on flash drives
> because of the small overhead of the metadata, and the fact that most
> implementations of FAT were already public domain.

Indeed, especially the later reason.

> I guess we'll have to wait to see if flash vendors adopt exFAT.

I will not use it. But I reformat my new media anyways.

Arno

YKhan wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> YKhan wrote

>>> If Microsoft is licensing it, then I can't see why
>>> flash disk vendors would even bother with it?

>> Because it fixes the 4GB problem.

>>> Typical of Microsoft.

>> Havent seen anyone else fix the 4GB problem tho.

> Isn't there any number of open-source sophisticated file systems that fix the 4GB problem?

Yes, but thats no use to someone who wants to put the flash
disk stick into a system that only supports FAT and NTFS.

> With the additional features of exFAT such as cluster bitmaps and stuff,
> the overhead of the metadata might not be much larger between them.

The problem aint the overhead.

> Most vendors adopted FAT on flash drives because
> of the small overhead of the metadata, and the fact that
> most implementations of FAT were already public domain.

The real reason is because their drives are mostly
used on systems that can only read FAT and NTFS.

> I guess we'll have to wait to see if flash vendors adopt exFAT.

Its more likely they'll keep using FAT and just break the files up into <4GB parts with PVRs etc.

Arno wrote
> YKhan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>> On Aug 29, 2:18?pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> YKhan wrote
>>>> If Microsoft is licensing it, then I can't see why
>>>> flash disk vendors would even bother with it?
>>>
>>> Because it fixes the 4GB problem.
>>>
>>>> Typical of Microsoft.
>>>
>>> Havent seen anyone else fix the 4GB problem tho.
>
>> Isn't there any number of open-source sophisticated file systems that
>> fix the 4GB problem?
>
> Basically all modern ones. I guss the comment is about
> FAT with > 4GB support. However, given that almost
> nothing needs files > 4GB on mobile storage devices,

The most obvious thing that does is video recording devices and there
are a hell of a lot of those out there now. The better set top boxes for
digital TV will record to any USB device now, flash drive or hard drive.

> I guess calling it a "problem" is a bit of an overstatement.

Only in the sense that its easy to chop the files up into <4GB segments on file creation.

>> With the additional features of exFAT such as
>> cluster bitmaps and stuff, the overhead of the metadata might not be
>> much larger between them. Most vendors adopted FAT on flash drives
>> because of the small overhead of the metadata, and the fact that most
>> implementations of FAT were already public domain.
>
> Indeed, especially the later reason.
>
>> I guess we'll have to wait to see if flash vendors adopt exFAT.
>
> I will not use it. But I reformat my new media anyways.