«

I have Windows XP 64, and I was hoping to get exFAT support.
Something tells me I'm SOL.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/955704

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en


"Justin" <> wrote in message
news:%...
>I have Windows XP 64, and I was hoping to get exFAT support.
> Something tells me I'm SOL.

Tom Ferguson wrote:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/955704
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
>
>
>
> "Justin" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>> I have Windows XP 64, and I was hoping to get exFAT support.
>> Something tells me I'm SOL.
>

Thanks Tom, however I tired that and it doesn't install on the 64 bit
system. Is there an update specific to XP64?

Nope, that's 32-bit XP only. And I see NO listing of support for XP x64 or
Windows Server 2003 (which is the code base for XP x64). So I think you're
out of luck.

But honestly, there's not much loss here. FAT in all it's forms has had its
day, and you should just use NTFS.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Justin" <Justin@nobecauseihatespam> wrote in message
news:...
> Tom Ferguson wrote:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/955704
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
>> "Justin" <> wrote in message
>> news:%...
>>> I have Windows XP 64, and I was hoping to get exFAT support.
>>> Something tells me I'm SOL.
>>
>
> Thanks Tom, however I tired that and it doesn't install on the 64 bit
> system. Is there an update specific to XP64?

I did extensive searching for any reference to 64 bit systems in connection
to this file system. I found nothing that gives information or any type of
guidance one way or the other. Alas, that seems a too-frequent occurrence
with information about both XP and Vista, 32 vs. 64 bit. Sorry.

Tom Ferguson

"Justin" <Justin@nobecauseihatespam> wrote in message
news:...
> Tom Ferguson wrote:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/955704
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
>> "Justin" <> wrote in message
>> news:%...
>>> I have Windows XP 64, and I was hoping to get exFAT support.
>>> Something tells me I'm SOL.
>>
>
> Thanks Tom, however I tired that and it doesn't install on the 64 bit
> system. Is there an update specific to XP64?

Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
> Nope, that's 32-bit XP only. And I see NO listing of support for XP x64
> or Windows Server 2003 (which is the code base for XP x64). So I think
> you're out of luck.
>
> But honestly, there's not much loss here. FAT in all it's forms has had
> its day, and you should just use NTFS.
>

that's what I figured. I usually use NTFS when I need it. However
sometimes I have cross platform needs; luckily there is a decent enough
solution for NTFS on x11.

ExFAT definitely would not be useful for cross platform use at this
time. Currently ExFAT is a Microsoft unique implementation. If you
can't use it in Win x64, then how would you use it with non-Microsoft
environments?


Justin wrote:
> Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
>> Nope, that's 32-bit XP only. And I see NO listing of support for XP
>> x64 or Windows Server 2003 (which is the code base for XP x64). So I
>> think you're out of luck.
>>
>> But honestly, there's not much loss here. FAT in all it's forms has
>> had its day, and you should just use NTFS.
>>
>
> that's what I figured. I usually use NTFS when I need it. However
> sometimes I have cross platform needs; luckily there is a decent enough
> solution for NTFS on x11.

In message <> "Charlie Russel -
MVP" <> was claimed to have wrote:

>Nope, that's 32-bit XP only. And I see NO listing of support for XP x64 or
>Windows Server 2003 (which is the code base for XP x64). So I think you're
>out of luck.
>
>But honestly, there's not much loss here. FAT in all it's forms has had its
>day, and you should just use NTFS.

In general, I'd agree, but exFAT is an exception in that it's designed
in a fairly modern world for cases where NTFS is overkill, but older FAT
formats are insufficient.

That being said, it's usefulness will only come if it gains
cross-platform support.

There is a 'trial' or 'experimental' module available for the Linux kernel
for reading exFat.



"Bobby Johnson" <> wrote in message
news:...
> ExFAT definitely would not be useful for cross platform use at this time.
> Currently ExFAT is a Microsoft unique implementation. If you can't use it
> in Win x64, then how would you use it with non-Microsoft environments?
>
>
> Justin wrote:
>> Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
>>> Nope, that's 32-bit XP only. And I see NO listing of support for XP x64
>>> or Windows Server 2003 (which is the code base for XP x64). So I think
>>> you're out of luck.
>>>
>>> But honestly, there's not much loss here. FAT in all it's forms has had
>>> its day, and you should just use NTFS.
>>>
>>
>> that's what I figured. I usually use NTFS when I need it. However
>> sometimes I have cross platform needs; luckily there is a decent enough
>> solution for NTFS on x11.

Dave Warren wrote:
> In message <> "Charlie Russel -
> MVP" <> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>> Nope, that's 32-bit XP only. And I see NO listing of support for XP x64 or
>> Windows Server 2003 (which is the code base for XP x64). So I think you're
>> out of luck.
>>
>> But honestly, there's not much loss here. FAT in all it's forms has had its
>> day, and you should just use NTFS.
>
> In general, I'd agree, but exFAT is an exception in that it's designed
> in a fairly modern world for cases where NTFS is overkill, but older FAT
> formats are insufficient.
>
> That being said, it's usefulness will only come if it gains
> cross-platform support.

One reason I wanted it is in case I run into a client who has a keyfob
formatted to it.
Sometiems with NTFS I forget to set the security to everyone; and I get
to a client's machine and it won't give me access to the files.
But for now I have the ability to R&W NTFS on every platform so that
solution is perfect. Once exFAT has some more compatibility I'll use
that when needed.