80GB HDD - FAT32?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by -=rjh=-, May 28, 2005.

  1. -=rjh=-

    -=rjh=- Guest

    I have here, an new external USB2.0 hard drive. It factory supplied
    formatted as a single, 80GB, FAT32 partition.

    How? I thought FAT32 only supported partitions up to 32GB?
     
    -=rjh=-, May 28, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. -=rjh=-

    Dave Taylor Guest

    -=rjh=- <> wrote in news:4297bc6d$:

    > I have here, an new external USB2.0 hard drive. It factory supplied
    > formatted as a single, 80GB, FAT32 partition.
    >
    > How? I thought FAT32 only supported partitions up to 32GB?
    >



    http://tools.supportforyourpc.com/get_article.asp?aid=1035

    Although the Fat-32 file system has a maximum accessible limit of 2.2
    terabytes, there are still some limitations that occur with hard drives of
    today's large capacities.


    --
    Ciao, Dave
     
    Dave Taylor, May 28, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. -=rjh=-

    Harry Guest

    -=rjh=- wrote:

    > I have here, an new external USB2.0 hard drive. It factory supplied
    > formatted as a single, 80GB, FAT32 partition.
    >
    > How? I thought FAT32 only supported partitions up to 32GB?


    No, partitioning has nothing to do with filesystem (eg. FAT32), except
    that a filesystem gets installed on partition.

    MS came out with patched versions of format and fdisk which
    enable partitions larger than 32GB.
     
    Harry, May 28, 2005
    #3
  4. -=rjh=-

    shannon Guest

    -=rjh=- wrote:

    > I have here, an new external USB2.0 hard drive. It factory supplied
    > formatted as a single, 80GB, FAT32 partition.
    >
    > How? I thought FAT32 only supported partitions up to 32GB?


    XP limits creating FAT32 partitions to that size.
    Other partition managers or the manufacturers utility will still make a
    large FAT32 partition.
     
    shannon, May 28, 2005
    #4
  5. -=rjh=-

    Harry Guest

    shannon wrote:

    > -=rjh=- wrote:
    >
    >> I have here, an new external USB2.0 hard drive. It factory supplied
    >> formatted as a single, 80GB, FAT32 partition.
    >>
    >> How? I thought FAT32 only supported partitions up to 32GB?

    >
    > XP limits creating FAT32 partitions to that size.


    No it doesn't.

    > Other partition managers or the manufacturers utility will still make a
    > large FAT32 partition.


    A partition is not a filesystem.
     
    Harry, May 28, 2005
    #5
  6. -=rjh=-

    H.O.G Guest

    On Sat, 28 May 2005 12:33:28 +1200, -=rjh=- <> spoke
    these fine words:

    >I have here, an new external USB2.0 hard drive. It factory supplied
    >formatted as a single, 80GB, FAT32 partition.
    >
    >How? I thought FAT32 only supported partitions up to 32GB?


    FAT32 can support partitions up to 2TB (or larger with a bit of
    hacking).

    The 32GB limit you are refering to is an artificial limit imposed on
    the Windows Format tool, as Microsoft do not believe you should be
    using the (widely supported) FAT32 file system, due to the advantages
    (mainly in file security) of NTFS.

    Obviously FAT32 is far more preferable in external storage, as it is
    supported by almost every operating system known to man.
     
    H.O.G, May 28, 2005
    #6
  7. -=rjh=-

    Rob J Guest

    In article <4297bc6d$> in nz.comp on Sat, 28 May 2005
    12:33:28 +1200, -=rjh=- <> says...
    > I have here, an new external USB2.0 hard drive. It factory supplied
    > formatted as a single, 80GB, FAT32 partition.
    >
    > How? I thought FAT32 only supported partitions up to 32GB?


    Windowx XP can only format up to 32 GB. However, other operating systems
    can format larger FAT32 partitions.
     
    Rob J, May 28, 2005
    #7
  8. -=rjh=-

    Rob J Guest

    In article <> in nz.comp on
    Sat, 28 May 2005 14:33:48 +1200, H.O.G <> says...
    > On Sat, 28 May 2005 12:33:28 +1200, -=rjh=- <> spoke
    > these fine words:
    >
    > >I have here, an new external USB2.0 hard drive. It factory supplied
    > >formatted as a single, 80GB, FAT32 partition.
    > >
    > >How? I thought FAT32 only supported partitions up to 32GB?

    >
    > FAT32 can support partitions up to 2TB (or larger with a bit of
    > hacking).
    >
    > The 32GB limit you are refering to is an artificial limit imposed on
    > the Windows Format tool, as Microsoft do not believe you should be
    > using the (widely supported) FAT32 file system, due to the advantages
    > (mainly in file security) of NTFS.
    >
    > Obviously FAT32 is far more preferable in external storage, as it is
    > supported by almost every operating system known to man.


    FAT16 is universal, but not FAT32, which is covered by a Microsoft
    patent.
     
    Rob J, May 28, 2005
    #8
  9. -=rjh=-

    CSE Guest

    On Sat, 28 May 2005 19:55:22 +1200, Rob J <> wrote:

    >In article <> in nz.comp on
    >Sat, 28 May 2005 14:33:48 +1200, H.O.G <> says...
    >> On Sat, 28 May 2005 12:33:28 +1200, -=rjh=- <> spoke
    >> these fine words:
    >>
    >> >I have here, an new external USB2.0 hard drive. It factory supplied
    >> >formatted as a single, 80GB, FAT32 partition.
    >> >
    >> >How? I thought FAT32 only supported partitions up to 32GB?

    >>
    >> FAT32 can support partitions up to 2TB (or larger with a bit of
    >> hacking).
    >>
    >> The 32GB limit you are refering to is an artificial limit imposed on
    >> the Windows Format tool, as Microsoft do not believe you should be
    >> using the (widely supported) FAT32 file system, due to the advantages
    >> (mainly in file security) of NTFS.
    >>
    >> Obviously FAT32 is far more preferable in external storage, as it is
    >> supported by almost every operating system known to man.

    >
    >FAT16 is universal, but not FAT32, which is covered by a Microsoft
    >patent.
    >




    And so is FAT1 6 as MS is trying to get royalties on it, as its used in
    Camera FASH Roms..
     
    CSE, May 28, 2005
    #9
  10. -=rjh=-

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Rob J wrote:
    > In article <4297bc6d$> in nz.comp on Sat, 28 May 2005
    > 12:33:28 +1200, -=rjh=- <> says...
    >
    >>I have here, an new external USB2.0 hard drive. It factory supplied
    >>formatted as a single, 80GB, FAT32 partition.
    >>
    >>How? I thought FAT32 only supported partitions up to 32GB?

    >
    >
    > Windowx XP can only format up to 32 GB. However, other operating systems
    > can format larger FAT32 partitions.
    >

    Yes, I see that now - the same limit applies to 2000; I had thought the
    32GB limit was inherent in FAT32, not a deliberate limitation in some MS
    disk management tools.

    I assume that they would prefer you to use NTFS but that isn't as
    portable as FAT.
     
    -=rjh=-, May 28, 2005
    #10
  11. -=rjh=-

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Harry wrote:
    > -=rjh=- wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I have here, an new external USB2.0 hard drive. It factory supplied
    >>formatted as a single, 80GB, FAT32 partition.
    >>
    >>How? I thought FAT32 only supported partitions up to 32GB?

    >
    >
    > No, partitioning has nothing to do with filesystem (eg. FAT32), except
    > that a filesystem gets installed on partition.
    >
    > MS came out with patched versions of format and fdisk which
    > enable partitions larger than 32GB.
    >
    >
    >


    I'm sorry I didn't make my question clearer, I really should have said
    "I thought FAT32 only supported filesystems up to 32GB?" but I didn't,
    my mistake.

    What was I thinking? Doh!

    Entirely my fault, my apologies. You are, of course, quite right to
    correct me - thanks for that. It's the little things that count (as
    Spike Milligan once said).
     
    -=rjh=-, May 28, 2005
    #11
  12. -=rjh=-

    H.O.G Guest

    On Sat, 28 May 2005 19:55:22 +1200, Rob J <> spoke
    these fine words:

    >In article <> in nz.comp on
    >Sat, 28 May 2005 14:33:48 +1200, H.O.G <> says...
    >> On Sat, 28 May 2005 12:33:28 +1200, -=rjh=- <> spoke
    >> these fine words:
    >>
    >> >I have here, an new external USB2.0 hard drive. It factory supplied
    >> >formatted as a single, 80GB, FAT32 partition.
    >> >
    >> >How? I thought FAT32 only supported partitions up to 32GB?

    >>
    >> FAT32 can support partitions up to 2TB (or larger with a bit of
    >> hacking).
    >>
    >> The 32GB limit you are refering to is an artificial limit imposed on
    >> the Windows Format tool, as Microsoft do not believe you should be
    >> using the (widely supported) FAT32 file system, due to the advantages
    >> (mainly in file security) of NTFS.
    >>
    >> Obviously FAT32 is far more preferable in external storage, as it is
    >> supported by almost every operating system known to man.

    >
    >FAT16 is universal, but not FAT32, which is covered by a Microsoft
    >patent.
    >

    Ay? FAT16 is not an option in this case, as I'm sure the OP would
    prefer to use more than 2GB of their new drive...

    Other than 16-bit Windows (and old DOS), I don't know of a single OS
    that supports FAT16 but not FAT32, and certainly none in use today
    (that also supports USB, anyway).

    I repeat, FAT32 is far more preferable in external storage, as it is
    supported by almost every operating system known to man.
     
    H.O.G, May 28, 2005
    #12
  13. -=rjh=-

    GraB Guest

    On Sat, 28 May 2005 12:33:28 +1200, -=rjh=- <> wrote:

    >I have here, an new external USB2.0 hard drive. It factory supplied
    >formatted as a single, 80GB, FAT32 partition.
    >
    >How? I thought FAT32 only supported partitions up to 32GB?


    I have a 70Gig partition on FAT32, made with Partition Magic.
     
    GraB, May 28, 2005
    #13
  14. -=rjh=-

    A Guest

    On Sat, 28 May 2005 22:28:18 +1200, H.O.G <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 28 May 2005 19:55:22 +1200, Rob J <> spoke
    >these fine words:
    >
    >>In article <> in nz.comp on
    >>Sat, 28 May 2005 14:33:48 +1200, H.O.G <> says...
    >>> On Sat, 28 May 2005 12:33:28 +1200, -=rjh=- <> spoke
    >>> these fine words:
    >>>
    >>> >I have here, an new external USB2.0 hard drive. It factory supplied
    >>> >formatted as a single, 80GB, FAT32 partition.
    >>> >
    >>> >How? I thought FAT32 only supported partitions up to 32GB?
    >>>
    >>> FAT32 can support partitions up to 2TB (or larger with a bit of
    >>> hacking).
    >>>
    >>> The 32GB limit you are refering to is an artificial limit imposed on
    >>> the Windows Format tool, as Microsoft do not believe you should be
    >>> using the (widely supported) FAT32 file system, due to the advantages
    >>> (mainly in file security) of NTFS.
    >>>
    >>> Obviously FAT32 is far more preferable in external storage, as it is
    >>> supported by almost every operating system known to man.

    >>
    >>FAT16 is universal, but not FAT32, which is covered by a Microsoft
    >>patent.
    >>

    >Ay? FAT16 is not an option in this case, as I'm sure the OP would
    >prefer to use more than 2GB of their new drive...
    >
    >Other than 16-bit Windows (and old DOS), I don't know of a single OS
    >that supports FAT16 but not FAT32, and certainly none in use today
    >(that also supports USB, anyway).


    When memory cards went past the 2GB limit they had problems as most
    cameras only supported FAT16. There was a 4GB compact flash card that
    came out that was partitioned into 2x2GB with a switch to flick
    between the two partitions.

    I'm not sure how common FAT32 support is on cameras these days but
    suspect not much has changed (except for the high end cameras that may
    use 2gb+ cards)
     
    A, May 28, 2005
    #14
  15. -=rjh=-

    shannon Guest

    Rob J wrote:

    > In article <> in nz.comp on
    > Sat, 28 May 2005 14:33:48 +1200, H.O.G <> says...
    >
    >>On Sat, 28 May 2005 12:33:28 +1200, -=rjh=- <> spoke
    >>these fine words:
    >>
    >>
    >>>I have here, an new external USB2.0 hard drive. It factory supplied
    >>>formatted as a single, 80GB, FAT32 partition.
    >>>
    >>>How? I thought FAT32 only supported partitions up to 32GB?

    >>
    >>FAT32 can support partitions up to 2TB (or larger with a bit of
    >>hacking).
    >>
    >>The 32GB limit you are refering to is an artificial limit imposed on
    >>the Windows Format tool, as Microsoft do not believe you should be
    >>using the (widely supported) FAT32 file system, due to the advantages
    >>(mainly in file security) of NTFS.
    >>
    >>Obviously FAT32 is far more preferable in external storage, as it is
    >>supported by almost every operating system known to man.

    >
    >
    > FAT16 is universal, but not FAT32, which is covered by a Microsoft
    > patent.
    >


    The patent got chucked out

    Prior art and all that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#Re-opened_investigation


    As there has been widespread call for these patents to be re-examined,
    the Public Patent Foundation submitted evidence to the US Patent and
    Trade Office (USPTO) disputing the validity of these patents, including
    prior art references from Xerox and IBM. The USPTO acknowledged that the
    evidence raised "substantial new question of patentability," and
    opened an investigation into the validity of Microsoft's FAT patents.

    On September 30, 2004, the USPTO rejected all claims of U.S. Patent
    5,579,517
    (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...579,517.WKU.&OS=PN/5,579,517&RS=PN/5,579,517),
    based primarily on evidence provided by the Public Patent Foundation.
    Dan Ravicher, the foundation's executive director, said "The Patent
    Office has simply confirmed what we already knew for some time now,
    Microsoft's FAT patent is bogus."

    According to the PUBPAT press release, "Microsoft still has the
    opportunity to respond to the Patent Office's rejection. Typically,
    third party requests for reexamination, like the one filed by PUBPAT,
    are successful in having the subject patent either narrowed or
    completely revoked roughly 70% of the time.
     
    shannon, May 28, 2005
    #15
  16. -=rjh=-

    ~misfit~ Guest

    -=rjh=- wrote:
    > Harry wrote:
    >> -=rjh=- wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> I have here, an new external USB2.0 hard drive. It factory supplied
    >>> formatted as a single, 80GB, FAT32 partition.
    >>>
    >>> How? I thought FAT32 only supported partitions up to 32GB?

    >>
    >>
    >> No, partitioning has nothing to do with filesystem (eg. FAT32),
    >> except that a filesystem gets installed on partition.
    >>
    >> MS came out with patched versions of format and fdisk which
    >> enable partitions larger than 32GB.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I'm sorry I didn't make my question clearer, I really should have said
    > "I thought FAT32 only supported filesystems up to 32GB?" but I didn't,
    > my mistake.
    >
    > What was I thinking? Doh!
    >
    > Entirely my fault, my apologies. You are, of course, quite right to
    > correct me - thanks for that. It's the little things that count (as
    > Spike Milligan once said).


    LOL, That was when that dwarf burst out of the side of a counter (more
    irony) and walked off camera saying; "One, Two, Three, Four...." Man I
    laughed! Still remember it and I saw it 20 odd years ago. (Very odd years).

    Just a point, it's my understanding that FAT32 doesn't support individual
    files larger than 2GB, you're aware of that right?
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, May 29, 2005
    #16
  17. -=rjh=-

    Harry Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:

    > -=rjh=- wrote:
    >> Harry wrote:
    >>> -=rjh=- wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> I have here, an new external USB2.0 hard drive. It factory supplied
    >>>> formatted as a single, 80GB, FAT32 partition.
    >>>>
    >>>> How? I thought FAT32 only supported partitions up to 32GB?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> No, partitioning has nothing to do with filesystem (eg. FAT32),
    >>> except that a filesystem gets installed on partition.
    >>>
    >>> MS came out with patched versions of format and fdisk which
    >>> enable partitions larger than 32GB.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> I'm sorry I didn't make my question clearer, I really should have said
    >> "I thought FAT32 only supported filesystems up to 32GB?" but I didn't,
    >> my mistake.
    >>
    >> What was I thinking? Doh!
    >>
    >> Entirely my fault, my apologies. You are, of course, quite right to
    >> correct me - thanks for that. It's the little things that count (as
    >> Spike Milligan once said).

    >
    > LOL, That was when that dwarf burst out of the side of a counter (more
    > irony) and walked off camera saying; "One, Two, Three, Four...." Man I
    > laughed! Still remember it and I saw it 20 odd years ago. (Very odd
    > years).
    >
    > Just a point, it's my understanding that FAT32 doesn't support individual
    > files larger than 2GB, you're aware of that right?


    Incorrect. The maximum is 4GB.
    The 2GB is maximum size for an avi file, or anything that uses
    a signed 32 bit integer to measure extents.
     
    Harry, May 29, 2005
    #17
  18. -=rjh=-

    -=rjh=- Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:
    > -=rjh=- wrote:
    >
    >>Harry wrote:
    >>
    >>>-=rjh=- wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>I have here, an new external USB2.0 hard drive. It factory supplied
    >>>>formatted as a single, 80GB, FAT32 partition.
    >>>>
    >>>>How? I thought FAT32 only supported partitions up to 32GB?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>No, partitioning has nothing to do with filesystem (eg. FAT32),
    >>>except that a filesystem gets installed on partition.
    >>>
    >>>MS came out with patched versions of format and fdisk which
    >>>enable partitions larger than 32GB.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>I'm sorry I didn't make my question clearer, I really should have said
    >>"I thought FAT32 only supported filesystems up to 32GB?" but I didn't,
    >>my mistake.
    >>
    >>What was I thinking? Doh!
    >>
    >>Entirely my fault, my apologies. You are, of course, quite right to
    >>correct me - thanks for that. It's the little things that count (as
    >>Spike Milligan once said).

    >
    >
    > LOL, That was when that dwarf burst out of the side of a counter (more
    > irony) and walked off camera saying; "One, Two, Three, Four...." Man I
    > laughed! Still remember it and I saw it 20 odd years ago. (Very odd years).
    >
    > Just a point, it's my understanding that FAT32 doesn't support individual
    > files larger than 2GB, you're aware of that right?


    4GB AFAIK

    cheers
     
    -=rjh=-, May 29, 2005
    #18
  19. -=rjh=-

    ~misfit~ Guest

    -=rjh=- wrote:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    >> -=rjh=- wrote:
    >>
    >>> Harry wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> -=rjh=- wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> I have here, an new external USB2.0 hard drive. It factory
    >>>>> supplied formatted as a single, 80GB, FAT32 partition.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> How? I thought FAT32 only supported partitions up to 32GB?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> No, partitioning has nothing to do with filesystem (eg. FAT32),
    >>>> except that a filesystem gets installed on partition.
    >>>>
    >>>> MS came out with patched versions of format and fdisk which
    >>>> enable partitions larger than 32GB.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I'm sorry I didn't make my question clearer, I really should have
    >>> said "I thought FAT32 only supported filesystems up to 32GB?" but I
    >>> didn't, my mistake.
    >>>
    >>> What was I thinking? Doh!
    >>>
    >>> Entirely my fault, my apologies. You are, of course, quite right to
    >>> correct me - thanks for that. It's the little things that count (as
    >>> Spike Milligan once said).

    >>
    >>
    >> LOL, That was when that dwarf burst out of the side of a counter
    >> (more irony) and walked off camera saying; "One, Two, Three,
    >> Four...." Man I laughed! Still remember it and I saw it 20 odd years
    >> ago. (Very odd years).
    >>
    >> Just a point, it's my understanding that FAT32 doesn't support
    >> individual files larger than 2GB, you're aware of that right?

    >
    > 4GB AFAIK


    Thank you, I sit corrected. Where did I get 2GB from? DVD Decrypter I think,
    that tallies with Harry's reply.
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, May 29, 2005
    #19
  20. On Sat, 28 May 2005 20:24:43 +1200, CSE <>
    wrote:

    >On Sat, 28 May 2005 19:55:22 +1200, Rob J <> wrote:
    >
    >>In article <> in nz.comp on
    >>Sat, 28 May 2005 14:33:48 +1200, H.O.G <> says...
    >>> On Sat, 28 May 2005 12:33:28 +1200, -=rjh=- <> spoke
    >>> these fine words:
    >>>
    >>> >I have here, an new external USB2.0 hard drive. It factory supplied
    >>> >formatted as a single, 80GB, FAT32 partition.
    >>> >
    >>> >How? I thought FAT32 only supported partitions up to 32GB?
    >>>
    >>> FAT32 can support partitions up to 2TB (or larger with a bit of
    >>> hacking).
    >>>
    >>> The 32GB limit you are refering to is an artificial limit imposed on
    >>> the Windows Format tool, as Microsoft do not believe you should be
    >>> using the (widely supported) FAT32 file system, due to the advantages
    >>> (mainly in file security) of NTFS.
    >>>
    >>> Obviously FAT32 is far more preferable in external storage, as it is
    >>> supported by almost every operating system known to man.

    >>
    >>FAT16 is universal, but not FAT32, which is covered by a Microsoft
    >>patent.
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    >And so is FAT1 6 as MS is trying to get royalties on it, as its used in
    >Camera FASH Roms..


    Wrong they have only limited FAT32 on flash memory not FAT16
     
    FreedomChooser, May 30, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. WCH

    w2k can't "see" full 80GB

    WCH, Sep 27, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    788
    Stevo
    Sep 29, 2003
  2. Rick
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    732
  3. Dr.SmartMedia

    FA: 80GB 4200 RPM EIDE HARD DRIVE FOR LAPTOP TOSHIBA

    Dr.SmartMedia, Aug 1, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    746
    Steve Young
    Aug 2, 2004
  4. Gouryella
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,392
    Gouryella
    Jul 24, 2007
  5. ashjas
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,277
Loading...

Share This Page