Formatting a USB 2 Thumb Drive

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bob Williams, Feb 6, 2008.

  1. Bob Williams

    Bob Williams Guest

    I recently bought a Kingston 4GB USB 2 Thumb Drive.
    I use it mainly to store Edited Pictures.
    I do not NEED to format it but I CAN, with Win Xp.
    Is there any advantage in formatting it in FAT 32 vs FAT 16? or vice
    versa? Somewhat OT, but guys in this NG know everything.
    Bob Williams
     
    Bob Williams, Feb 6, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bob Williams

    John Navas Guest

    On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:31:07 -0800, Bob Williams <>
    wrote in <v7fqj.84067$>:

    >I recently bought a Kingston 4GB USB 2 Thumb Drive.
    >I use it mainly to store Edited Pictures.
    >I do not NEED to format it but I CAN, with Win Xp.
    >Is there any advantage in formatting it in FAT 32 vs FAT 16? or vice
    >versa? Somewhat OT, but guys in this NG know everything.


    Not a good reason.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 6, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bob Williams <> wrote:
    >I recently bought a Kingston 4GB USB 2 Thumb Drive.
    >I use it mainly to store Edited Pictures.
    >I do not NEED to format it but I CAN, with Win Xp.


    Sure. As far as the OS is concerned it just another drive.

    >Is there any advantage in formatting it in FAT 32 vs FAT 16? or vice
    >versa?


    FAT16 is limited to 2GB, so you would have to create 2 partitions to use the
    full 4GB. FAT32 can handle all 4GB as a single partition.
    OTOH some OS (i.e. Windows NT4 and earlier and Windows 95 and earlier) don't
    support FAT32.

    For more details than you ever wanted to know see
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAT16

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Feb 6, 2008
    #3
  4. Bob Williams

    ray Guest

    On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:31:07 -0800, Bob Williams wrote:

    > I recently bought a Kingston 4GB USB 2 Thumb Drive. I use it mainly to
    > store Edited Pictures. I do not NEED to format it but I CAN, with Win
    > Xp. Is there any advantage in formatting it in FAT 32 vs FAT 16? or vice
    > versa? Somewhat OT, but guys in this NG know everything. Bob Williams


    Yes. The normal implementations of FAT16 are limited to 2gb.
     
    ray, Feb 6, 2008
    #4
  5. Bob Williams

    John Navas Guest

    On 6 Feb 2008 16:33:55 GMT, ray <> wrote in
    <>:

    >On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:31:07 -0800, Bob Williams wrote:
    >
    >> I recently bought a Kingston 4GB USB 2 Thumb Drive. I use it mainly to
    >> store Edited Pictures. I do not NEED to format it but I CAN, with Win
    >> Xp. Is there any advantage in formatting it in FAT 32 vs FAT 16? or vice
    >> versa? Somewhat OT, but guys in this NG know everything. Bob Williams

    >
    >Yes. The normal implementations of FAT16 are limited to 2gb.


    2 GB can be exceeded with a larger sector size, as in certain M-O
    drives.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 6, 2008
    #5
  6. Bob Williams

    measekite Guest

    Bob Williams wrote:
    > I recently bought a Kingston 4GB USB 2 Thumb Drive.
    > I use it mainly to store Edited Pictures.
    > I do not NEED to format it but I CAN, with Win Xp.
    > Is there any advantage in formatting it in FAT 32 vs FAT 16? or vice
    > versa? Somewhat OT, but guys in this NG know everything.
    > Bob Williams

    Yes there is. It can be used by almost any other computer OS.
     
    measekite, Feb 6, 2008
    #6
  7. Bob Williams

    ray Guest

    On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:40:42 +0000, John Navas wrote:

    > On 6 Feb 2008 16:33:55 GMT, ray <> wrote in
    > <>:
    >
    >>On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:31:07 -0800, Bob Williams wrote:
    >>
    >>> I recently bought a Kingston 4GB USB 2 Thumb Drive. I use it mainly to
    >>> store Edited Pictures. I do not NEED to format it but I CAN, with Win
    >>> Xp. Is there any advantage in formatting it in FAT 32 vs FAT 16? or
    >>> vice versa? Somewhat OT, but guys in this NG know everything. Bob
    >>> Williams

    >>
    >>Yes. The normal implementations of FAT16 are limited to 2gb.

    >
    > 2 GB can be exceeded with a larger sector size, as in certain M-O
    > drives.


    Fine - what part of "normal implementations" did you not understand?
     
    ray, Feb 6, 2008
    #7
  8. Bob Williams

    John Navas Guest

    On 6 Feb 2008 18:46:28 GMT, ray <> wrote in
    <>:

    >On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:40:42 +0000, John Navas wrote:
    >
    >> On 6 Feb 2008 16:33:55 GMT, ray <> wrote in
    >> <>:
    >>
    >>>On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:31:07 -0800, Bob Williams wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I recently bought a Kingston 4GB USB 2 Thumb Drive. I use it mainly to
    >>>> store Edited Pictures. I do not NEED to format it but I CAN, with Win
    >>>> Xp. Is there any advantage in formatting it in FAT 32 vs FAT 16? or
    >>>> vice versa? Somewhat OT, but guys in this NG know everything. Bob
    >>>> Williams
    >>>
    >>>Yes. The normal implementations of FAT16 are limited to 2gb.

    >>
    >> 2 GB can be exceeded with a larger sector size, as in certain M-O
    >> drives.

    >
    >Fine - what part of "normal implementations" did you not understand?


    What makes you think those aren't "normal implementations"?

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 6, 2008
    #8
  9. Bob Williams

    jean Guest

    "ray" <> a écrit dans le message de news:
    ...
    > On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:31:07 -0800, Bob Williams wrote:
    >
    >> I recently bought a Kingston 4GB USB 2 Thumb Drive. I use it mainly to
    >> store Edited Pictures. I do not NEED to format it but I CAN, with Win
    >> Xp. Is there any advantage in formatting it in FAT 32 vs FAT 16? or vice
    >> versa? Somewhat OT, but guys in this NG know everything. Bob Williams

    >
    > Yes. The normal implementations of FAT16 are limited to 2gb.


    Don't forget the number of different files on FAT16 with long file names is
    only 256, the limit on FAT32 is much higher, so THAT may be a good reason to
    format even a smaller thumb drive in FAT32.

    I have a digital fram with "only" 256Mb of internal memory, but by reducing
    the file resolution to the screen's resolution, I can pack much more than
    256 pictures in the internal memory, but only if I format it in FAT32.

    Jean
     
    jean, Feb 7, 2008
    #9
  10. "jean" <> wrote:
    >
    >"ray" <> a écrit dans le message de news:
    >...
    >> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:31:07 -0800, Bob Williams wrote:
    >>
    >>> I recently bought a Kingston 4GB USB 2 Thumb Drive. I use it mainly to
    >>> store Edited Pictures. I do not NEED to format it but I CAN, with Win
    >>> Xp. Is there any advantage in formatting it in FAT 32 vs FAT 16? or vice
    >>> versa? Somewhat OT, but guys in this NG know everything. Bob Williams

    >>
    >> Yes. The normal implementations of FAT16 are limited to 2gb.

    >
    >Don't forget the number of different files on FAT16 with long file names is
    >only 256, the limit on FAT32 is much higher, so THAT may be a good reason to
    >format even a smaller thumb drive in FAT32.


    Don't forget that this limitation applies to the root directory only. And
    that it applies to all root directory entries, including files with 8.3
    names in which case the limit is typically 512. It's just that long
    filenames use multiple directory entries and thus eat up space faster. And
    that FAT16 does support larger root directories, they just need to be
    configured at formatting time.

    In short: while your comment isn't completely wrong it is still seriously
    lacking in substance.

    jue

    >
    >I have a digital fram with "only" 256Mb of internal memory, but by reducing
    >the file resolution to the screen's resolution, I can pack much more than
    >256 pictures in the internal memory, but only if I format it in FAT32.
    >
    >Jean
    >
     
    Jürgen Exner, Feb 7, 2008
    #10
  11. Bob Williams

    Bob Williams Guest

    Bob Williams wrote:
    > I recently bought a Kingston 4GB USB 2 Thumb Drive.
    > I use it mainly to store Edited Pictures.
    > I do not NEED to format it but I CAN, with Win Xp.
    > Is there any advantage in formatting it in FAT 32 vs FAT 16? or vice
    > versa? Somewhat OT, but guys in this NG know everything.
    > Bob Williams


    OK Guys, I got my answer and some education too.....as expected.
    Thanks for the responses.
    Bob Williams
     
    Bob Williams, Feb 7, 2008
    #11
  12. Bob Williams

    Dave Cohen Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    > On 6 Feb 2008 18:46:28 GMT, ray <> wrote in
    > <>:
    >
    >> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:40:42 +0000, John Navas wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 6 Feb 2008 16:33:55 GMT, ray <> wrote in
    >>> <>:
    >>>
    >>>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:31:07 -0800, Bob Williams wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I recently bought a Kingston 4GB USB 2 Thumb Drive. I use it mainly to
    >>>>> store Edited Pictures. I do not NEED to format it but I CAN, with Win
    >>>>> Xp. Is there any advantage in formatting it in FAT 32 vs FAT 16? or
    >>>>> vice versa? Somewhat OT, but guys in this NG know everything. Bob
    >>>>> Williams
    >>>> Yes. The normal implementations of FAT16 are limited to 2gb.
    >>> 2 GB can be exceeded with a larger sector size, as in certain M-O
    >>> drives.

    >> Fine - what part of "normal implementations" did you not understand?

    >
    > What makes you think those aren't "normal implementations"?
    >

    The part where you failed to explain how to achieve such.
    Dave Cohen
     
    Dave Cohen, Feb 8, 2008
    #12
  13. Bob Williams

    John Navas Guest

    On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 01:13:33 GMT, Dave Cohen <> wrote in
    <11Oqj.13823$FW3.13803@trndny03>:

    >John Navas wrote:
    >> On 6 Feb 2008 18:46:28 GMT, ray <> wrote in
    >> <>:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:40:42 +0000, John Navas wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 6 Feb 2008 16:33:55 GMT, ray <> wrote in
    >>>> <>:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:31:07 -0800, Bob Williams wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I recently bought a Kingston 4GB USB 2 Thumb Drive. I use it mainly to
    >>>>>> store Edited Pictures. I do not NEED to format it but I CAN, with Win
    >>>>>> Xp. Is there any advantage in formatting it in FAT 32 vs FAT 16? or
    >>>>>> vice versa? Somewhat OT, but guys in this NG know everything. Bob
    >>>>>> Williams
    >>>>> Yes. The normal implementations of FAT16 are limited to 2gb.
    >>>> 2 GB can be exceeded with a larger sector size, as in certain M-O
    >>>> drives.
    >>> Fine - what part of "normal implementations" did you not understand?

    >>
    >> What makes you think those aren't "normal implementations"?
    >>

    >The part where you failed to explain how to achieve such.


    Any UNIX workalike should be able to format sizes other than 512 bytes,
    including "Live" CD versions.

    Microsoft FAT specification: "Count of bytes per sector. This value may
    take on only the following values: 512, 1024, 2048 or 4096. ...
    Microsoft operating systems will properly support 1024, 2048, and 4096.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Feb 8, 2008
    #13
    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. Mark T.
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    984
    Dan Boyd
    Nov 24, 2003
  2. nuthead

    USB thumb drive help

    nuthead, Jan 6, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    8,661
    wooly
    Oct 12, 2006
  3. ami
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    644
    Yves Leclerc
    Jul 2, 2004
  4. Robert Haston

    Camera that interfaces with USB thumb drive

    Robert Haston, Oct 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    531
    Ian Stirling
    Oct 11, 2003
  5. Sentler
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    7,127
    Roger Halstead
    Sep 2, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page