Microsoft is finally removing the FAT32 partition size limit in Windows 11(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Microsoft is finally removing the FAT32 partition size limit in Windows 11
https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/16/24221635/microsoft-fat32-partition-size-limit-windows-11
69 comments
This drove me crazy for so many years, but I haven't had the issue in a while (since switching to linux and apple) I forgot it was still a problem for the rest of us
It’s still a problem for almost everyone wanting to exchange files via detachable storage devices. Using Linux doesn’t make your DSLR understand ext4.
And I actually find this problem even worse between Linux and macOS than between Windows and either of the two. Until quite recently, there was no meaningful common denominator between those two for USB drives.
And I actually find this problem even worse between Linux and macOS than between Windows and either of the two. Until quite recently, there was no meaningful common denominator between those two for USB drives.
> And I actually find this problem even worse between Linux and macOS than between Windows and either of the two. Until quite recently, there was no meaningful common denominator between those two for USB drives.
I thought exfat was ~universal and decent?
Edit: Also UDF, thanks to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41265870 for reminding me
I thought exfat was ~universal and decent?
Edit: Also UDF, thanks to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41265870 for reminding me
Now it finally is, yes! Back when I last really would have needed it, exFAT on Linux still required FUSE drivers (with the corresponding performance hit), and I remember having to install these as well.
Also, many embedded devices used to not support exFAT, which was annoying when reusing a flash drive to e.g. quickly show some photos on a TV with a USB port without reformatting them from "computer to computer use" to "computer to embedded use".
Also, many embedded devices used to not support exFAT, which was annoying when reusing a flash drive to e.g. quickly show some photos on a TV with a USB port without reformatting them from "computer to computer use" to "computer to embedded use".
Related from March:
Dave Plummer's behind-the-scenes story of developing the Format dialog
The Format Dialog in Windows NT
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39811604
Dave Plummer's behind-the-scenes story of developing the Format dialog
The Format Dialog in Windows NT
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39811604
Unsurprisingly another case of Dave "The Scammer" Plummer exaggerating/lying.
FFS, DavePL is the reason it's 32gb? I thought there was some actual reason, but it was just arbitrary? The more I learn about him, the less I like him
He had nothing to do with the limit. That was just another lie in the long list of his lies.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39812561
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39812561
He picked the limit in 1995. It's not his fault that Microsoft never updated it as storage sizes grew over the years.
I make up things all the time and then call them 'requirements'. Its just the way the industry works.
Context: Dave Plummer left Microsoft to found a company which peddled fake antivirus/security crapware, and only after that grift fizzled out did he rebrand himself around the work he did at Microsoft.
https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/attorney-general-s...
https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/attorney-general-s...
He's also apparently threatening legal action against people who discuss it https://x.com/endermanch/status/1820726634485350727
Direct link to the YT video in question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GeF9AjlqP8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GeF9AjlqP8
Not surprising. That man seems so off. Like how he always says he's just doing his videos for the likes, while at the same time using the videos to advertise his book. Or how he leans so heavily into having worked at Microsoft but then doesn't actually seem to have worked on more than a handful of projects there (his videos get repetitive).
> The company has marketed its products through pop-up ads and unsolicited e-mails that offer a “free scan” of the computer. If a user elected to have the free scan performed, a software program downloaded, installed, and executed on the user’s computer.
> Once the free scans were installed, consumers were trapped in a labyrinth of advertisements to purchase an upgrade,” Tassi said. “Each new advertisement increased the consumer’s sense of fear, repeatedly warning of threats the computer faced if the user didn't purchase the product. In some instances, the ads kept coming until the free scan software was uninstalled or the consumer purchased the product. But the uninstall option didn’t always work properly and parts of the software remained on the computer.
> Once the free scans were installed, consumers were trapped in a labyrinth of advertisements to purchase an upgrade,” Tassi said. “Each new advertisement increased the consumer’s sense of fear, repeatedly warning of threats the computer faced if the user didn't purchase the product. In some instances, the ads kept coming until the free scan software was uninstalled or the consumer purchased the product. But the uninstall option didn’t always work properly and parts of the software remained on the computer.
Read that in DavePL's voice for some reason !
Have any people from Microsoft corroborated what he claims? Whatever I have heard of him is all from his channel and articles citing him.
But then Dave Cutler and Raymond Chen appeared on his channel for hour-long Windows history podcasts so maybe that's an endorsement of his claims.
But then Dave Cutler and Raymond Chen appeared on his channel for hour-long Windows history podcasts so maybe that's an endorsement of his claims.
If he really wants to further this 'nice old Microsoft guy' image that he is pushing on youtube, he should really do a video on the truth behind the whole SoftwareOnline.com situation.
Fortunately, Microsoft is slowly de-Plummering Windows. The task manager has been rewritten and made actually useful, they have libarchive for non-ZIP formats, and now this.
One step forward several steps back though, with all the other terrible crap like copying your entire drive to OneDrive by default then attempting to make you subscribe when it fills up, adding all kinds of telemetry and ad tracking, shoving Copilot in your face whenever it can, just to name a few.
Don't forget about Cortana too.
The main offender to me is the reactivation of disable regedit keys after each update. I really want to like windows. I even like my professional windows computer. But on my _personal_ computer, i want the administrator to be _me_, not microsoft head of product.
The main offender to me is the reactivation of disable regedit keys after each update. I really want to like windows. I even like my professional windows computer. But on my _personal_ computer, i want the administrator to be _me_, not microsoft head of product.
Will this change patent encumber FAT32 ? I think the patent expired recently.
No, this only applies to the format tooling.
According to Wikipedia the max file size is 4GB - 1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table
That’s an inherent limitation. Windows was imposing an additional artificial one on partition/FS size at creation time.
Kinda sad that a (by modern standards) slapdash file system like FAT32 is still the lowest common denominator, used for flash drives and all sorts of things. Would wish the industry could agree on using something more modern and reliable.
But they have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT
Main reason that exFAT is less popular is because Microsoft still owns some of the patents on the underlying tech (but has permitted the Linux kernel access to those patents so Linux can have exFAT support). That makes it less popular for all the various pieces of niche hardware that accept microSD cards to extend storage.
Device makers that do support exFAT have to pay Microsoft for every sale. It's why for example the Nintendo Switch enables exFAT as a "system update"; that way Nintendo doesn't have to pay Microsoft for every single switch sold, only the ones that are actually using exFAT for external storage.
I think the last of those patents will expire by 2027? You'll probably see an uptick in exFAT use by then.
Device makers that do support exFAT have to pay Microsoft for every sale. It's why for example the Nintendo Switch enables exFAT as a "system update"; that way Nintendo doesn't have to pay Microsoft for every single switch sold, only the ones that are actually using exFAT for external storage.
I think the last of those patents will expire by 2027? You'll probably see an uptick in exFAT use by then.
obligatory
https://xkcd.com/927/
https://xkcd.com/927/
Something where you don’t risk being hit by a Microsoft patent even when you’re not Linux?
(Also that’s still a floppy-grade filesystem, no journalling or anything.)
(Also that’s still a floppy-grade filesystem, no journalling or anything.)
The industry requires a filesystem that has free and robust sample codes that runs on a 500kHz CPU with 512 bits of RAM, and Microsoft didn't provide one for exFAT, nor for NTFS, so...
IIRC, windows Mac and Linux all support R/W access to UDF as well. You can format a usb stick using that and try
For drives under 2T bytes (assuming 512-byte sectors), and the Windows behavior I’ve seen around it seems a bit strange—it takes a very long time to write out its cache before allowing you to disconnect the drive, for reasons I don’t understand.
Maybe it has legacy code related to sync an FS in a way you would do to close a session in a CDRW.
Absolutely.
We don't need the most modern system to be in that spot but it'd be nice to at least have journalling...
Sad why? This industry needs to start celebrating when a technology lasts 20+ years, not feel "sad".
I'll happily celebrate standards that have stood the test of time, but FAT32 really hasn't. The 4 GB file size limit has been very painful for anything recording videos to SD cards.
I think it's quite logical. A simple filesystem with few features is obviously easier to implement.
Few features - yes. Easier to implement - absolutely not. The first sector has 9 different formats that cannot be reliably distinguished and are partially incompatible / overlapping each other: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIOS_parameter_block
And then there is the thing with the long file names extensions because FAT originally could only do 8.3 names.
I know because i tried to write a FAT driver myself.
And then there is the thing with the long file names extensions because FAT originally could only do 8.3 names.
I know because i tried to write a FAT driver myself.
Probably you didn't try to rewrite a ReiserFS, NTFS or other behemoths. Everything is relative.
what are the alternatives though?
NTFS? Won't work on Mac
HFS+? Won't work on Windows
EXT4? Won't work on Mac or Windows
NTFS? Won't work on Mac
HFS+? Won't work on Windows
EXT4? Won't work on Mac or Windows
Hence what I wrote above:
> Would wish the industry could agree on using something more modern and reliable.
There’s no techical reason why we can’t use NTFS on Macs or APFS on Windows, if the industry was willing work towards that goal together.
> Would wish the industry could agree on using something more modern and reliable.
There’s no techical reason why we can’t use NTFS on Macs or APFS on Windows, if the industry was willing work towards that goal together.
exFAT is generally considered the more modern replacement.
But is still legally encumbered.
FAT32 might have its limitations but it is at least small and simple enough to be implemented in a few K of boot code. That's the reason I still use it with FPGA projects.
FAT32 might have its limitations but it is at least small and simple enough to be implemented in a few K of boot code. That's the reason I still use it with FPGA projects.
ExFAT is a thing, but it’s less data-safe than NTFS (and than FAT32), and Linux distros might not ship drivers out-of-the-box.
Do you have details on what makes exFAT less safe than FAT32? To my understanding they should be pretty similar, at least. Obviously neither is journaling and might need the occasional fsck.
From Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT>:
> The standard exFAT implementation is not journaled and only uses a single file allocation table and free-space map. FAT file systems instead used alternating tables, as this allowed recovery of the file system if the media was ejected during a write (which occurs frequently in practice with removable media).
ExFAT is also used by fake USB drives which claim to be much larger than they really are.
> The standard exFAT implementation is not journaled and only uses a single file allocation table and free-space map. FAT file systems instead used alternating tables, as this allowed recovery of the file system if the media was ejected during a write (which occurs frequently in practice with removable media).
ExFAT is also used by fake USB drives which claim to be much larger than they really are.
> FAT file systems instead used alternating tables, as this allowed recovery of the file system if the media was ejected during a write (which occurs frequently in practice with removable media).
This doesn't seem right to me (and the article also does not quote any source for this assertion). As far as I know, the secondary FAT is a leftover from days where block storage devices didn't have firmware-level bad block remapping, not really a consistency mechanism.
It certainly doesn't prevent inconsistencies between files/directories and the FAT, and you still need an fsck-like process to clean these up that traverses the file system when mounting a non-clean ejected FAT.
> ExFAT is also used by fake USB drives which claim to be much larger than they really are.
USB drives are block devices, and if they maliciously trick the host into assuming larger size than they actually are, that's hardly the filesystem's fault, is it?
This doesn't seem right to me (and the article also does not quote any source for this assertion). As far as I know, the secondary FAT is a leftover from days where block storage devices didn't have firmware-level bad block remapping, not really a consistency mechanism.
It certainly doesn't prevent inconsistencies between files/directories and the FAT, and you still need an fsck-like process to clean these up that traverses the file system when mounting a non-clean ejected FAT.
> ExFAT is also used by fake USB drives which claim to be much larger than they really are.
USB drives are block devices, and if they maliciously trick the host into assuming larger size than they actually are, that's hardly the filesystem's fault, is it?
UDF should have been a viable alternative, but as I’ve said elsewhere it only works for disks smaller than 2T bytes with 512-byte sectors, and the Windows behaviour around it seems strange.
Zfs should be installable on all three operating systems afaik though
ZFS. There is never a good reason not to use ZFS. That's how it got its name -- "the last word in filesystems".
But the last word in zfs is oracle.
As I heard from an anonymous friend at Apple, macOS was weeks away from announcing an official transition to zfs and then oracle bought sun.
Presumably, as a courtesy Apple asked oracle to confirm it was free to use zfs (since it was published under a permissive license). Oracle demanded money anyway. Apple blinked - not wanting to get sued by oracle. And the rest is history. A couple years later Apple wrote their own proprietary zfs like filesystem called APFS that has many similar features. And that has, to my knowledge, not been opensourced.
(It does have very detailed documentation though. Holy cow - 180 pages. https://developer.apple.com/support/downloads/Apple-File-Sys... )
As I heard from an anonymous friend at Apple, macOS was weeks away from announcing an official transition to zfs and then oracle bought sun.
Presumably, as a courtesy Apple asked oracle to confirm it was free to use zfs (since it was published under a permissive license). Oracle demanded money anyway. Apple blinked - not wanting to get sued by oracle. And the rest is history. A couple years later Apple wrote their own proprietary zfs like filesystem called APFS that has many similar features. And that has, to my knowledge, not been opensourced.
(It does have very detailed documentation though. Holy cow - 180 pages. https://developer.apple.com/support/downloads/Apple-File-Sys... )
I think it’s unrealistic to think that Microsoft or any embedded device vendor would have ever implemented ZFS, regardless of the patent situation.
macOS might have switched to something more modern a bit sooner than they did, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they hadn’t switched to APFS anyway after a while. Being able to independently drive your non-detachable-storage FS spec is a pretty big advantage as an OS vendor.
macOS might have switched to something more modern a bit sooner than they did, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they hadn’t switched to APFS anyway after a while. Being able to independently drive your non-detachable-storage FS spec is a pretty big advantage as an OS vendor.
Well, according to my source, it would have actually happened if not for oracle. These decisions really come down to the people involved. I’m sure some people, given that choice, would never consider zfs. But some clearly would - and did.
Using an opensource filesystem like zfs doesn’t mean you aren’t in charge of your own destiny. Apple has skilled systems engineers. They could easily have made custom extensions and changes to zfs if they saw fit.
Using an opensource filesystem like zfs doesn’t mean you aren’t in charge of your own destiny. Apple has skilled systems engineers. They could easily have made custom extensions and changes to zfs if they saw fit.
ZFS seems like massive overkill on resource-constrained embedded systems.
ZFS has a big footprint, so it could be of a problem for integrated solutions, like digital cameras needing to save images to a flash-card without having a lot of hardware power.
[deleted]
Sure, we should create a new standard…
https://xkcd.com/927/
https://xkcd.com/927/
Everyone should just use ReiserFS
[deleted]
Your best bet is to break it up so if one drive letter gets taken out by power failure, etc. that the others survive.
Doesn't even have to be power-loss, if you've ever dealt with a "USBC" corruption from improper USB disconnect https://www.disktuna.com/sudden-appearance-of-usbc-named-fol...