<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Max File Size On Disk (NTFS Vs. FAT)</title>
	<link>http://www.boredworkers.com/2005/12/28/max-file-size-on-disk-ntfs-vs-fat/</link>
	<description>Get a grip!</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 01:25:53 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: bijendra</title>
		<link>http://www.boredworkers.com/2005/12/28/max-file-size-on-disk-ntfs-vs-fat/#comment-19648</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2007 06:25:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.boredworkers.com/2005/12/28/max-file-size-on-disk-ntfs-vs-fat/#comment-19648</guid>
					<description>i have a problem that my Ext protable harddrive ntfs so i want to convert ntfs to fat so give me a solution.

&lt;strong&gt;G:&lt;/strong&gt; Let me see if I got this right. You want to convert your external harddrive from an NTFS file system to FAT32. There are exactly two ways that I can think of.
1. Backup the files on your drive, reformat the drive with FAT32 and restore your data files.
2. Use a third party software like Partition Magic.

Note that the second method usually causes more problems than it solves. It might introduce errors to your data or worse, erase them altogether. The safest method is to reformat. However, if reformating and third party software are not open options to you, then you're stuck with NTFS for life.

Hope that helps. Let me know if you have other questions. I've assumed that you know how to format a drive so I haven't included that information. If you don't then leave another message and I'll walk you through it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i have a problem that my Ext protable harddrive ntfs so i want to convert ntfs to fat so give me a solution.</p>
<p><strong>G:</strong> Let me see if I got this right. You want to convert your external harddrive from an NTFS file system to FAT32. There are exactly two ways that I can think of.<br />
1. Backup the files on your drive, reformat the drive with FAT32 and restore your data files.<br />
2. Use a third party software like Partition Magic.</p>
<p>Note that the second method usually causes more problems than it solves. It might introduce errors to your data or worse, erase them altogether. The safest method is to reformat. However, if reformating and third party software are not open options to you, then you&#8217;re stuck with NTFS for life.</p>
<p>Hope that helps. Let me know if you have other questions. I&#8217;ve assumed that you know how to format a drive so I haven&#8217;t included that information. If you don&#8217;t then leave another message and I&#8217;ll walk you through it.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Arvin</title>
		<link>http://www.boredworkers.com/2005/12/28/max-file-size-on-disk-ntfs-vs-fat/#comment-1246</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2006 01:53:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.boredworkers.com/2005/12/28/max-file-size-on-disk-ntfs-vs-fat/#comment-1246</guid>
					<description>Go back to work, you bored workers!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Go back to work, you bored workers!
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Boredworkers.com &#187; Windows Disk Management</title>
		<link>http://www.boredworkers.com/2005/12/28/max-file-size-on-disk-ntfs-vs-fat/#comment-372</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2006 01:30:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.boredworkers.com/2005/12/28/max-file-size-on-disk-ntfs-vs-fat/#comment-372</guid>
					<description>[...] Follow the instructions on screen, specifying a suitable size for the partition amd a preferred file format (either FAT32 or NTFS) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Follow the instructions on screen, specifying a suitable size for the partition amd a preferred file format (either FAT32 or NTFS) [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: gbyeow</title>
		<link>http://www.boredworkers.com/2005/12/28/max-file-size-on-disk-ntfs-vs-fat/#comment-285</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:23:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.boredworkers.com/2005/12/28/max-file-size-on-disk-ntfs-vs-fat/#comment-285</guid>
					<description>Remember that Windows is not only about NT based Windows (XP, 2000...). There's still a large user base for ME, 98SE, 98, and (believe it or not) 95. Companies are putting off upgrades because of prior investments and future costs.

Alot of people just want things to work. They are not too interested in finding out why or how it works. It is not ignorance. It is simply not in their interest to go through the paces. This is especially true in a world where deadlines and delivery takes centre stage.

From a corporate viewpoint, it is foolish to adopt a standard that is not widely supported. It doesn't matter that it is the 'better' standard. What matters that their business partners and customers might not be able to read files from their storage media. And that is just bad business sense. They've read their history, learned their lesson, and fear the consequences of adopting new technology, especially technology dealing with something as simplistic as data storage.

The very point that you brought up about sacrificing the explorer interface is, on its own, a good enough deterrent for people.

We're digressing. The topic is moving into discussions of ideals. Ideals does not make the world go round, although if it was, then the world would be a better place for it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Remember that Windows is not only about NT based Windows (XP, 2000&#8230;). There&#8217;s still a large user base for ME, 98SE, 98, and (believe it or not) 95. Companies are putting off upgrades because of prior investments and future costs.</p>
<p>Alot of people just want things to work. They are not too interested in finding out why or how it works. It is not ignorance. It is simply not in their interest to go through the paces. This is especially true in a world where deadlines and delivery takes centre stage.</p>
<p>From a corporate viewpoint, it is foolish to adopt a standard that is not widely supported. It doesn&#8217;t matter that it is the &#8216;better&#8217; standard. What matters that their business partners and customers might not be able to read files from their storage media. And that is just bad business sense. They&#8217;ve read their history, learned their lesson, and fear the consequences of adopting new technology, especially technology dealing with something as simplistic as data storage.</p>
<p>The very point that you brought up about sacrificing the explorer interface is, on its own, a good enough deterrent for people.</p>
<p>We&#8217;re digressing. The topic is moving into discussions of ideals. Ideals does not make the world go round, although if it was, then the world would be a better place for it.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Simonsays</title>
		<link>http://www.boredworkers.com/2005/12/28/max-file-size-on-disk-ntfs-vs-fat/#comment-284</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 02:42:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.boredworkers.com/2005/12/28/max-file-size-on-disk-ntfs-vs-fat/#comment-284</guid>
					<description>BTW I must agree with you that FAT32 is by far the most common filesystem around. The SD Card on my PDA, for example uses FAT. 

FYI, I have tried both SMB access (from Linux, Mac &#38; Windows boxes) and Explore2fs out before. It's not that hard, plus all the info needed is available off the 'Net :).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BTW I must agree with you that FAT32 is by far the most common filesystem around. The SD Card on my PDA, for example uses FAT. </p>
<p>FYI, I have tried both SMB access (from Linux, Mac &amp; Windows boxes) and Explore2fs out before. It&#8217;s not that hard, plus all the info needed is available off the &#8216;Net :).
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Simonsays</title>
		<link>http://www.boredworkers.com/2005/12/28/max-file-size-on-disk-ntfs-vs-fat/#comment-283</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 02:13:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.boredworkers.com/2005/12/28/max-file-size-on-disk-ntfs-vs-fat/#comment-283</guid>
					<description>I don't think that portability is a problem from within Windows and other mainstream OSes.

Reasons:
1. &lt;a href="http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/"&gt;XFS&lt;/a&gt; can be accessed by Windows (and any other OS that supports the SMB protocol, ie. "Network Places") via Samba.

2. Windows XP can directly read an ext2/3 partition using &lt;a href="http://uranus.it.swin.edu.au/~jn/linux/explore2fs.htm"&gt;Explore2fs&lt;/a&gt;.

So yes, I can format a 4GB Flash drive with ext2/3 and still "see" it (and write to it) from XP, although without the Windows Explorer interface, lah. Too bad, have to sacrifice a lil bit lor.

I also think it's about time the average Joe knows more about computing choices out there, as I don't regard ignorance as a virtue :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think that portability is a problem from within Windows and other mainstream OSes.</p>
<p>Reasons:<br />
1. <a href="http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/">XFS</a> can be accessed by Windows (and any other OS that supports the SMB protocol, ie. &#8220;Network Places&#8221;) via Samba.</p>
<p>2. Windows XP can directly read an ext2/3 partition using <a href="http://uranus.it.swin.edu.au/~jn/linux/explore2fs.htm">Explore2fs</a>.</p>
<p>So yes, I can format a 4GB Flash drive with ext2/3 and still &#8220;see&#8221; it (and write to it) from XP, although without the Windows Explorer interface, lah. Too bad, have to sacrifice a lil bit lor.</p>
<p>I also think it&#8217;s about time the average Joe knows more about computing choices out there, as I don&#8217;t regard ignorance as a virtue :)
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: gbyeow</title>
		<link>http://www.boredworkers.com/2005/12/28/max-file-size-on-disk-ntfs-vs-fat/#comment-281</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:02:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.boredworkers.com/2005/12/28/max-file-size-on-disk-ntfs-vs-fat/#comment-281</guid>
					<description>The point of the matter is that Linux file systems are non-portable and not widely supported. Not every average Joe know how to read and write from raw diskspace. Granted that it may be a stable OS but that doesn't mean that it isn't the minority. FAT32 is supported by practically every mainstream OS available. And that is precisely the reason why it is still widely used. Its not about the size.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The point of the matter is that Linux file systems are non-portable and not widely supported. Not every average Joe know how to read and write from raw diskspace. Granted that it may be a stable OS but that doesn&#8217;t mean that it isn&#8217;t the minority. FAT32 is supported by practically every mainstream OS available. And that is precisely the reason why it is still widely used. Its not about the size.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Simonsays</title>
		<link>http://www.boredworkers.com/2005/12/28/max-file-size-on-disk-ntfs-vs-fat/#comment-279</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2005 08:48:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.boredworkers.com/2005/12/28/max-file-size-on-disk-ntfs-vs-fat/#comment-279</guid>
					<description>&lt;a href="http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/prkc_fil_tdrn.asp"&gt; Size Limitations in NTFS and FAT File Systems&lt;/a&gt;

And with NTFS, you get max 16 terrabytes of data, something you definitely can't copy to FAT32. If you happen to have a 20 TB divx file :) try XFS on Linux, as the filesystem can take 8 exabytes max per file :) See http://www.suse.de/~aj/linux_lfs.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/prkc_fil_tdrn.asp"> Size Limitations in NTFS and FAT File Systems</a></p>
<p>And with NTFS, you get max 16 terrabytes of data, something you definitely can&#8217;t copy to FAT32. If you happen to have a 20 TB divx file :) try XFS on Linux, as the filesystem can take 8 exabytes max per file :) See <a href='http://www.suse.de/~aj/linux_lfs.html' rel='nofollow'>http://www.suse.de/~aj/linux_lfs.html</a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>

