This may be a dumb question, but why bother with a FAT variant? Why not simply use NFTS or something else that's probably more widely adopted than FAT?
As far as I can tell, Linux and OS X don't yet-- though it may be easier to extend their existing FAT32 filesystem code to read/write exFAT than to fully support NTFS. (Yes, there's NTFS-3G, but that's not really an 'official' solution for either OS.) Not to mention Microsoft might be more willing to be more open with exFAT than they would be with NTFS.
MS is very unpleasant about their filesystems, in fact it took ages for them to even allow people to buy licences for anything but FAT16 for portable stuff, and most manufacturers used FAT12 because it was license free. (from what I understand) The question is why don't the flashmakers invent their own filesystem that isn't based on ancient rotating magnetic disks and bung it down in a standard and get it ISO certified, to hell with all those cheap big companies and their precious nonsense.
because FAT file systems can have drivers in Assembly written in Bytes... not kilo- or mega- but regular old bytes. Think how much ram old computers that used floppies had. That means there is very little overhead for very small devices. FAT 12 gave way to FAT16 in Windows and was the default for years until the nearly as ubiquitous FAT32 came along to support really large file systems. But Microsoft does/doesn't claim patents on FAT32.. they are rather flimsy, and they've been pushing NTFS for all hard drives to capture the license fees. the exFAT is just another grab at inventing something new they can make everybody pay for. Why they don't use EXT2 that is supported, wide open and free is beyond me. It's probably got more program overhead and in devices every byte is precious, even if you make 10 MP photos firmware bytes are still worth gold.
Of course neither Apple nor Microsoft would support cards with EXT2 just out of principal... it would make things free and nobody wants that.
FAT32 is limited to a maximum file size of 4GB, this new exFAT is basically FAT64 and doesn't have such limitations (some massive exabyte file size limit).
This is more important in capturing video (especially HD) where for example 4GB of HDV is only about 18 minutes of continuous record time before the captured file needs to be split. This overcomes all the 4GB file size limits in video production while still using a low overhead simple and likely cross plaform compatible file system.
Probably because the long and the short of it is that NTFS isn't more widely adopted than FAT. NTFS is a pretty recent invention, Windows only format whereas FAT (and its variations thereof) have been kicking about for decades and pretty much everyone who needs to knows how to use it since it's publicly documented.
If you want to create a memory card that computers and other devices that aren't running Windows can use you're limited to the other formats. As a Windows only hard drive journalled format it's good but for a camera memory card it's much easier to go with FAT.
"I'm a college student looking for a new laptop, but almost all of my media I receive digitally. I'm looking for a laptop, not a netbook, without an optical drive, and budget sensitive. The optical drive will just be a waste of space, when I can have thinner laptop. What's out there?"
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
This may be a dumb question, but why bother with a FAT variant? Why not simply use NFTS or something else that's probably more widely adopted than FAT?
Cause FAT is a classic and the classics never go out of style.
They told me that the classics never go out of style but, they do. They do.
Somehow baby, I never thought that we do too.
Vista supports exFAT.
As far as I can tell, Linux and OS X don't yet-- though it may be easier to extend their existing FAT32 filesystem code to read/write exFAT than to fully support NTFS. (Yes, there's NTFS-3G, but that's not really an 'official' solution for either OS.) Not to mention Microsoft might be more willing to be more open with exFAT than they would be with NTFS.
MS is very unpleasant about their filesystems, in fact it took ages for them to even allow people to buy licences for anything but FAT16 for portable stuff, and most manufacturers used FAT12 because it was license free. (from what I understand)
The question is why don't the flashmakers invent their own filesystem that isn't based on ancient rotating magnetic disks and bung it down in a standard and get it ISO certified, to hell with all those cheap big companies and their precious nonsense.
@ BJ is Gooder
Refused, ftw.
because FAT file systems can have drivers in Assembly written in Bytes... not kilo- or mega- but regular old bytes. Think how much ram old computers that used floppies had. That means there is very little overhead for very small devices. FAT 12 gave way to FAT16 in Windows and was the default for years until the nearly as ubiquitous FAT32 came along to support really large file systems. But Microsoft does/doesn't claim patents on FAT32.. they are rather flimsy, and they've been pushing NTFS for all hard drives to capture the license fees. the exFAT is just another grab at inventing something new they can make everybody pay for. Why they don't use EXT2 that is supported, wide open and free is beyond me. It's probably got more program overhead and in devices every byte is precious, even if you make 10 MP photos firmware bytes are still worth gold.
Of course neither Apple nor Microsoft would support cards with EXT2 just out of principal... it would make things free and nobody wants that.
FAT32 is limited to a maximum file size of 4GB, this new exFAT is basically FAT64 and doesn't have such limitations (some massive exabyte file size limit).
This is more important in capturing video (especially HD) where for example 4GB of HDV is only about 18 minutes of continuous record time before the captured file needs to be split. This overcomes all the 4GB file size limits in video production while still using a low overhead simple and likely cross plaform compatible file system.
I don't think anyone uses NFTS.
Probably because the long and the short of it is that NTFS isn't more widely adopted than FAT. NTFS is a pretty recent invention, Windows only format whereas FAT (and its variations thereof) have been kicking about for decades and pretty much everyone who needs to knows how to use it since it's publicly documented.
If you want to create a memory card that computers and other devices that aren't running Windows can use you're limited to the other formats. As a Windows only hard drive journalled format it's good but for a camera memory card it's much easier to go with FAT.