Microsoft to replace FAT with exFAT
Click here to post a comment for Microsoft to replace FAT with exFAT on our message forum
schmidtbag
Microsoft can be extremely stupid at times. Do they not understand that the reason FAT is still popular is specifically because of its compatibility? It's the only filesystem that is fully supported by just about every OS, probably including some game consoles as well. Making a new one that is proprietary will not get any (positive) attention from anyone - you're better off just going with NTFS.
k1net1cs
exFAT isn't new; WinXP users can install exFAT support from MS, while Vista and Win7 already support it by default.
Of course, that'd probably leave Mac and GNU/Linux users 'out in the cold', but then again Apple has licensed exFAT and (realistically) that's all that matters.
Besides, since when did FAT (FAT32) isn't proprietary?
Just because it sees widespread use doesn't mean it's not proprietary; just look at the h.264 video format.
To be honest, I'll be glad if exFAT ever takes off and gets widespread use like FAT32 did.
Anyway, 4GB file size limit is a FAT32 limitation, while FAT16's is 4GB volume size limit, so I'm pretty sure the FAT being mentioned is FAT32, unless that '4GB file size limit' in the article is a typo.
That 'FAT from 1977' is not even FAT16 since (final) FAT16 was still years away.
DLD
"open-source operating systems like Linux are left out in the cold."
That is the reason. The only thing m$ really is craving for (except the $) is to find the way(s) of giving hard times to the open source community... This guy (Billy Windows) is a REAL Sauron and his company is a REAL Mordor...
yelsewshane
I think it's a smart move for microsoft to do this. I know I would if i ran the company to make more money and force others to use my os.
Stukov
This is just silly. No. Just no. When I got my 16GB flash drives, they were in FAT. Tried to copy a 4 or 5GB movie over...guess what it couldn't do it. I had to reformat it, my choices were NTFS or exFAT, seeing as a friend has a mac that I give her stuff on, I choose exFAT.
Seriously I don't know what your smoking.
dcx_badass
Needs to be able to have full android and Linux support or I'm not interested.
EspHack
now that i see it.. what mobile OS supports exFAT? i was stuck trying to download a file larger than 4gb a few months ago, considering i have a few phones with more than 32GB storage, thats a let down, hd movies can weight up to 14gb
k1net1cs
I don't know about iOS, but Android usually use VFAT for its file storage (its 'sdcard0', so to speak; not to be confused with the external SD card), basically an extension to allow long file names on FAT16 or FAT32 with its underlying (real) filesystem is (usually) FAT16 on Android devices.
IIRC, there were some troubles with using FAT32 for storage on some (Motorola?) Android devices due to MS owning some of FAT32 patents.
deltatux
You guys do know that Android/Linux (depending on the manufacturer) does have exFAT support right? You just need to have that manufacturer to license exFAT for it to read/write exFAT volumes. You know those manufacturers who have announced that they have licensed Microsoft portfolios? They have access to give you exFAT and NTFS capabilities. Those drivers are provided by Tuxera, the guys who brought the open source world ntfs-3g.
My ASUS Transformer Pad Prime can read and write exFAT, I know this because my 32GB MicroSD card has been formatted with it.
One reason why Google actually doesn't like MicroSD cards (along with the fact they rather sell you cloud services) is that Microsoft essentially controls the filesystem used by these memory cards, Google rather uses the ext4 filesystem which is default for Linux devices (Android included). Even on older devices (post-YAFFS2 in Android 2.3 and later) you had 1 GB of ext4 for apps and then 13 GB for FAT32 (for the Nexus S). With Android 4.0 devices, Google unified the entire storage pool to ext4 and to maintain compatibility opted to use MTP and disable block-level access to the file system (ironically MTP is also a Microsoft protocol, but it's an open protocol).
deltatux
dcx_badass
I know some support them, I was more implying universal support.
k1net1cs
Well, that's exactly what MS is trying to do, as been implied by the article; start things up by reaching out device manufacturers.
Chouji
I don't see the problem here. FAT is useless and outdated, as is FAT32 by todays standards.
I have hundreds of files that are above 4gb in size. Mostly database archives and backups, but still.
Oh all my thumb drives that are over 2gb, i use exFAT.
I have a portable HDD (2.5") which has 2 partitions. a 200MB FAT partition, and ~115GB exFAT.
And the fat partition.. is only there for the exfat update for windows XP machines.
The fat partition doesn't even mount a drive letter, i have to do it manually to get the update file. (this wasn't intentional, but it worked out perfectly.)
If i'm not mistaken, isn't exfat better for SSDs anyways? I remember reading that somewhere, but that was years ago..
k1net1cs
In some (weird) part of the world, it's apparently still cool to use "M$".
Repo Man
so if FAT is replaced by exFAT, shouldnt it be called skiNNY instead ?
k1net1cs
Actually, it's more like 'obese', what's with 'extra FAT' and large file support. =b
Well, skinnier overhead, though.
EspHack
@deltatux i didnt know that... i guess apple is in the same boat? lol all makes sense now...
