• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Microsoft Updates the 30-year-old FAT32 File-system with 2TB Volume Size Limits


EFI encompasses the use of FAT32 for a system partition, and FAT12 or FAT16 for removable media. The FAT32 system partition is identified by an OSType value other than that used to identify previous versions of FAT. This unique partition type distinguishes an EFI defined file system from a normal FAT file system. The file system supported by EFI includes support for long file names.
Click to expand...
 
This is news to me that it didn't work in Windows.

I have been formating and using 128GB+ microSD and USB drives in Linux, PS3 and even Xbox 360 with no issues. The 360 has supported 2TB external drives, on FAT32, for many years.

I'd prefer to use exFAT but on the case of those consoles, you don't really have support. Still, since those were built with the 4GB file limit in place, it is not really a big issue.
 
chrcoluk said:
Due to UEFI limitations.
Click to expand...
It's not really any limitation. UEFI simply has no need of anything fancy. Keeping it simple generally is a good approach. No doubt ExFAT support, alongside FAT16/32, will be incorporated once the patents expire.
 
Fix nobody was asking for. At this moment in time keeping FAT32 is so ludicrous I just struggle for words. ExFAT should be the standard, which is platform agnostic (for the most part except some niche platforms) and trouble free and yet M$ persist with keeping this antiquated piece of code in Winblow$. If Macrocost took sweet 30 years to "fix" FAT32 then replacement for ancient NTFS is like 150 years away???

I mean they forced artificial TPM requirement on new installs in 11. They should start W12 from nearly scratch for reasonably new hardware (say 10 years back), only 64b and cut all useless stuff. No support for devices/software from 30+ years ago, keep only ExFAT and NTFS (even better replace it with something better for NVMe age), no MBR, etc, etc... This bloated OS code in the name of meaningless compatibility for hardware/software which (often) doesn't exist anymore is so bottomlessly retarded.
 
They do their job as a simple sharing filesystem just fine. ExFAT is just a tweak to FAT32. Comparing them as competing is the real nonsense.
 
user556 said:
It's not really any limitation. UEFI simply has no need of anything fancy. Keeping it simple generally is a good approach. No doubt ExFAT support, alongside FAT16/32, will be incorporated once the patents expire.
Click to expand...
It is a problem, my custom media, I have to play games to stay within the 4 gig file limit on FAT32 for the install.wim file.
 
user556 said:
huh?
Click to expand...
FAT32 has a 4 gig file limit.
Windows installer has very big wim files, so its a hassle that I have to keep below the 4 gig limit, which wouldnt be a problem on exFAT.
 
LETHIMCOOK? :pimp:

If you're a normie that's reading about this then you definitely don't have any creeping anxiety about data loss, the ever growing encroachment of disappearing backups and historic Internet media or any concept of nearline storage and possibly even the concept of what files ARE let alone how they exist in a volume. FAT16 and FAT32 were those old file systems that just barely got us through the Win9X - WinXP era and it wasn't until DVD backups became a hot idea that we collectively decided on using literally anything else.

Most computers of that time period didn't have 1GB of local storage and I especially remember fighting this because I had maybe half.
FAT16 was limited to 2GB in total volume size and served as boot media for DOS/Win95 environments.
File NAMES were limited to eight dot three letter: FILENA~1.TXT and extremely limited in all functions.
FAT32 was similar, had no foreseeable limit to volume size, is compatible with everything but file sizes were limited to 4GB.
This means that install packages on a modern Win10 distribution (install.wim) would not be able to exist. It won't write to disk.

1724593678089.png


This also means that entire volume images 4GB and larger won't write either. Better jump to NTFS, ReFS or Ext3 or whatever else you used between the Win2000 era and today. :rolleyes:
 
DaemonForce said:
Most computers of that time period didn't have 1GB of local storage and I especially remember fighting this because I had maybe half.
FAT16 was limited to 2GB in total volume size and served as boot media for DOS/Win95 environments.
File NAMES were limited to eight dot three letter: FILENA~1.TXT
Click to expand...
Since Windows 95, with VFAT, long file names are available for FAT16. Windows 95 and Windows 98, creates files with those short names along side it. You can tell Windows 95 and Windows 98 did that, by seeing "~1" in the file name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top