Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums

The following limitations exist using the FAT32 file system with Windows operating systems:

* Clusters cannot be 64 kilobytes (KB) or larger. If clusters were 64 KB or larger, some programs (such as Setup programs) might calculate disk space incorrectly.
* A volume must contain at least 65,527 clusters to use the FAT32 file system. You cannot increase the cluster size on a volume using the FAT32 file system so that it ends up with less than 65,527 clusters.
* The maximum possible number of clusters on a volume using the FAT32 file system is 268,435,445. With a maximum of 32 KB per cluster with space for the file allocation table (FAT), this equates to a maximum disk size of approximately 8 terabytes (TB).
* The ScanDisk tool included with Microsoft Windows 95 and Microsoft Windows 98 is a 16-bit program. Such programs have a single memory block maximum allocation size of 16 MB less 64 KB. Therefore, The Windows 95 or Windows 98 ScanDisk tool cannot process volumes using the FAT32 file system that have a FAT larger than 16 MB less 64 KB in size. A FAT entry on a volume using the FAT32 file system uses 4 bytes, so ScanDisk cannot process the FAT on a volume using the FAT32 file system that defines more than 4,177,920 clusters (including the two reserved clusters). Including the FATs themselves, this works out, at the maximum of 32 KB per cluster, to a volume size of 127.53 gigabytes (GB).
* You cannot decrease the cluster size on a volume using the FAT32 file system so that the FAT ends up larger than 16 MB less 64 KB in size.
* You cannot format a volume larger than 32 GB in size using the FAT32 file system in Windows 2000. The Windows 2000 FastFAT driver can mount and support volumes larger than 32 GB that use the FAT32 file system (subject to the other limits), but you cannot create one using the Format tool. This behavior is by design. If you need to create a volume larger than 32 GB, use the NTFS file system instead.

NOTE: When attempting to format a FAT32 partition larger than 32 GB, the format fails near the end of the process with the following error:

Author:	Sonick [ Sun Aug 30, 2009 3:27 pm ]
Post subject:	FAT32 or NTFS
Sorry for all the questions! ! I was just looking at free space on my externals and noticed one is FAT32 and one is NTFS. Does it matter? Which would you prefer? I am messing with folders and stuff right now so if I am going to reformat one, now is the time to do it.

Author:	ggardein [ Sun Aug 30, 2009 5:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: FAT32 or NTFS
Fat32 is hard to find now, and is needed for many CAVS machines. NTFS is better, but won't work on older machines(Win98, 95...etc)....you can convert from Fat32 to NTFS, but going from NTFS to Fat32 takes some extra tricks......anyone, please correct anything I say, or add to it.....I do make mistakes.....

Author:	jdmeister [ Sun Aug 30, 2009 5:36 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: FAT32 or NTFS
Most externals are formatted in fat32 so every computer can read them.. (Mac, Unix, Linux, Windoze) Fat 32 does have a file size limit, so it's difficult to store your DVD .iso files there.. IMHO, Only if this is an issue should you format the external to NTFS. On your main hard drive, any fat32 partition is the recovery section.. Don't play there.

Author:	jdmeister [ Sun Aug 30, 2009 6:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: FAT32 or NTFS
And, fat32 has a 2 gig limit for files.. NTFS, file size is only limited by the HD size, 2 Terabyte limit.

Author:	Micky [ Sun Aug 30, 2009 6:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: FAT32 or NTFS
jdmeister @ Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:11 pm wrote: And, fat32 has a 2 gig limit for files.. NTFS, file size is only limited by the HD size, 2 Terabyte limit. I think it's 4 gig limitation on FAT 32

Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums https://mail.karaokescenemagazine.net/forums/

FAT32 or NTFS https://mail.karaokescenemagazine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17583	Page 1 of 1

Author:	karyoker [ Sun Aug 30, 2009 6:42 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: FAT32 or NTFS
With XP it's 32 GB I use about 10GB for the OS fat32 (primary partition) and second partition the rest of the hard drive using NTFS.

Author:	angel910 [ Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:16 am ]
Post subject:	Re: FAT32 or NTFS
NTFS

Author:	jdmeister [ Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:36 am ]
Post subject:	Re: FAT32 or NTFS
Micky @ Sun Aug 30, 2009 6:32 pm wrote: jdmeister @ Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:11 pm wrote: And, fat32 has a 2 gig limit for files.. NTFS, file size is only limited by the HD size, 2 Terabyte limit. I think it's 4 gig limitation on FAT 32 It's actually 4 Gig minus 1.. Quote: The following limitations exist using the FAT32 file system with Windows operating systems: * Clusters cannot be 64 kilobytes (KB) or larger. If clusters were 64 KB or larger, some programs (such as Setup programs) might calculate disk space incorrectly. * A volume must contain at least 65,527 clusters to use the FAT32 file system. You cannot increase the cluster size on a volume using the FAT32 file system so that it ends up with less than 65,527 clusters. * The maximum possible number of clusters on a volume using the FAT32 file system is 268,435,445. With a maximum of 32 KB per cluster with space for the file allocation table (FAT), this equates to a maximum disk size of approximately 8 terabytes (TB). * The ScanDisk tool included with Microsoft Windows 95 and Microsoft Windows 98 is a 16-bit program. Such programs have a single memory block maximum allocation size of 16 MB less 64 KB. Therefore, The Windows 95 or Windows 98 ScanDisk tool cannot process volumes using the FAT32 file system that have a FAT larger than 16 MB less 64 KB in size. A FAT entry on a volume using the FAT32 file system uses 4 bytes, so ScanDisk cannot process the FAT on a volume using the FAT32 file system that defines more than 4,177,920 clusters (including the two reserved clusters). Including the FATs themselves, this works out, at the maximum of 32 KB per cluster, to a volume size of 127.53 gigabytes (GB). * You cannot decrease the cluster size on a volume using the FAT32 file system so that the FAT ends up larger than 16 MB less 64 KB in size. * You cannot format a volume larger than 32 GB in size using the FAT32 file system in Windows 2000. The Windows 2000 FastFAT driver can mount and support volumes larger than 32 GB that use the FAT32 file system (subject to the other limits), but you cannot create one using the Format tool. This behavior is by design. If you need to create a volume larger than 32 GB, use the NTFS file system instead. NOTE: When attempting to format a FAT32 partition larger than 32 GB, the format fails near the end of the process with the following error:

Author:	Sonick [ Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:38 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: FAT32 or NTFS
So I guess it doesn't really matter then for the externals... I don't plan on have a Karaoke file thats 3 gigs in size =) Thanks again!

Author:	Micky [ Mon Aug 31, 2009 5:38 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: FAT32 or NTFS
Sonick @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:38 pm wrote: So I guess it doesn't really matter then for the externals... I don't plan on have a Karaoke file thats 3 gigs in size =) Thanks again! Well, just between you & I, for music FAT is better, it sounds better

Author:	ggardein [ Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: FAT32 or NTFS
[quote="jdmeister @ Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:36 pm"]Most externals are formatted in fat32 so every computer can read them.. (Mac, Unix, Linux, Windoze) Sure seems the new ones I come across(for quite some time now) are NTFS...maybe just like love, I've been looking in all the wrong places....

Author:	jdmeister [ Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: FAT32 or NTFS
nobodyhome @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:02 pm wrote: jdmeister @ Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:36 pm wrote: Most externals are formatted in fat32 so every computer can read them.. (Mac, Unix, Linux, Windoze) Sure seems the new ones I come across(for quite some time now) are NTFS...maybe just like love, I've been looking in all the wrong places.... Mac and Linux really don't like NTFS.. That's why the fat32.. They see it..

Author:	Meep70 [ Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: FAT32 or NTFS
jdmeister @ 31/8/2009, 8:12 pm wrote: Mac and Linux really don't like NTFS.. That's why the fat32.. They see it.. Not sure about Mac. (I think Leopard handles NTFS well, though). Linux, I do know about. Any recent distribution of Linux (Ubuntu and derivatives like Mint, for sure) should mount and handle NTFS volumes with no issue whatsoever. I format all of my external drives NTFS, and have for the last 3 years or so. This includes drives that I access using Linux.

Author:	eben [ Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:33 am ]
Post subject:	Re: FAT32 or NTFS
Yep, same goes for the Mac as LINUX. Matter of fact, the underlying kernel for OS X is BSD UNIX distribution. It's very similar to LINUX, much of the code are the same. Thus, the new OS X handles NTFS without any problem. Matter of fact, there is not reason to go with FAT32 anymore, specially from cross platform point of view. Go with NTFS unless there is a strong reason why not, which I don't see any now days.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	jdmeister [ Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:26 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: FAT32 or NTFS
I stand corrected.. I just plugged in my new 1 terabyte external and sure a heck, it's ntfs.. (Most of my older 500s are fat32)

Author:	classickaraoke [ Wed Sep 09, 2009 7:35 am ]
Post subject:	Re: FAT32 or NTFS
I have a CDG player which has a USB port to read CDG+MP3 files. I can read a 1TB FAT32 drive but not NTFS. I can use it to play customer's flash drive with running the risk of viruses on my PC. Jonn

Author:	Bazza [ Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:31 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: FAT32 or NTFS
Sonick @ Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:38 pm wrote: So I guess it doesn't really matter then for the externals... I don't plan on have a Karaoke file that's 3 gigs in size =) Thanks again! What does matter is the number of files in each directory. If you plan on keeping all your music in one giant folder, you might have issues with FAT32 if you have a lot. It's a little vague as well because it not so much how many songs you have but the lengths of all the file names put together (you could store many more 5 digit file names that you could 15 digit files names). This can easily be solved by splitting it up into sub-directories though. I ran into this a few years back in a different application where an external drive was happily copying along then suddenly started throwing errors saying "please remove the write protection". It drove me nuts until I realized I had reached the FAT32 directory limit.