• BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is badly written and ignorant article. Fat32 supports up to 16Tb partition size (depending on cluster size - 2Tb -16Tb).

    Its microsoft’s windows tools that arbitrarily only allow users to create 32Gb partitions, and it is this that is being changed. This is not a change to Fat32, this is a change to windows. 3rd party tools on Windows and other systems like Linux have long offered more options for partition size.

    That its taken to 2024 for Microsoft to fix the command line tool (and still not fix the GUI tools) is ridiculous.

  • Peffse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I love how the arstechnica article words it like you will never need FAT32 and it’s silly to consider it.

    I had to download fat32format I don’t know how many times because I needed to format an extra large SD Card or USB drive for some device. Microsoft really shafted exFAT’s adoption with their licensing.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I personally haven’t had to touch it in over a decade, but I guess there’s probably some uses for it still, yeah.

      • Peffse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Personal computers and flagship phones? Yeah you can probably use exFAT.

        Video game consoles and handhelds? Dashcams? Car entertainment centers? Cheap android devices? 100% going to be FAT32 partitioned with a Master Boot Record

    • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      FAT32 is also really simple to implement. Supporting exFAT may require a larger microcontroller with more memory, which results in a more expensive product.

    • rdri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Linux still unable to catch up with NTFS when it comes to filename length, sadly. 256 bytes in an era of Unicode is ridiculous.