• BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    164
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months 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
    55
    ·
    4 months 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.

    • rdri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      4 months 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.

  • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    I think there was some kind of tool that let you extend it more. I had a 512gb drive on fat32 but it sucked so much I just reformated to ext4 and it performed much better

  • OutrageousUmpire@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    I don’t know how much it matters though? If I try it on my Windows XP machine I’ll still be stuck with the old limit right?