|Jan 9, 2013, 05:25 PM||#1|
I just heard, and that its built into OS X is exFAT. Reading up on this, it I see its not compatible with FAT32, but the reason why people would use it is to overcome the 4Gig File size of FAT32, and the fact *both* Windows & Mac can read/write to the same partition ....
so, is this a a successor to FAT32 ? exFat can have file sizes of up to 16EB i think too, so why isn't Apple using this, if its better than HFS+ ? Not to mention this was bought out in 2006, i don't know why it took soo long for implementation. or is it more used toward today's flash drives ? (though i've not noticed any that used it)
13" MBPR, i5, 256Gig SDD, 8 Gig Ram, Apple TV, iPhone 5S 16Gig, iPad 16Gig, Mac Mini 2.3Ghz i7, 1TB HD
"There are no stupid questions, just stupid people."
|Jan 9, 2013, 05:28 PM||#2|
exFAT has been implemented into Mac OS X since 10.6.5 (around 2010 or so).
exFAT has probably disadvantages over HFS+, journaling or permissions or playing well, or at all, with UNIX for example, thus it was not used. MS still uses NTFS too, and it is an old file system (though not as old as HFS).
exFAT also took a while to be implemented into Windows 5.1 or Windows 6.
|Jan 9, 2013, 05:28 PM||#3|
Format A Hard Drive Using Disk Utility (which is in your /Applications/Utilities folder)
Choose the appropriate format:
HFS+ (Hierarchical File System, a.k.a. Mac OS Extended (Journaled) Don't use case-sensitive)
NTFS (Windows NT File System)
FAT32 (File Allocation Table)
|Jan 9, 2013, 06:16 PM||#4|
HFS+ has Posix semantics. ExFAT doesn't. That alone is a huge reason why ExFAT won't work as the "go to" filesystem for any real work on a Mac. ExFAT is good for transferring data between Mac and Windows, but it's not useful for any real work on a Mac such as backups.
I think the reason ExFAT was created was so that you could have a flash drive filesystem that supported files over 4GB for things like video cameras and other portable devices that create large files. But the filesystem is not appropriate for general computer use since ExFAT also doesn't feature journalling.
In this case "newer" doesn't necessarily mean "better" for all uses. ExFAT is better for simple data transfer. That's it.
|Jan 9, 2013, 11:48 PM||#5|
The File Allocation Table is not a robust paradigm. I have great difficulty understanding why I should use a file system with only one FAT when NTFS is a more robust file system. When I need a computer, I use my Mac and format its volumes HFS+. But, when I need to exchange files with Windows users, I use my Mac running NTFS-3G to format my cross-platform volumes as NTFS.
Neither a borrower nor a lender be
For loan oft loses both itself and friend
William Shakespeare from Hamlet
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|
|thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|The exFAT wonders||Mr Gavoni||Mac Peripherals||4||May 19, 2014 01:37 PM|
|exFAT - shortcomings?||sickbhoy||Mac Basics and Help||4||Dec 30, 2013 06:32 AM|
|exFAT reliability||monkeybagel||Mac Pro||3||Feb 14, 2013 01:09 PM|
|How reliable is exFAT?||jason2811||Mac Peripherals||1||Dec 21, 2012 04:26 PM|
|exFAT....will I have a need for iPhoto?||Geckotek||Mac Applications and Mac App Store||3||Nov 2, 2012 10:15 PM|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:34 PM.