Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Fat vs Fat32.

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,080

    Default Fat vs Fat32.

    Hello,I was doing some formatting of my CF card when I realised there r 2 file sys to pick.
    Fat and Fat 32.I was wondering if using the wrong sys,will it dmg my cf?any pros/cons between the 2?thanks.

  2. #2
    Member smtan24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    1,496

    Default Re: Fat vs Fat32.

    Most camera support both format. Fat32 supports CF above 2GB while FAT16 can't.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,080

    Default Re: Fat vs Fat32.

    Quote Originally Posted by smtan24
    Most camera support both format. Fat32 supports CF above 2GB while FAT16 can't.
    my cf is only 1 gig.can i use fat32 on it as i know fat32 is better in performance wise.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Tanjong Katong
    Posts
    3,710

    Default Re: Fat vs Fat32.

    Format your card on camera is better.

    Regards,
    Arto.

  5. #5
    Member smtan24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    1,496

    Default Re: Fat vs Fat32.

    Artosoft is correct formating in the camera is safer.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    0145.646'N 10637.396'E
    Posts
    547

    Default Re: Fat vs Fat32.

    FAT (FAT16) cannot support 2GB++ but it is faster than FAT32. FAT32 on the other hand support more than 2GB. some camera CANNOT USE FAT32, do remember to check with manual.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Potong Pasir
    Posts
    540

    Default Re: Fat vs Fat32.

    Quote Originally Posted by smtan24
    Artosoft is correct formating in the camera is safer.
    i agree too

    format with the camera is the safest!
    D70s-er Since 2005

  8. #8
    Member smtan24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    1,496

    Default Re: Fat vs Fat32.

    The following are the FAT formats:

    FAT12: The oldest type of FAT uses a 12-bit binary number to hold the cluster number. A volume formatted using FAT12 can hold a maximum of 4,086 clusters, which is 2^12 minus a few values (to allow for reserved values to be used in the FAT). FAT12 is therefore most suitable for very small volumes, and is used on floppy disks and hard disk partitions smaller than about 16 MB (the latter being rare today.)

    FAT16: The FAT used for most older systems, and for small partitions on modern systems, uses a 16-bit binary number to hold cluster numbers. When you see someone refer to a "FAT" volume generically, they are usually referring to FAT16, because it is the de facto standard for hard disks, even with FAT32 now more popular than FAT16. A volume using FAT16 can hold a maximum of 65,526 clusters, which is 2^16 less a few values (again for reserved values in the FAT). FAT16 is used for hard disk volumes ranging in size from 16 MB to 2,048 MB. VFAT is a variant of FAT16.

    FAT32: The newest FAT type, FAT32 is supported by newer versions of Windows, including Windows 95's OEM SR2 release, as well as Windows 98, Windows ME and Windows 2000. FAT32 uses a 28-bit binary cluster number--not 32, because 4 of the 32 bits are "reserved". 28 bits is still enough to permit ridiculously huge volumes--FAT32 can theoretically handle volumes with over 268 million clusters, and will support (theoretically) drives up to 2 TB in size. However to do this the size of the FAT grows very large; see here for details on FAT32's limitations.


    FAT12 is supported by my Dynax 5D.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Tanjong Katong
    Posts
    3,710

    Default Re: Fat vs Fat32.

    Quote Originally Posted by ronaldjace
    FAT (FAT16) cannot support 2GB++ but it is faster than FAT32. FAT32 on the other hand support more than 2GB. some camera CANNOT USE FAT32, do remember to check with manual.
    Just my curiosity, is it true FAT16 is faster than FAT32?
    Can you see/feel FAT16 is faster than FAT32 on CF card?

    Regards,
    Arto.

  10. #10
    Member smtan24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    1,496

    Default Re: Fat vs Fat32.

    Quote Originally Posted by Artosoft
    Just my curiosity, is it true FAT16 is faster than FAT32?
    Can you see/feel FAT16 is faster than FAT32 on CF card?

    Regards,
    Arto.
    FAT16 is faster because of its smaller cluster. FAT32 has larger cluster. I'm not sure if you can actual time the difference in performance.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •