Is GParted that awesome?

[CharlesA]

Right. I'm still using Windows XP on some computers, and there 64-bit clusters aren't supported, so 2 Gb files are the max for FAT32.

I don't understand. How does that work?

[Cadeyrn]

No. The limit in FAT32 is 4 GiB (GiB, not GB) minus 1 byte.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat32#FAT32



There's no magic involved. MacOS X since I don't know when has supported NTFS read-only. NTFS write was being developed for Snow Leopard but was not implemented in the release version. To get NTFS write in MacOS you have to install NTFS-3g. I've done so on my Snow Leopard Mac but I find it's much slower than NTFS-3g in Linux (the driver for NTFS in Ubuntu).

That much I already knew, but what confuses me is the inconsistency with Mac-NTFS compatibility. Back in late 2006 I bought a Leopard iMac (or maybe it was 10.4, whatever was newest at the time) that could read/write NTFS with its factory-default state before AND after I used BootCamp to install NTFS Winblows XP. Macs I used later could read, but not write, except one ancient PowerPC Mac that couldn't read NTFS or FAT32, but see them in the Disc Utility. This new Macbook I'm using that was mentioned before in the topic, which is Snow Leopard, couldn't even see the disk as a filesystem (Disk Utility said unknown or something like that) until I installed NTFS-3G. So, what gives?

I don't understand. How does that work?

He's saying that Windows XP isn't new or maintained enough to handle the new FAT32, and therefor it assumes FAT32 cannot handle more than 2GB files and so it has a hardcoded limit with copying/moving to FAT32. Just like it has a hardcoded limit that doesn't let it read more than one partition on an external HD. Damn, Windows sucks.

[CharlesA]

So XP doesn't support this "64kb cluster" thing?

[perspectoff]

As far as I know, the 2GB limitation was a limit of FAT16, not FAT32.

That's what has me confused.

Not according to the Wikipedia article. Re-read it.

[Cadeyrn]

Back when XP was new, NTFS wasn't made yet. Or at least it wasn't commonly used yet. At that stage, XP used FAT32, and at that stage, FAT32 could only handle 2GB files. It was a bit after Windows adopted NTFS that FAT32 was upgraded to handle 4GB files, but that new file size limit was never implemented in XP. Therefor, when XP sees a FAT32 drive, it reads it as the old FAT32, before the new size limits, and doesn't let you copy bigger files.

I'm sure FAT16 also started with a smaller limit, but I don't know anything about that.

[srs5694]

I really wish Mac and Windows could easily read ext...

They can, but they need extra drivers. I don't have the links handy; try Googling for them. Also, although I've used such drivers briefly, I've not used them extensively, so I don't know from firsthand experience how reliable they are. Oh, one more caveat: These drivers work with ext2fs and ext3fs, but not with ext4fs. IMHO, that's not a big deal if you plan ahead; ext4fs doesn't offer enough new features or speed improvements for its use to be all that compelling on most typical installations. Even if you do need it, you could set aside a separate ext3fs data transfer partition. That's better from a safety viewpoint, anyhow; it's best not to give Windows, or even OS X, access to a Linux root filesystem.

[coffeecat]

That much I already knew, but what confuses me is the inconsistency with Mac-NTFS compatibility. Back in late 2006 I bought a Leopard iMac (or maybe it was 10.4, whatever was newest at the time) that could read/write NTFS with its factory-default state before AND after I used BootCamp to install NTFS Winblows XP. Macs I used later could read, but not write, except one ancient PowerPC Mac that couldn't read NTFS or FAT32, but see them in the Disc Utility. This new Macbook I'm using that was mentioned before in the topic, which is Snow Leopard, couldn't even see the disk as a filesystem (Disk Utility said unknown or something like that) until I installed NTFS-3G. So, what gives?

That is curious. In 2006 I bought a Mac Mini with Tiger (or whichever cat 10.4 was). It could read NTFS but not write. I did an upgrade to Leopard with an Archive and Install and ditto. Then I did a straight upgrade to Snow Leopard (no archive and install Leopard > Snow Leopard) and the OS could still recognise and read NTFS. Until I installed NTFS-3g.

Odd.

[CharlesA]

Not according to the Wikipedia article. Re-read it.

I did.

Back when XP was new, NTFS wasn't made yet. Or at least it wasn't commonly used yet. At that stage, XP used FAT32, and at that stage, FAT32 could only handle 2GB files. It was a bit after Windows adopted NTFS that FAT32 was upgraded to handle 4GB files, but that new file size limit was never implemented in XP. Therefor, when XP sees a FAT32 drive, it reads it as the old FAT32, before the new size limits, and doesn't let you copy bigger files.

I'm sure FAT16 also started with a smaller limit, but I don't know anything about that.

Now it makes sense.

Thanks.

[Cadeyrn]

They can, but they need extra drivers. I don't have the links handy; try Googling for them. Also, although I've used such drivers briefly, I've not used them extensively, so I don't know from firsthand experience how reliable they are. Oh, one more caveat: These drivers work with ext2fs and ext3fs, but not with ext4fs. IMHO, that's not a big deal if you plan ahead; ext4fs doesn't offer enough new features or speed improvements for its use to be all that compelling on most typical installations. Even if you do need it, you could set aside a separate ext3fs data transfer partition. That's better from a safety viewpoint, anyhow; it's best not to give Windows, or even OS X, access to a Linux root filesystem.

I already know about and use those drivers. I'm talking about EASILY supported ext. Probably 99% of people who want to check out my drive will be too lazy to bother if they have to install new drivers to read it.

[srs5694]

That much I already knew, but what confuses me is the inconsistency with Mac-NTFS compatibility. Back in late 2006 I bought a Leopard iMac (or maybe it was 10.4, whatever was newest at the time) that could read/write NTFS with its factory-default state before AND after I used BootCamp to install NTFS Winblows XP.

AFAIK, that's not possible; OS X 10.4 and 10.5 did not include read/write NTFS support, even in disabled form. I can think of several possible explanations for your observation. The most likely are that the disk in question was actually FAT or that you'd installed NTFS-3g or some other NTFS read/write driver without realizing it.

Macs I used later could read, but not write, except one ancient PowerPC Mac that couldn't read NTFS or FAT32, but see them in the Disc Utility.

This is consistent with what I understand, with the possible exception of FAT32 support. I was under the impression that FAT32 was supported from the start in OS X, although I'm not positive of that. I'm not sure when support was added in pre-X versions of Mac OS.

This new Macbook I'm using that was mentioned before in the topic, which is Snow Leopard, couldn't even see the disk as a filesystem (Disk Utility said unknown or something like that) until I installed NTFS-3G. So, what gives?

One possible explanation is that the partition's type code was set incorrectly, or marked as "hidden," perhaps by a boot loader. It could also be that the filesystem was improperly unmounted, too; perhaps the regular OS X driver is conservative about mounting such filesystems, but NTFS-3g is more willing to take chances. (That's highly speculative on my part, though.)

BTW, Snow Leopard does include read/write NTFS support, but it's disabled by default. People who have enabled it often report that it sometimes damages NTFS volumes; no doubt that's why this support was disabled by default.