the return of fat???

[daydreamer]

I read that you use fat in new memorycard for phones and tablets, REALLY?, it sounds so return to stoneage computer format, mayb because of number of writes is lower compared to NTFS and newer formats?

[dedndave]

for drives smaller than a certain size, FAT is a better format
what that size is depends on a lot of things
for a fast device, like RAM, it would probably be a larger value before it's advantageous to use NTFS

[daydreamer]

for drives smaller than a certain size, FAT is a better format
what that size is depends on a lot of things
for a fast device, like RAM, it would probably be a larger value before it's advantageous to use NTFS

but I have 64gig+16gig internally, sounds like it should be better suited to NTFS or other more modern file system

[dedndave]

maybe one of the other differences swayed their decision
there are many things that an NTFS system does that a FAT system doesn't
so, perhaps due to power consumption considerations, they chose FAT

one of the advantages of NTFS on physical drives is speed, of course
but, for memory-based storage, the difference probably isn't as noticable
it's fast, no matter which format is used   :P

[sinsi]

One problem with NTFS on a removable drive is that Windows keeps handles to metadata open which makes "safely remove" fail.
Usually the system process (PID 4) has open handles to $MFT and the like. Later Windows versions (XP SP2 and up) prefer exFAT,
although I'm not sure if Linux supports it.