Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> >> Where are they saving money?  The code to fdisk a drive with FAT32 is
> >> still there in the code.  In fact, they had to write even more code to
> >> check the size of the disk before deciding if they would make FAT32 one
> >> of the available formats.
> >
> > I would guess that they need fewer staff to support fat32, fewer
> > developers to maintain it, fewer testers to test it, etc.  It all adds up.
> >

> Why would they need fewer people to support FAT32 by arbitrarily 
> limiting the size of the drives you can use it on to 1/1000th of its 
> full potential?

Is there a reason why someone would want to use FAT32 instead of eg. NTFS?

FAT32 is significantly slower than NTFS with some operations. (For example,
defragmenting a large FAT32 partition can take over 24 hours, while the
exact same partition with the exact same data as NTFS takes something
like 15 minutes to defragment.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message