FAT64 when?
Are there any new file systems that are universally supported?
>>55264595
exFAT is listed directly below FAT32 in your own picture, retard.
>>55264693
do you even read
>universally supported
lol fag
>>55264712
It runs on Windows, Mac OS and GNU/Linux distributions. I suppose it won't be supported by some appliances but they wouldn't support a mystical FAT64 a any time soon.
>>55264595
>>55264712
exFAT is fat64 you fucking retard
fat32 and exFAT are both developed by microsoft
the only reason exfat isnt widely supported is because ntfs already existed. there is literally no reason for exfat to exist.
>>55264765
>the only reason exfat isnt widely supported is because ntfs already existed. there is literally no reason for exfat to exist.
NTFS is too bloated for USB drives and similar use-cases.
>>55264765
> literally no reason for exfat to exist.
....
>>55264745
exFAT wasn't supported by the oscilloscopes in my uni's lab. Tried to write a screenshot of my waveform to the USB but the scope never detected the it. My friend's was FAT32 and it worked no problem.
>2016
>FAT
It's like Windows kids aren't even trying to think any more.
>>55264795
ntfs is faster than exfat though
which is kinda useful for things like 64GB usb3 flash drives
What's the point of arguing over dated file systems? Everyone just stores their shit in the cloud now!
>>55264808
you can partition your flash drive, you know. Just put a small FAT32 partition as the first partition.
>>55264595
FAT is like HFS+, archaic. Just use fuckin NTFS or Ext4 or APFS or something
>>55264852
That's a bullshit workaround. FAT32 should really only have legacy support and that's it. We need a new file system that's near-universally, whether that be exFAT or something new I don't care but I'm tired of shit like the 4GB file restriction for FAT32 among other issues.
>>55264765
>>55264712
>>55264693
exFAT is patent-encumbered and Microsoft charges a really pretty penny for it
>>55264884
Even if we have a new filesystem your oscilloscope won't suddenly support that.
Also for an universal fs it has to be really primitive (so drivers can be implemented even on 8bit uC-s) and patent/license free.
>>55264808
tfw i had the same problem, but NTFS worked and FAT32 not X-D
What FAT. Im not fat lol. XDDD
>>55264595
Use UDF?
>>55264712
All the major desktop operating systems support it, that's as close as any filesystem will get to universal support. If you want every random device that'll do something with a USB drive to support it, you're dreaming.
Ur momma so FAT that her photo takes up over 4GBs
>>55264595
I love how the image implies that there are commercially available 1EB drives
>>55264908
So was FAT32 until the patents expired a few years ago. FAT32 was far from universal because of that. Just ignore the patents and install exFAT support like everyone used to for FAT32, it's the exact same situation except exFAT is newer.
>>55264595
>fat32 is starting to suck
>starting
I don't know what you're talking about. It sucked the first time I used it on Windows 98.
