Post Al1XVBAr2yyrpTvIv2 by cesarb@mastodon.social
 (DIR) More posts by cesarb@mastodon.social
 (DIR) Post #Al1XVAIcIdaz7GXzNY by dalias@hachyderm.io
       2024-08-15T22:19:42Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @BleepingComputer The whole point of the limit was forcing folks to use exfat, right? When it was encumbered and unusable except on Windows?
       
 (DIR) Post #Al1XVBAr2yyrpTvIv2 by cesarb@mastodon.social
       2024-08-16T10:44:05Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @dalias @BleepingComputer IIRC, that limit is older than exfat; AFAIK the whole point of the limit was forcing people to use NTFS on internal hard disks, which was more space efficient (less internal fragmentation due to smaller cluster size) and safer (since it has journalling).
       
 (DIR) Post #Al1XVBh772mjRX14CW by dalias@hachyderm.io
       2024-08-16T11:59:45Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @cesarb @BleepingComputer Did the limit even actually exist or was it just a limit in the partition/format tools? I seem to remember being able to create larger fat32 on non-MS systems and having Windows read it.. but I may be misremembering.