Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet)
cnet
reports
that Microsoft is licensing the exFAT format.
"Microsoft on Thursday said it has started licensing the technology behind another flash memory format.
The company announced a program to license out the Extended File Allocation Table (exFAT) format, which is an updated version of the file allocation table format. Microsoft also licenses out that format, though its patents there have been the subject of contention, particularly since many distributions of Linux include the FAT formats.
The newer format, exFAT, can work on far larger-capacity devices than its predecessor--256 terabytes, as opposed to 32GB for FAT."
(Log in to post comments)
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 10, 2009 21:12 UTC (Thu) by cesarb (subscriber, #6266) [Link]
Another option for larger-capacity devices is UDF. On my tests, it worked on Linux, OSX, Windows Vista, and even Windows XP (though read-only on XP; see http://superuser.com/questions/39942/using-udf-on-a-usb-f... for details on my tests). The only issue is that the mkudffs defaults are wrong; you have to use --blocksize=512.
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 10, 2009 21:29 UTC (Thu) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link]
This is ok for file transfer between different systems, but unless embedded device manufacturers use UDF in their systems, it is going to remain a niche.
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 11, 2009 14:27 UTC (Fri) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link]
Given the choice between paying Microsoft large sums of money and using UDF for free, it should be a no brainer.
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 11, 2009 17:27 UTC (Fri) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link]
Choosing between success in the marketplace and bankruptcy, it indeed is a no-brainer.
If your device doesn't interact with other systems, you won't sell much... The payment to MS then is just the price of doing business. TomTom found that out rather quickly as well...
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 11, 2009 20:53 UTC (Fri) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link]
UDF work on Windows XP and up, Mac OS-X, Linux. Which other device does it need to "interact" with?
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 11, 2009 23:27 UTC (Fri) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link]
Say I'm making an embedded device like a camera. Someone inserts a (future, large capacity) flash card with an exFAT filesystem on it. I have chosen to support UDF instead to avoid paying Microsoft their few cents. So I present a popup that says "This card is incompatible with this device. It can be reformatted to make it compatible, but this will erase all existing data. The re-formatted card will still work with your computer. Proceed Yes/No." Bancruptcy follows.
Or, I license exFAT and I can read an write to the card just fine. Maybe I can also access UDF-formatted cards too, for the 0.0001% of users who have them. Business succeeds.
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 11, 2009 23:34 UTC (Fri) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
> Bancruptcy follows.
Really? I only ever use cards with a single device and *maybe* also with a computer. I suspect 99%
So I don't really care what filesystem the device uses, as long as it also works on all computers.
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 11, 2009 23:54 UTC (Fri) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link]
Bingo. I've NEVER used the same card in multiple devices. Just because the format is the same (theoretically), all devices seem to want to put things in directories that they've created. So, I have no confidence that it would work without formatting on the device that I want to use it on.
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 12, 2009 0:50 UTC (Sat) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link]
> all devices seem to want to put things in directories that
> they've created.
There's a pretty well followed standard for how things like cameras organise directories, it's called DCF.
> I have no confidence that it would work without formatting
I have never had a problem with this.
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 12, 2009 1:59 UTC (Sat) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link]
It doesn't matter if it has a name (DCF or otherwise). I as a user don't even expect it to be possible. The point being that I don't buy your argument that everyone must just bow to Microsoft and license exFAT (which I can't imagine is compatible with FAT anyway).
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 12, 2009 5:43 UTC (Sat) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link]
<i>I as a user don't even expect it to be possible.</i><p>
Then you are one of the 0.0001%.<br> Non-technical people have no clue about these things, and if they switch cards between devices and it doesn't work, the manufacturer has at the least an expensive support call.<br> These are the realities, not people with technical knowledge.
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 12, 2009 5:46 UTC (Sat) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link] Oops, forgot the switch to html...I as a user don't even expect it to be possible.
Then you are one of the 0.0001%.
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 12, 2009 8:02 UTC (Sat) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link] Non-technical people have no clue about these things, and if they switch cards between devices and it doesn't work, the manufacturer has at the least an expensive support call. I think you live in an alternative universe from me. 1) Non-technical users don't switch cards between devices. 2) There are so many variants of speeds of cards, kinds of cards, capacity limits, etcetc. that I expect most users don't even have two devices that use the same kinds of memory cards. I sure don't! I've got one device that takes CF, one with SDHC (and requires at least "class 6", so any old SD cards I have lying around would fit but not work right!), one with SD non-HC (so if I put a SDHC card in it...it fits but fails to work, also!), and I used to have one that took RS-MMC... 3) A non-technical user who does happen to switch a card between devices, and happens to be lucky enough actually have a card that physically WORKS in both devices (modulo filesystem) will not be incredibly surprised to see the device say "you need to reformat the card to use it with this device". At least people I know are totally used to incomprehensible error messages and just say "yes" to everything until it works. :)
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 12, 2009 8:30 UTC (Sat) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link] I think you live in an alternative universe from me.
Yes. It is called reality...
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 12, 2009 16:44 UTC (Sat) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link] It's not really sensible to say that everyone who bought a point-and-shoot digital camera before a couple years ago is an early adopter.I know lots of people who still have digital cameras that use CF cards; they aren't that old. And don't forget about Olympus, who still sells lots of cameras that use only the xD flash card format. And Sony, who sells cameras that use the MemoryStickProDuo card format and shows no sign of giving in. Not-so-technical people I know don't even use flash cards at all except for in their single digital camera. Yes, some people have cellphones that have slots in them, but it doesn't get used. (I bet if I asked about it, most would have no idea that slot even existed.) So which multiple devices do you expect people to be moving cards between?
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 12, 2009 16:51 UTC (Sat) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link]
Let's agree to differ for the time being. In three or four years we can do a quick survey and see whether devices are supporting exFAT, UDF, or both.
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 12, 2009 16:56 UTC (Sat) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
They'll certainly all support only exFAT. Just not because of cross-device compatibility. :)
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 12, 2009 19:21 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
the problem is that every year or two a new 'standard' flash format is released which everybody says is definantly the way to go, and everything released/designed prior to it is obsolete and only early adopters have them.
I see no reason to believe that the current crop of flash formats aren't going to suffer the same fate in a year or two.
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 17, 2009 18:55 UTC (Thu) by spitzak (guest, #4593) [Link]
I would agree with this. As a consumer I certainly would have *no* expectations of the data from one device being preserved when I reuse the card in another device. I do expect a warning that it will wipe it and a chance to get it out without damages, but otherwise I don't see a problem with this.
I think a more likely problem is that there will be more devices reading only exFAT than UDF.
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Jan 4, 2010 21:42 UTC (Mon) by Epicanis (guest, #62805) [Link] <sarcasm intensity="mild">Yeah, there'd have to be a bunch of already-existing and in use embeddable implementations of UDF out there for people to pick from if there were to be any chance of manufacturers risking its use in other devices. Perhaps if we can get one class of ubiquitous electronic device that uses an embedded OS to make use of UDF we can get it to spread to other devices. Something really common, like, say, DVD players...</sarcasm> Seriously though - as far as I can tell, the only things keeping other classes of device from using UDF is Windows XP®, which only supports read-only access without 3rd-party drivers (a readily available free UDF driver for XP that device-makers could distribute legally-free with their devices' "device driver"/documentation disks would help substantially here) and possibly a lack of a complete toolset for Linux. The Linux kernel supports the filesystem well enough but the filesystem tools project (UDFTools) appears to be abandoned. mkudffs seems to work okay (but needs at least some documentation updates) but there is no fsck.udf at all ("udffsck" in udftools is an empty stub.) (That said, I've been experimenting with formatting my SD cards, etc as UDF for the last month or so when they aren't used for e.g. my digital camera that presumably doesn't support it. Seems to work well so far.)
Actually the only reason FAT supports only 32GB is Microsoft's greed. Posted Dec 10, 2009 21:53 UTC (Thu) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] You can use FAT32 on any drive with up to 2TB size. 256TB don't like a big deal after that... and don't look like anything urgent in any case. P.S. And yes, all versions of Windows after Windows 95 OSR2 will support such a drive. Windows XP/Vista/7 include artificial limit in formatter, but if presented with pre-formatted drive it works just fine. Windows 9X just works.
Actually the only reason FAT supports only 32GB is Microsoft's greed. Posted Dec 10, 2009 21:57 UTC (Thu) by JoeF (subscriber, #4486) [Link]
The blocksize gets bigger, though, over 32GB, if I remember right.
Not 32GB, but 128GB and even for 2TB it's acceptable... Posted Dec 11, 2009 9:09 UTC (Fri) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] 512 bytes till 128GB, 4096 for 1TB, 8192 for 2TB Somewhat problematic, yes, but not a huge problem.
Not 32GB, but 128GB and even for 2TB it's acceptable... Posted Dec 11, 2009 11:59 UTC (Fri) by bni (guest, #27103) [Link]
The file size limit is a problem for a lot of people. To my knowledge there is no way any version of FAT32 can store files bigger than 2GB.
Not 32GB, but 128GB and even for 2TB it's acceptable... Posted Dec 11, 2009 16:11 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
I'm seeing more and more normal folks bumping up against fat32 file size
limits. It is to the point now where I often recommend using ntfs-3g if a person needs a FS to use on both Linux and Windows.
It is to bad about the patents Exfat seems genuinely useful for embedded
Not 32GB, but 128GB and even for 2TB it's acceptable... Posted Dec 11, 2009 15:04 UTC (Fri) by dufkaf (subscriber, #10358) [Link] Block size is not the main issue. Even current cards (8,16,32GB) already use much bigger block sizes because there is bigger problem - the huge size of FAT table. 64GB FAT32 card with 32kb clusters would have 8MB FAT table. This may break some RAM limited devices as whole FAT table may be held cached in RAM for simplicity. So bigger FAT32 cards may need more sophisticated FAT driver present in the device. 2TB is pure theory, FAT table with 32kb clusters would have 256MB, check this http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/partFAT32-c.html
2TB is pure theory, 750GB is not Posted Dec 11, 2009 20:39 UTC (Fri) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] I've bought 750GB HDD in USB enclosure recently - it was formatted as FAT32...
Oh - and it was recognized by my router (ASUS WL-500W) just fine Posted Dec 11, 2009 20:48 UTC (Fri) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] I've attached it to my router without thinking much - worked just fine with stock firmware. Even when FAT table used 90MB stock firmware was able to cope with it (and WL-500W has 32MB of RAM onboard). To access NTFS partition I needed custom firmware but it worked great too. In short: yes, FAT is not perfect but it works with big drives just fine. And if programmers who program these devices don't know how to write robust code exFAT will not help much...
Oh - and it was recognized by my router (ASUS WL-500W) just fine Posted Dec 12, 2009 5:32 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Big drives, yes.
Big files, no.
I cannot store a dvd.iso on fat, nor can I store a typical HD movie on Fat.
Oh - and it was recognized by my router (ASUS WL-500W) just fine Posted Dec 14, 2009 12:10 UTC (Mon) by dufkaf (subscriber, #10358) [Link] Linux based router designed for attaching disks and sharing them is indeed not best example of device that can have problem with big FAT32 volumes. Same for generic PC in previous comment. My main concern was memory cards and devices like phones, mp3 players and cameras - devices with limited RAM, custom operating systems and powered from batteries (which means FAT updates needs to be synchronous to minimize failure when power is cut). If such devices can cope with reading big fat32 volumes at all, writing them and then also keeping good write speed (think long video capture) may be harder.
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 10, 2009 23:15 UTC (Thu) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link]
The issue here, in case anyone doesn't know, is that exFAT is mandated for SDXC cards i.e. flash cards in the SD physical format with "next generation" capacities (I think over 32 GB). When cameras using these cards become available they may be able to support FAT32 filesystems, or they may not.
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 11, 2009 5:49 UTC (Fri) by magfr (guest, #16052) [Link]
Thanks for the update. That makes it clear that such cameras are best avoided.
Not really Posted Dec 11, 2009 9:14 UTC (Fri) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] Cite from FAQ: Existing SD and SDHC cards will work in SDXC host devices. And remember: SDHC already has enough bits to support 2TB cards! They just decided to declare some of them "reserved" to please Microsoft. When the SDXC cards will become reality we'll see what percentage of manufacturers ignored this suggestion and just went and implemented support for huge cards... these devices should be compatible with SDXC reformatted in FAT32...
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 11, 2009 14:44 UTC (Fri) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link]
A fine answer for a year, but two or three years from now, that's unlikely to be an option.
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 12, 2009 16:08 UTC (Sat) by Adi (guest, #52678) [Link]
I don't know if I understand it correctly, but _how_the_hell_ it is possible that *proprietary* file format is *mandatory* in standard of flash cards that will be used worldwide!?
It's obvious that SDXC will be the most popular standard as successor of SD cards. Don't we have some anti-monopoly agencies in UE or USA?
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 12, 2009 20:51 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
We have a pro-monopoly agency in the government. It's called 'The Patent
Office'.
Remember the entire point of patents is that society will grant a temporary
For the government to grant patents, and then a company with the patent
It flies in the face of all logic that you would expect the government to
Microsoft licenses another flash file format (cnet) Posted Dec 14, 2009 13:55 UTC (Mon) by gb (subscriber, #58328) [Link]
It's even more funny to realize other thing: The group of people with open-source in mind is seriously discussing that file system, which is used in 0% of devices at the moment of discussion is 'unavoidable standard for the future'. It's relatively easy kind of fs - no seeks, no wear-leveling required. Why no one just create new simple fs for flash?
Also, poor users have to participate in transition anyway, they existing and future fat devices are not compatible with new exfat, so all arguments about other fs fade a bit in the light of this fact.
Only one company can create "Designed for Windows" stickers... Posted Dec 14, 2009 20:41 UTC (Mon) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] And without such stickers any new FS is pretty much DOA as far as Joe Average is concerned. If the International Standard is adopted to conform to MS's specifications (not the other way around!) then why do you expect FS standard will fare better?
Is there hope? Posted Dec 15, 2009 19:32 UTC (Tue) by dark (✭ supporter ✭, #8483) [Link] Is there any hope of getting rid of FAT in the long term, or are we stuck with it forever? It seems to keep crawling out of the grave to terrorize new villages. I'm not in a hurry, I'm just wondering if we will still be supporting the mutant offspring of FAT in 2100.
|
|
||||||||||||