At 09:53 PM 2/25/2005 -0500, Richard L. Hess wrote:
>Quoting Mike Richter <[log in to unmask]>:
>Also, the maximum file size is a function of the operating system used, not
>the processor. Anything that can use the FAT32 file system (available in any
>32-bit version of Windows, which means 95 on up) can handle huge files
>(don't recall the actual size, but it's a whole bunch of GB).
>You may want to recheck your data. FAT32 is limited to 2 GB at best, I
>understand. (1 GB in early versions, hence 1 GB maximum VOB size on
>DVD-Video). For large files in Windows, NTFS is required.
>Note, too, that it is not the OS but the filesystem which imposes the limit
>in practice. Thus, one can run a FAT16 partition under XP - and one would
>then be limited by FAT16, not by XP.
>There are some issues, but what I understand is more complex than this.
I'm afraid you are conflating two different issues. The question dealt with
file size - the largest file which can be stored on a drive. Your reply
deals with partition size - the largest allocation of a drive to hold
files. There are additional matters on partition size which also seem to be
confused, such as the distinction between a partition and a drive
(consisting potentially of several partitions) and there appears toi be a
passing reference to a limitation on a bootable NT partition.
Suffice it to say that multi-gigabyte files need NTFS as a rule and that
the file system and partition sizes should be tuned to the requirements,
not generalized. For various reasons, I wish I could use FAT32 for my large
partition, but many of its files are several gigabytes so that is not
[log in to unmask]