> What's the difference, if any between the two different FAT formats?

Not much. They're both disk-space allocation schemes used in computer file
systems for Microsoft PC operating systems.

FAT actually stands for File Allocation Table. The main difference is that
FAT16, the old FAT, was invented 20-25 years ago when operating system
software engineers didn't have a good idea of how big and cheap the hard
drives in PC's were going to get, and the computers they worked with were a
lot slower. So they designed the original FAT to accommodate hard drives up
to a size they then considered reasonable, 2 Gigabytes, which at that time
was larger than anything they could imagine (software engineers are sort of
dumb, though they are totally convinced of the contrary).

That 2GB limitation stems mostly from the choice of a 16-bit number to hold
the maximum number of "clusters" of disk blocks that reside on any single
FAT-organized disk drive. Since 65,536 is the largest 16-bit number, under
the older FAT16 file system, that's the largest total number of "clusters"
that any  file system can have in the aggregate of all its files (in the
case of your flash card, that's the number of 512-byte memory units that can
be allocated to all the images on the card).

What's a "cluster"? That's the unit of disk space that can be allocated to a
file at any one time, and it's expressed as a number of 512-byte disk
sectors. 512 bytes is arbitrary for a flash card but wasn't arbitrary for a
disk drive. (Not sure but probably not arbitrary for a microdrive.)

FAT clusters can vary in size. The smallest a cluster can be is 1 disk
sector, or 512 bytes, and the largest it can be (under the old FAT) is 64
disk sectors, or 32,768 bytes. When you multiply all those together, the
biggest possible FAT file system consists of 65,636*64*512=2,147,483,658
bytes, or 2 Gigabytes, of storage space. 

Keep in mind that when FAT was invented for 20-year-old personal computers,
one spreadsheet or word-processing document was way smaller than one little
jpeg image from a mid-range digital camera is today. FAT16 and DSLR's
weren't meant for each other. Companies just used FAT as the digital camera
standard because it was free, simple, and well-exercised after 20 years of
24/7 global use.

The FAT32 variant is a minor redesign of the FAT system that Microsoft did
in the mid-80's after they  realized that hard drives were going to grow
without bounds, and rapidly outgrow the old FAT. The reason it's called
FAT32 is that a 32-bit number, the largest of which is 4 billion and
something, became the maximum number of clusters in a file, and the clusters
got bigger too. FAT32 is still used a lot in computers running older
versions of Windows; its virtue is that it can now handle large amounts of
disk space but it's still simple. In newer versions of Windows, like 2000
and XP, more grown-up computer-science file systems like NTFS are used by
default, although the FAT systems are still supported. (Same general story
applies in the Macintosh world.)

FAT32 can organize storages space smaller than 2GB with no problem--it just
uses up a tiny bit more housekeeping space for its tables that becomes
unavailable to images. However the older FAT16 *CANNOT* organize spaces
larger than 2GB for the reasons outlined above.

> Should I format my 1GB compact flash card to FAT32?
> 

You should just let your camera format the card, and it will format it to
whatever it's comfortable with. Let the camera decide--you don't need to.
Just don't try to format a card bigger than 2GB with old FAT. When in doubt,
use FAT32, but in general you won't ever be in doubt if you just let the
camera decide for you.

Early digicams, including some DSLR's like the D30, don't know about FAT32,
they only know old FAT. (This was basically the camera manufacturers
repeating the software engineers' 1982 error, for the same reason: smaller
flash cards and slower microprocessors in the cameras). With those cameras,
you could either avoid storage cards larger than 2GB (why put a 4GB
microdrive in a D30?) or, better still, replace the camera with a good one. 

--Ken S.

*
****
*******
***********************************************************
*  For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*    http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************

Reply via email to