You're both close. FAT32 still has a cluster issue as the drive size goes up, so the ammount you'd be losing due to FAT32 overhead on a 250G drive would be a fair chunk, and pretty unacceptable.
-----Original message----- From: Brian Weeden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 13:02:31 -0600 To: The Hardware List [email protected] Subject: Re: [H] Hard drives, who says size doesn't matter? > A little research turns up that while the theoretical limit of FAT32 > is 2TB per volume, Windows is limited to 32GB per volumne when > formatting. So I guess whatever util I used to created it was limited > to 191 GB. Weird. That sucks actually :( > > On 2/11/06, Wayne Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 10:51 AM 2/11/2006, Brian Weeden typed: > > >But if you want it to be useable for a Linux box you need to use FAT32 > > >which > > >is limited to around 180GB per partition. > > > > Why is that as I had my WD 250g drive with 1 partition that was > > formatted in Fat32 before I converted it to NTFS ? > > > > > > ----------+---------- > > Wayne D. Johnson > > Ashland, OH, USA 44805 > > <http://www.wavijo.com> > > > > > > > -- > Brian >
