On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 7:17 PM, RW [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is also NTFS through ntfs-3g ,which is available for all of the
above (sysutils/fusefs-ntfs on FreeBSD). Having a native Windows
filesystem is sensible on a portable drive, and fat32 is not a great
filesystem.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:21:40 -0500
Andrew Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 7:17 PM, RW [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
There is also NTFS through ntfs-3g ,which is available for all of
the above (sysutils/fusefs-ntfs on FreeBSD). Having a native Windows
filesystem is
I couldn't help myself. During lunch, I found a 3.5 1TB SATA internal HD
**and** a USB2 HD enclosure for SATA drives on sale at large % discounts.
It was more than I could resist.
The operating systems in my home include FreeBSD, NetBSD, Mac OS X and
Windows XP Pro. If I want all of these
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:13:29 -0500, Andrew Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I couldn't help myself. During lunch, I found a 3.5 1TB SATA internal HD
**and** a USB2 HD enclosure for SATA drives on sale at large % discounts.
It was more than I could resist.
The operating systems in my home
Windows XP Pro. If I want all of these systems to be able to read and write
to the drive, what file system should I use? I know fat32 is pretty
universal, but is it advisable?
yes, just don't put too many small files on it as it's wasteful.
and don't put too big files (in order of many GB)
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:13:29 -0500
Andrew Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I couldn't help myself. During lunch, I found a 3.5 1TB SATA
internal HD **and** a USB2 HD enclosure for SATA drives on sale at
large % discounts. It was more than I could resist.
The operating systems in my home
