Actually, FAT and VFAT vs. FAT16 and FAT32 are completely different
issues. You could have:
1. A FAT16 FAT partition
2. A FAT16 VFAT partition
3. A FAT32 FAT partition
4. A FAT32 VFAT partition
The FAT vs. VFAT aspect isn't the matter of a different filesystem.
Given *ANY* FAT partition, it can be read as EITHER a FAT or VFAT.
VFAT is just an EXTENSION to the FAT filesystem first introduced
by Windows95. It didn't create any incompatibilities. The main
feature of the VFAT extension is that it allows long file names.
If you have a single file with a long file name on a FAT filesystem,
it's a VFAT filesystem. If you don't, it's not. Remember that
they're completely compatible, although software and operating systems
that can't handle VFAT won't see the long filenames. It'll see the
DOS-sytle short file names (microso~1.txt).
FAT32 is a completely different filesystem than FAT16. It's almost
identical in most ways, but it's still a different filesystem, rather
than just an extension that sits on top of the filesystem like VFAT.
The main features of FAT32 include support for larger partition sizes,
and smaller cluster sizes. If a FAT32 filesystem has long file names
on it, it's VFAT, if not, it's not.
Linux has two drivers for FAT filesystems: msdos, and vfat.
EITHER driver can handle both FAT and FAT32 partitions.
Any FAT partition can be mounted with either driver. The
difference is that if you use vfat, you'll be able to see long
file names if the filesystem has them. You should always mount
FAT partitions as type VFAT, even if they don't have long file
names on them, type MSDOS is deprecated. The only conceivable
reason to use it would be when using some boot disks and installation
disks where there wasn't room to include the vfat driver, and
msdos is all that's available.
You never need to tell Linux whether a filesystem is FAT16 or FAT32.
Assuming your Linux kernel was built in the past 4 years, since
FAT32 support was introduced, it doesn't matter.
There's now no reason at all to use FAT16 for anything, unless you're
using a very old OS like Win3.1 or an old version of OS/2.
On Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 04:19:17PM -0600, TODD WITTER wrote:
> On 5 Jul 00, at 14:12, Christopher Thompson wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 05 Jul 2000, you wrote:
> > > When you say "assuming that the mount point /mnt/drivec exists",
> > > do you mean whether or not I've created that as a directory? I
> >
> > Yes, that is exactly what he means. :)
> >
> > Note that if your partitions are 2 gigs or less, you may be
> > using FAT instead of VFAT (msdos or fat, instead of vfat).
> >
> Thanks Mr. Thompson! When I originally set it up, I set it up as
> FAT -- I think... :) What I mean is that this lovely West. Dig. hard
> drive gave me the option of formatting it as FAT16 or FAT32
> partitions. I chose to go with several 2Gb FAT 32 parts. Was that
> a good idea?
> Todd Witter
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stormlinux-users-list mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.stormix.com/community/lists/listinfo/stormlinux-users-list
>
>
--
Craig McPherson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The world's funniest joke:
"Memes are a hoax. Tell all your friends!"
_______________________________________________
Stormlinux-users-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.stormix.com/community/lists/listinfo/stormlinux-users-list
