Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #62368 > unrolled thread

Thumb-drive format

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Thumb-drive format gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2014-07-22 12:48 -0700
    Re: Thumb-drive format nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-22 15:56 -0400
      Re: Thumb-drive format gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2014-07-22 14:40 -0700
        Re: Thumb-drive format Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-07-23 13:15 +1200
          Re: Thumb-drive format John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2014-07-23 04:55 +0100
            Re: Thumb-drive format nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-23 00:01 -0400
              Re: Thumb-drive format Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-07-23 02:56 -0700
                Re: Thumb-drive format dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-07-23 23:48 +1200
              Re: Thumb-drive format John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2014-07-23 20:30 +0100
                Re: Thumb-drive format nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-23 16:39 -0400
                  Re: Thumb-drive format John <Man@the.keyboard> - 2014-07-23 22:33 +0100
                    Re: Thumb-drive format Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-23 21:50 +0000
                      Re: Thumb-drive format nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-23 18:08 -0400
                        Re: Thumb-drive format dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-07-24 08:54 +1000
                      Re: Thumb-drive format Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-07-23 23:09 +0100
                        Re: Thumb-drive format Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-23 22:43 +0000
                          Re: Thumb-drive format nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-23 23:04 -0400
                            Re: Thumb-drive format Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-24 14:37 +0000
                          Re: Thumb-drive format Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-24 05:37 +0000
                            Re: Thumb-drive format Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-07-24 08:43 -0400
                              Re: Thumb-drive format Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-24 14:40 +0000
                                Re: Thumb-drive format Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-29 00:48 +0000
                                  Re: Thumb-drive format Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-29 01:06 +0000
                                    Re: Thumb-drive format nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-28 22:35 -0400
                            Re: Thumb-drive format Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-24 14:40 +0000
                              Re: Thumb-drive format Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-29 00:51 +0000
                                Re: Thumb-drive format Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-29 01:18 +0000
                                  Re: Thumb-drive format Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-29 05:02 +0000
                        Re: Thumb-drive format gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> - 2014-07-23 17:00 -0700
    Re: Thumb-drive format Darrin "Doc" O'Leary  <droleary@3q2014.subsume.com> - 2014-07-22 21:19 +0000
      Re: Thumb-drive format Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-22 21:49 +0000
    Re: Thumb-drive format Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-07-22 21:49 +0000
    Re: Thumb-drive format Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-07-23 07:56 -0400
      Re: Thumb-drive format dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-07-24 01:26 +1200
        Re: Thumb-drive format Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-07-23 10:11 -0400
      Re: Thumb-drive format nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-07-23 09:33 -0400
        Re: Thumb-drive format Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-07-23 10:12 -0400
          Re: Thumb-drive format Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-07-23 15:57 +0100
    Re: Thumb-drive format Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-07-23 12:41 +0000
      Re: Thumb-drive format Paul Magnussen <magiconinc@earthlink.net> - 2014-07-23 08:30 -0700
        Re: Thumb-drive format dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-07-24 10:29 +1200
          Re: Thumb-drive format Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-07-26 21:28 +1000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#62368 — Thumb-drive format

I've been rooting around in desk drawers for my biggest thumb-drive 
(16g), as I need it for some outboard gear.

I note that it's format is MS-DOS(FAT32), and wonder if I should change 
it to a mac-native or other format to ensure no universal access.  Is 
MSF32 the best option?

Chances are it will likely be used by me alone, but one can never tell 
about these things. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#62369

In article <2014072212484624068-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> I've been rooting around in desk drawers for my biggest thumb-drive 
> (16g), as I need it for some outboard gear.
> 
> I note that it's format is MS-DOS(FAT32), and wonder if I should change 
> it to a mac-native or other format to ensure no universal access.  Is 
> MSF32 the best option?
> 
> Chances are it will likely be used by me alone, but one can never tell 
> about these things. 

fat32 can be easily read by windows and other systems so if you expect
to do that, then keep it fat32.

if you don't expect to be using it on non-macs, then format it hfs+.

there are ways to read hfs+ on other systems in the event you have to,
but it's easier if you just went with fat32.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62371

On 2014-07-22 19:56:41 +0000, nospam said:

> In article <2014072212484624068-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> 
>> I've been rooting around in desk drawers for my biggest thumb-drive
>> (16g), as I need it for some outboard gear.
>> 
>> I note that it's format is MS-DOS(FAT32), and wonder if I should change
>> it to a mac-native or other format to ensure no universal access.  Is
>> MSF32 the best option?
>> 
>> Chances are it will likely be used by me alone, but one can never tell
>> about these things.
> 
> fat32 can be easily read by windows and other systems so if you expect
> to do that, then keep it fat32.
> 
> if you don't expect to be using it on non-macs, then format it hfs+.
> 
> there are ways to read hfs+ on other systems in the event you have to,
> but it's easier if you just went with fat32.

Just what I'd concluded.  Thanks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62375

In article <2014072214405916785-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> On 2014-07-22 19:56:41 +0000, nospam said:
> > In article <2014072212484624068-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> >>
> >> I've been rooting around in desk drawers for my biggest thumb-drive
> >> (16g), as I need it for some outboard gear.
> >> 
> >> I note that it's format is MS-DOS(FAT32), and wonder if I should change
> >> it to a mac-native or other format to ensure no universal access.  Is
> >> MSF32 the best option?
> >> 
> >> Chances are it will likely be used by me alone, but one can never tell
> >> about these things.
> > 
> > fat32 can be easily read by windows and other systems so if you expect
> > to do that, then keep it fat32.
> > 
> > if you don't expect to be using it on non-macs, then format it hfs+.
> > 
> > there are ways to read hfs+ on other systems in the event you have to,
> > but it's easier if you just went with fat32.
> 
> Just what I'd concluded.  Thanks.

It obviously depends on what you'll use it for, but it can definitely
be handy to have it in standard Windows format so that can be easily
used in things like TVs with USB ports to display pictures,
self-service photo print kiosks, etc. without having to worry about
trying to remeber or check what format it is, or get somewhere to
discover you remember wrong and can't access anything.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62376

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:15:27 +1200, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:

>In article <2014072214405916785-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>> On 2014-07-22 19:56:41 +0000, nospam said:
>> > In article <2014072212484624068-xxx@yyyzzz>, gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I've been rooting around in desk drawers for my biggest thumb-drive
>> >> (16g), as I need it for some outboard gear.
>> >> 
>> >> I note that it's format is MS-DOS(FAT32), and wonder if I should change
>> >> it to a mac-native or other format to ensure no universal access.  Is
>> >> MSF32 the best option?
>> >> 
>> >> Chances are it will likely be used by me alone, but one can never tell
>> >> about these things.
>> > 
>> > fat32 can be easily read by windows and other systems so if you expect
>> > to do that, then keep it fat32.
>> > 
>> > if you don't expect to be using it on non-macs, then format it hfs+.
>> > 
>> > there are ways to read hfs+ on other systems in the event you have to,
>> > but it's easier if you just went with fat32.
>> 
>> Just what I'd concluded.  Thanks.
>
>It obviously depends on what you'll use it for, but it can definitely
>be handy to have it in standard Windows format so that can be easily
>used in things like TVs with USB ports to display pictures,

 There is a FAT32 variant called "exfat" that will allow TVs and
things to read your USB sticks and will allow files larger than 4GB to
live on them. Like 7GB isos of disks. I use it for sticks I stick into
my BD recorder thingy. 
 It should show up as one of the format types when you format the
stick on a Windows box. 
 
 NTFS is also very good for portability but it doesn't work on TV type
stuff. This is deliberate. 

                               J. 

>self-service photo print kiosks, etc. without having to worry about
>trying to remeber or check what format it is, or get somewhere to
>discover you remember wrong and can't access anything.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62377

In article <7bcus99241d5pugk53kc9qmd8hqb6eknhh@4ax.com>, John
<Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

> >It obviously depends on what you'll use it for, but it can definitely
> >be handy to have it in standard Windows format so that can be easily
> >used in things like TVs with USB ports to display pictures,
> 
>  There is a FAT32 variant called "exfat" that will allow TVs and
> things to read your USB sticks and will allow files larger than 4GB to
> live on them. Like 7GB isos of disks. I use it for sticks I stick into
> my BD recorder thingy. 
>  It should show up as one of the format types when you format the
> stick on a Windows box. 

exfat support is recent, but an option.

>  NTFS is also very good for portability but it doesn't work on TV type
> stuff. This is deliberate. 

ntfs is *not* good for portability since it's a proprietary system.
support for it is *very* limited and typically read-only if it's there
at all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62378

On 7/22/2014 9:01 PM PT, nospam typed:

>>> It obviously depends on what you'll use it for, but it can definitely
>>> be handy to have it in standard Windows format so that can be easily
>>> used in things like TVs with USB ports to display pictures,
>>
>>   There is a FAT32 variant called "exfat" that will allow TVs and
>> things to read your USB sticks and will allow files larger than 4GB to
>> live on them. Like 7GB isos of disks. I use it for sticks I stick into
>> my BD recorder thingy.
>>   It should show up as one of the format types when you format the
>> stick on a Windows box.
>
> exfat support is recent, but an option.

Yeah, older Windows can't read it IIRC.
-- 
"Ants never lend, ants never borrow." --unknown
    /\___/\         Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
   / /\ /\ \                Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
  | |o   o| |
     \ _ /        If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
      ( )         If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62379

Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> On 7/22/2014 9:01 PM PT, nospam typed:
> 
> >>> It obviously depends on what you'll use it for, but it can definitely
> >>> be handy to have it in standard Windows format so that can be easily
> >>> used in things like TVs with USB ports to display pictures,
> >>
> >>   There is a FAT32 variant called "exfat" that will allow TVs and
> >> things to read your USB sticks and will allow files larger than 4GB to
> >> live on them. Like 7GB isos of disks. I use it for sticks I stick into
> >> my BD recorder thingy.
> >>   It should show up as one of the format types when you format the
> >> stick on a Windows box.
> >
> > exfat support is recent, but an option.
> 
> Yeah, older Windows can't read it IIRC.

exFAT support is standard for Mac OS X 10.6.5 and later, and for Windows
7 and later.

For Windows Vista, exFAT support was added in Service Pack 1.

For Windows XP, it was added in a special update. I'm not sure offhand
whether Microsoft pushed that particular update via Windows Update, or
if it had to be installed manually. The Wikipedia article on exFAT
mentions the Microsoft KB article number.

exFAT is not supported by Windows 2000 or earlier, nor by Windows ME or
earlier.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62389

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:01:15 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <7bcus99241d5pugk53kc9qmd8hqb6eknhh@4ax.com>, John
><Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
>
>> >It obviously depends on what you'll use it for, but it can definitely
>> >be handy to have it in standard Windows format so that can be easily
>> >used in things like TVs with USB ports to display pictures,
>> 
>>  There is a FAT32 variant called "exfat" that will allow TVs and
>> things to read your USB sticks and will allow files larger than 4GB to
>> live on them. Like 7GB isos of disks. I use it for sticks I stick into
>> my BD recorder thingy. 
>>  It should show up as one of the format types when you format the
>> stick on a Windows box. 
>
>exfat support is recent, but an option.

 And it allows files of more than 4GB to be carried around. 

>
>>  NTFS is also very good for portability but it doesn't work on TV type
>> stuff. This is deliberate. 
>
>ntfs is *not* good for portability since it's a proprietary system.
>support for it is *very* limited and typically read-only if it's there
>at all.

 It works fine on all my WinXP, Win7 and MacOSX boxes so I'd suggest
that it *is* portable, but as I said, TV boxes don't like NTFS. 
 I did have to download a NTFS-writer thingy to the Mac way back in
2007 but it has worked ever since. I still read and write to NTFS USB
sticks.  
                                   J. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62390

In article <8130t919376dfusc91u206va6perumg01k@4ax.com>, John
<Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

> >>  NTFS is also very good for portability but it doesn't work on TV type
> >> stuff. This is deliberate. 
> >
> >ntfs is *not* good for portability since it's a proprietary system.
> >support for it is *very* limited and typically read-only if it's there
> >at all.
> 
>  It works fine on all my WinXP, Win7 

of course it does, since microsoft created the format. 

>  and MacOSX boxes 

only for reading, not writing, which makes it non-portable.

>  so I'd suggest
> that it *is* portable,

it isn't.

> but as I said, TV boxes don't like NTFS. 

nor does it work in cameras and many other devices.

more proof that it's not portable.

>  I did have to download a NTFS-writer thingy to the Mac way back in
> 2007 but it has worked ever since. I still read and write to NTFS USB
> sticks.  

the fact that you have to install a third party hack for the ability to
write ntfs confirms what i said.

and it really is just a hack since the ntfs format is proprietary and
had to be reverse engineered, which means it may not have 100%
compatibility, something that can be a very serious problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62392

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:39:34 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <8130t919376dfusc91u206va6perumg01k@4ax.com>, John
><Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
>
>> >>  NTFS is also very good for portability but it doesn't work on TV type
>> >> stuff. This is deliberate. 
>> >
>> >ntfs is *not* good for portability since it's a proprietary system.
>> >support for it is *very* limited and typically read-only if it's there
>> >at all.
>> 
>>  It works fine on all my WinXP, Win7 
>
>of course it does, since microsoft created the format. 
>
>>  and MacOSX boxes 
>
>only for reading, not writing, which makes it non-portable.
>
>>  so I'd suggest
>> that it *is* portable,
>
>it isn't.
>
>> but as I said, TV boxes don't like NTFS. 
>
>nor does it work in cameras and many other devices.
>
>more proof that it's not portable.
>
>>  I did have to download a NTFS-writer thingy to the Mac way back in
>> 2007 but it has worked ever since. I still read and write to NTFS USB
>> sticks.  
>
>the fact that you have to install a third party hack for the ability to
>write ntfs confirms what i said.
>
>and it really is just a hack since the ntfs format is proprietary and
>had to be reverse engineered, which means it may not have 100%
>compatibility, something that can be a very serious problem.

 Okay. You know best. I'm wrong. I'm *always* wrong. You are *always*
right. 
 This was a fine discussion but you win.
 Your prize is my continued absence.
 Enjoy.
                            J. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62393

On 2014-07-23, John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:39:34 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>the fact that you have to install a third party hack for the ability to
>>write ntfs confirms what i said.
>>
>>and it really is just a hack since the ntfs format is proprietary and
>>had to be reverse engineered, which means it may not have 100%
>>compatibility, something that can be a very serious problem.
>
>  Okay. You know best. I'm wrong. I'm *always* wrong. You are *always*
> right. 
>  This was a fine discussion but you win.
>  Your prize is my continued absence.
>  Enjoy.
>                             J. 

Get used to it. He never admits he is wrong about anything. He'll argue
about minutia until the end of time or until you get bored with him and
leave the discussion (which he will naturally count as some sort of
private victory for himself) before he lets that happen.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62394

In article <c3ap1tFanbjU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> Get used to it. He never admits he is wrong about anything. He'll argue
> about minutia until the end of time or until you get bored with him and
> leave the discussion (which he will naturally count as some sort of
> private victory for himself) before he lets that happen.

nothing i said was wrong nor is it arguing about minutia.

ntfs is *not* a portable file system. period.

ntfs is proprietary and undocumented and subject to change. anyone who
claims ntfs is portable is very wrong.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62398

In article <230720141808380733%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <c3ap1tFanbjU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > Get used to it. He never admits he is wrong about anything. He'll argue
> > about minutia until the end of time or until you get bored with him and
> > leave the discussion (which he will naturally count as some sort of
> > private victory for himself) before he lets that happen.
> 
> nothing i said was wrong nor is it arguing about minutia.
> 
> ntfs is *not* a portable file system. period.
> 
> ntfs is proprietary and undocumented and subject to change. anyone who
> claims ntfs is portable is very wrong.

I see that JR is still sniping away like a pesky parrot on a branch, 
butting his beak in where it does not belong (unlike me you as 
everyone can easily see). Is Lewis next to him? It is remarkable how 
such birds make out like horrible schoolboys! Where did they learn 
such tricks? <g>

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62395

In article <c3ap1tFanbjU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2014-07-23, John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:39:34 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>the fact that you have to install a third party hack for the ability to
> >>write ntfs confirms what i said.
> >>
> >>and it really is just a hack since the ntfs format is proprietary and
> >>had to be reverse engineered, which means it may not have 100%
> >>compatibility, something that can be a very serious problem.
> >
> >  Okay. You know best. I'm wrong. I'm *always* wrong. You are *always*
> > right. 
> >  This was a fine discussion but you win.
> >  Your prize is my continued absence.

> Get used to it. He never admits he is wrong about anything. He'll argue
> about minutia until the end of time or until you get bored with him and
> leave the discussion (which he will naturally count as some sort of
> private victory for himself) before he lets that happen.

Is he wrong about ntfs then?

-- 
"If you're not able to ask questions and deal with the answers without feeling 
that someone has called your intelligence or competence into question, don't 
ask questions on Usenet where the answers won't be carefully tailored to avoid
tripping your hair-trigger insecurities."                  - D M Procida, UCSM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62397

On 2014-07-23, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <c3ap1tFanbjU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-07-23, John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:39:34 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>the fact that you have to install a third party hack for the ability to
>> >>write ntfs confirms what i said.
>> >>
>> >>and it really is just a hack since the ntfs format is proprietary and
>> >>had to be reverse engineered, which means it may not have 100%
>> >>compatibility, something that can be a very serious problem.
>> >
>> >  Okay. You know best. I'm wrong. I'm *always* wrong. You are *always*
>> > right. 
>> >  This was a fine discussion but you win.
>> >  Your prize is my continued absence.
>
>> Get used to it. He never admits he is wrong about anything. He'll argue
>> about minutia until the end of time or until you get bored with him and
>> leave the discussion (which he will naturally count as some sort of
>> private victory for himself) before he lets that happen.
>
> Is he wrong about ntfs then?

Which part? The part where he seems to lead one to believe it's not
brain-dead easy and reliable in practice to drag and drop files to NTFS
volumes in Mac OS X? Anyone who has bothered to use such software with
Mac OS X knows that it's exactly that. Or were you talking about some
other aspect of it?

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62401

In article <c3as57FanbjU4@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> >> >>the fact that you have to install a third party hack for the ability to
> >> >>write ntfs confirms what i said.
> >> >>
> >> >>and it really is just a hack since the ntfs format is proprietary and
> >> >>had to be reverse engineered, which means it may not have 100%
> >> >>compatibility, something that can be a very serious problem.
> >> >
> >> >  Okay. You know best. I'm wrong. I'm *always* wrong. You are *always*
> >> > right. 
> >> >  This was a fine discussion but you win.
> >> >  Your prize is my continued absence.
> >
> >> Get used to it. He never admits he is wrong about anything. He'll argue
> >> about minutia until the end of time or until you get bored with him and
> >> leave the discussion (which he will naturally count as some sort of
> >> private victory for himself) before he lets that happen.
> >
> > Is he wrong about ntfs then?
> 
> Which part? The part where he seems to lead one to believe it's not
> brain-dead easy and reliable in practice to drag and drop files to NTFS
> volumes in Mac OS X? Anyone who has bothered to use such software with
> Mac OS X knows that it's exactly that. Or were you talking about some
> other aspect of it?

that's very disingenuous of you, since you fail to mention that third
party software is required for writing to ntfs, which the user would
need to know about, making it *not* brain-dead easy.

out of the box, mac os x has read-only support for ntfs and dragging a
file to an ntfs volume *will* *not* *work*. 

in fact, this is actually a *very* common problem, since some usb
sticks are formatted with ntfs and users may not realize why it's not
working when an older usb stick worked fine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62412

On 2014-07-24, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <c3as57FanbjU4@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >>the fact that you have to install a third party hack for the ability to
>> >> >>write ntfs confirms what i said.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>and it really is just a hack since the ntfs format is proprietary and
>> >> >>had to be reverse engineered, which means it may not have 100%
>> >> >>compatibility, something that can be a very serious problem.
>> >> >
>> >> >  Okay. You know best. I'm wrong. I'm *always* wrong. You are *always*
>> >> > right. 
>> >> >  This was a fine discussion but you win.
>> >> >  Your prize is my continued absence.
>> >
>> >> Get used to it. He never admits he is wrong about anything. He'll argue
>> >> about minutia until the end of time or until you get bored with him and
>> >> leave the discussion (which he will naturally count as some sort of
>> >> private victory for himself) before he lets that happen.
>> >
>> > Is he wrong about ntfs then?
>> 
>> Which part? The part where he seems to lead one to believe it's not
>> brain-dead easy and reliable in practice to drag and drop files to NTFS
>> volumes in Mac OS X? Anyone who has bothered to use such software with
>> Mac OS X knows that it's exactly that. Or were you talking about some
>> other aspect of it?
>
> that's very disingenuous of you, since you fail to mention that third
> party software is required for writing to ntfs, which the user would
> need to know about, making it *not* brain-dead easy.

More bullshit from the bullshitter. It's brain-dead easy to find with a
simple Google search. Installing it takes just a few clicks of the
mouse. Can't get easier than that. It's also quite stable and useful.
It's clear to see who is the one being disingenuous here.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62404

Okay, so one time? In band camp? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> was all, like: 
 --> 	 23 Jul 2014 22:43:51 GMT <c3as57FanbjU4@mid.individual.net>
> On 2014-07-23, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>> In article <c3ap1tFanbjU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
>><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014-07-23, John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
>>> > On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:39:34 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>the fact that you have to install a third party hack for the ability to
>>> >>write ntfs confirms what i said.
>>> >>
>>> >>and it really is just a hack since the ntfs format is proprietary and
>>> >>had to be reverse engineered, which means it may not have 100%
>>> >>compatibility, something that can be a very serious problem.
>>> >
>>> >  Okay. You know best. I'm wrong. I'm *always* wrong. You are *always*
>>> > right. 
>>> >  This was a fine discussion but you win.
>>> >  Your prize is my continued absence.
>>
>>> Get used to it. He never admits he is wrong about anything. He'll argue
>>> about minutia until the end of time or until you get bored with him and
>>> leave the discussion (which he will naturally count as some sort of
>>> private victory for himself) before he lets that happen.
>>
>> Is he wrong about ntfs then?

> Which part? The part where he seems to lead one to believe it's not
> brain-dead easy and reliable in practice to drag and drop files to NTFS
> volumes in Mac OS X? Anyone who has bothered to use such software with
> Mac OS X knows that it's exactly that. Or were you talking about some
> other aspect of it?

Um.. what? You can't write to an NTFS volume under OS X without
installing something like MacFuse and a NTFS plugin. It's not difficult,
but it is also astonishingly slow. Unless it's gotten a LOT better, it
capped out for me at about 4MB/s (or about the same as my download
speed), far short of the ~60MB/s I get copying to other formats.

-- 
I love as only I can, with all my heart

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#62411

On 2014.07.24, 01:37 , Lewis wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> was all, like:
>   --> 	 23 Jul 2014 22:43:51 GMT <c3as57FanbjU4@mid.individual.net>
>> On 2014-07-23, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>>> In article <c3ap1tFanbjU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
>>> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2014-07-23, John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:39:34 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> the fact that you have to install a third party hack for the ability to
>>>>>> write ntfs confirms what i said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and it really is just a hack since the ntfs format is proprietary and
>>>>>> had to be reverse engineered, which means it may not have 100%
>>>>>> compatibility, something that can be a very serious problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>   Okay. You know best. I'm wrong. I'm *always* wrong. You are *always*
>>>>> right.
>>>>>   This was a fine discussion but you win.
>>>>>   Your prize is my continued absence.
>>>
>>>> Get used to it. He never admits he is wrong about anything. He'll argue
>>>> about minutia until the end of time or until you get bored with him and
>>>> leave the discussion (which he will naturally count as some sort of
>>>> private victory for himself) before he lets that happen.
>>>
>>> Is he wrong about ntfs then?
>
>> Which part? The part where he seems to lead one to believe it's not
>> brain-dead easy and reliable in practice to drag and drop files to NTFS
>> volumes in Mac OS X? Anyone who has bothered to use such software with
>> Mac OS X knows that it's exactly that. Or were you talking about some
>> other aspect of it?
>
> Um.. what? You can't write to an NTFS volume under OS X without
> installing something like MacFuse and a NTFS plugin. It's not difficult,
> but it is also astonishingly slow. Unless it's gotten a LOT better, it
> capped out for me at about 4MB/s (or about the same as my download
> speed), far short of the ~60MB/s I get copying to other formats.

Agree.  I used such to help someone recover a disk some months ago. 
Worked.  Slooooooowly.





-- 
I was born a 1%er - I'm just more equal than the rest.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web