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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#62414

On 2014-07-24, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> 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.

The point it is works. Thanks for playing.

-- 
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]

#62536

Okay, so one time? In band camp? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> was all, like: 
 --> 	 24 Jul 2014 14:40:30 GMT <c3ck6uFmaj0U4@mid.individual.net>
> On 2014-07-24, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> 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.

> The point it is works. Thanks for playing.

It "works" but it doesn't work without installing something like
MacFuse. So, for the 99.99% of Macs without Fuse, writing to NTFS is
impossible. And for the 0.01% with Fuse, it is so slow as to be
completely impractical for anything more than writing a few small files.


-- 
Science is the foot that kicks magic square in the nuts.

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

#62540

On 2014-07-29, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> It "works" but it doesn't work without installing something like
> MacFuse. So, for the 99.99% of Macs without Fuse, writing to NTFS is
> impossible.

I suppose for *you* "installing a piece of software with a few clicks of
the mouse" equates to "impossible"; but I can assure you that is
certainly *not* the case for all people - and thank goodness. What a
dumb planet this would be!

> And for the 0.01% with Fuse, it is so slow as to be
> completely impractical for anything more than writing a few small files.

Bullshit, as anyone who has actually used it will be able to echo. I've
used it before and it simply works. Sure, disk access isn't extremely
fast; but it *gets the job done*, which is more than can be said of your
"impossible" non-solution above. Grow up.

-- 
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]

#62545

In article <c3oad7F5tcbU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > It "works" but it doesn't work without installing something like
> > MacFuse. So, for the 99.99% of Macs without Fuse, writing to NTFS is
> > impossible.
> 
> I suppose for *you* "installing a piece of software with a few clicks of
> the mouse" equates to "impossible"; but I can assure you that is
> certainly *not* the case for all people - and thank goodness. What a
> dumb planet this would be!

installing is easy once you know about the existence of the software.
most people do not, which means they're going to be *stuck*.

a typical user will plug in an ntfs usb stick or hard drive only to
find out that it won't work properly and will have *no* idea why. i've
seen this happen time and time again.

the original claim was that ntfs was portable, and it isn't. the fact
that to use it requires third party software proves that.

> > And for the 0.01% with Fuse, it is so slow as to be
> > completely impractical for anything more than writing a few small files.
> 
> Bullshit, as anyone who has actually used it will be able to echo. I've
> used it before and it simply works. Sure, disk access isn't extremely
> fast; but it *gets the job done*, which is more than can be said of your
> "impossible" non-solution above. Grow up.

"isn't extremely fast".

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

#62413

On 2014-07-24, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> 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.

So install it. Simple.

> It's not difficult,

Exactly.

> 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.

We're talking about thumb drives, where speed isn't critical. And you're
ignoring the fact that such software, while it may or may not be
considered slow, does work reliably, which is counter to what
mr.know-it-all suggests.

-- 
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]

#62537

Okay, so one time? In band camp? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> was all, like: 
 --> 	 24 Jul 2014 14:40:03 GMT <c3ck63Fmaj0U3@mid.individual.net>
> On 2014-07-24, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> 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.

> So install it. Simple.

>> It's not difficult,

> Exactly.

>> 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.

> We're talking about thumb drives, where speed isn't critical.

Filling a 32GB thumb drive would take over 2 hours.

> And you're
> ignoring the fact that such software, while it may or may not be
> considered slow, does work reliably, which is counter to what
> mr.know-it-all suggests.

Yeah, I didn't have any trouble with it working, just with it working
very very slowly.

-- 
I'll trade you 223 Wesley Crushers for your Captain Picard

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

#62542

On 2014-07-29, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> was all, like: 
>>>
>>> Um.. what? You can't write to an NTFS volume under OS X without
>>> installing something like MacFuse and a NTFS plugin.
>
>> So install it. Simple.
>
>>> It's not difficult,
>
>> Exactly.
>
>>> 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.
>
>> We're talking about thumb drives, where speed isn't critical.
>
> Filling a 32GB thumb drive would take over 2 hours.

I'm sorry, but if those are the speeds you saw personally, something was
wrong. And some data seems to suggest you are wrong:

<http://www.zeninteractions.com/2010/03/31/tuxera-ntfs-vs-paragon-ntfs-mac-benchmarks/>

No offense, but I'll take real data and empirical evidence over the
blathering of some random internet mouth piece in just about every
subject imaginable.  : )

>> And you're
>> ignoring the fact that such software, while it may or may not be
>> considered slow, does work reliably, which is counter to what
>> mr.know-it-all suggests.
>
> Yeah, I didn't have any trouble with it working, just with it working
> very very slowly.

Your experience doesn't seem to be representative of others, including
me. Sorry about that.

-- 
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]

#62549

Okay, so one time? In band camp? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> was all, like: 
 --> 	 29 Jul 2014 01:18:54 GMT <c3ob3tF5tcbU2@mid.individual.net>
> On 2014-07-29, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> was all, like: 
>>>>
>>>> Um.. what? You can't write to an NTFS volume under OS X without
>>>> installing something like MacFuse and a NTFS plugin.
>>
>>> So install it. Simple.
>>
>>>> It's not difficult,
>>
>>> Exactly.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>> We're talking about thumb drives, where speed isn't critical.
>>
>> Filling a 32GB thumb drive would take over 2 hours.

> I'm sorry, but if those are the speeds you saw personally, something was
> wrong. And some data seems to suggest you are wrong:

> <http://www.zeninteractions.com/2010/03/31/tuxera-ntfs-vs-paragon-ntfs-mac-benchmarks/>

As I said, when I used it, the throughput was 4MB/s. Very consistently.

> Your experience doesn't seem to be representative of others, including
> me. Sorry about that.

I gave up even trying directly writing NTFS drives several years ago.
It's simply easier and faster to write to them over the LAN instead,
even if I count the time to break open the PC and install a drive and
put it back together.

-- 
I can't die, I haven't seen The Jolson Story

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

#62400

On 2014-07-23 22:09:31 +0000, Tim Streater said:

> 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?

ntfs was the OLD topic.  Now we have a new topic.  Again.

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

#62370

For your reference, records indicate that 
gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:

> 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?

Depends on what your actual needs are.  You could even set up multiple
partitions if that make sense in some situations.  What I tend to do is
just leave them as they come (generally FAT32) and add one text file with
my contact info, and then 1 or more encrypted disk images.

-- 
"Well, here I am."
Jubal Early, Objects in Space, Firefly

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

#62373

On 2014-07-22, Darrin Doc O'Leary <droleary@3q2014.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that 
> gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> Depends on what your actual needs are.  You could even set up multiple
> partitions if that make sense in some situations.  What I tend to do is
> just leave them as they come (generally FAT32) and add one text file with
> my contact info, and then 1 or more encrypted disk images.

Good advice.

-- 
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]

#62372

On 2014-07-22, 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. 

Just a note:

Simply formatting it with HFS+ will not ensure that others cannot read
the data on it. If you are concerned with the security of the data on
the thumb drive, then you should store an encrypted disk image on the
drive, and store your data within that encrypted disk image. In this
case, the format of the drive really doesn't matter much, since Mac OS X
can access disk images on HFS+ and FAT with ease.

-- 
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]

#62380

On 2014.07.22, 15:48 , gtr 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.


FAT-32.  You never know who you'll need to get the data to.  But you 
would need 4 partitions of about 4 GB each on a 16 GB drive to use it all.

Of course you could have OS X partitions as well as FAT32 partitions and 
in turn those OS X partitions could be encrypted to carry proprietary or 
sensitive information.

I recall playing with a program to create well hidden (and encrypted) 
partitions on thumb drives but it turned out to be a bit fussy in actual 
practice.


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

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

#62382

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2014.07.22, 15:48 , gtr 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.
> 
> 
> FAT-32.  You never know who you'll need to get the data to.  But you 
> would need 4 partitions of about 4 GB each on a 16 GB drive to use it all.

No you wouldn't. FAT32 supports volume sizes up to 2 TB, but Windows
doesn't make it easy to create big FAT32 volumes. The Mac has no such
problem.

There is a _file_ size limit of 4 GB on FAT32.

-- 
David Empson
dempson@actrix.gen.nz

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

#62384

On 2014.07.23, 09:26 , David Empson wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2014.07.22, 15:48 , gtr 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.
>>
>>
>> FAT-32.  You never know who you'll need to get the data to.  But you
>> would need 4 partitions of about 4 GB each on a 16 GB drive to use it all.
>
> No you wouldn't. FAT32 supports volume sizes up to 2 TB, but Windows
> doesn't make it easy to create big FAT32 volumes. The Mac has no such
> problem.
>
> There is a _file_ size limit of 4 GB on FAT32.

Thanks for the clarification.


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

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

#62383

In article <N8udnUh-vd94P1LOnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> 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.
> 
> FAT-32.  You never know who you'll need to get the data to.  But you 
> would need 4 partitions of about 4 GB each on a 16 GB drive to use it all.

there's no need for 4 partitions.

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

#62385

On 2014.07.23, 09:33 , nospam wrote:
> In article <N8udnUh-vd94P1LOnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> 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.
>>
>> FAT-32.  You never know who you'll need to get the data to.  But you
>> would need 4 partitions of about 4 GB each on a 16 GB drive to use it all.
>
> there's no need for 4 partitions.
>

So I hear from David.  Nice to know that as time goes by and I avoid 
PC's that I forget more and more about them...

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

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

#62386

In article <0P-dnf_8ZMlIX1LOnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2014.07.23, 09:33 , nospam wrote:
> > In article <N8udnUh-vd94P1LOnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> > <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> 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.
> >>
> >> FAT-32.  You never know who you'll need to get the data to.  But you
> >> would need 4 partitions of about 4 GB each on a 16 GB drive to use it all.
> >
> > there's no need for 4 partitions.
> 
> So I hear from David.  Nice to know that as time goes by and I avoid 
> PC's that I forget more and more about them...

Oh, *nice* shimmy! <impressed>

-- 
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

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

#62381

Okay, so one time? In band camp? gtr <xxx@yyy.zzz> was all, like: 
 --> 	 Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:48:46 -0700 <2014072212484624068-xxx@yyyzzz>
> 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?

Most thumb drives are formatted FAT32. Unless you have a real reason,
there's no need to reformat them. There are reasons NOT to reformat
them.

-- 
"Everyone has a photographic Memory, some just don't have film." ~Steven
Wright

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

#62387

Lewis wrote:

> Most thumb drives are formatted FAT32. Unless you have a real reason,
> there's no need to reformat them. There are reasons NOT to reformat
> them.

FAT32 loses the old pre-OS X type/creator information, doesn't it?

Not that I suppose that's much of a consideration for most people.

Paul Magnussen

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web