exFAT format??

I see....thanks for clarifying that. :)

From what I've been on this someone with an old board that won't support NTFS is using an odd method for trying to get 7 running on a Fat32 volume there. The information was that the early 7 builds can't while it may be supported with the RCs in some type of customized environment.

For a good wotking installation and not any type of virtual hard drive or VM machine you still won't be able to top NTFS for XP right on up through 7 from the start. The essentials for the NT cored versions from the start are still orientated towards the NT File System with the XP exception being the 9x-ME replacement.

I have a quad boot system, Vista x86 ultimate, Two Vista x64 Ultimate & Windows 7 RC v7100.
I am a Pro and also a MS Beta Tester for Windows 7.
After installing Win 7 7000. I was able to format two partitions in ExFAT.
Yes I have pics if you need proof.
I never liked NTFS, too much overhead and impossible to recover files from.
But with the RC version I no longer have the option to format in ExFAT using the disk management.
In order to format ExFAT you need to use the command line editor but run as administrator.
Start > Type in the search box "command", right click the result and run as administrator.
Open a Command window. C:\windows\system32> .
C:\windows\system32>Format X: /A:64K /FS:ExFAT
Where X is the letter of the drive to be formatted.
A Is the Cluster Size.
FS is the File System type.
Type "Format /?" for help

My point is that EXFat is better than NTFS for most pourposes. But not as good for Formatting small drives under 32.0 GB.
Theoretically ExFAT should have as good if not better file recovery potential than FAT32.

I suggest anyone interested in ExFAT, write MS and tell them to include it as standard in the final version of Win 7.

Welcome to the Se7en Forums! hoak

While NTFS is a bit old it is due for an upgrade from the present 5.0 standard while you can still access drives that ran Windows 2000 MS wanting some backward compatibility there.

The NT File System is still more secure then even the newer exFat which is intended mainly as an improved Fat for storage medium there. 7 still uses NTFS as the native file system but provides support for exFat being seeing on external hard drives used for storage and usb flash drives which typically come with an exFat volume on them.

This is one thing that lacked for Vista there without a preinstalled software included on a new addon drive or device. The exFat allows for getting past the old Fat 32 partition size limitations there.

I doubt very much the OP or hoak even will read the reply here after this amount of time being started last year. Everyone has moved onto newer threads.

Night Hawk said:

While NTFS is a bit old it is due for an upgrade from the present 5.0 standard while you can still access drives that ran Windows 2000 MS wanting some backward compatibility there.

Well any system (PC) running on any FS; FAT, FAT32, exFAT, HPFS -- and even Linux can access any flavor of NTFS if a system has an NTFS IFS driver -- so that's a fairly weak argument for continuing or building on the bloated legacy that is NTFS, which in turn is a derivative of (and some would argue purloined and better) even older HPFS...

Night Hawk said:

The NT File System is still more secure then even the newer exFat which is intended mainly as an improved Fat for storage medium there.

More secure in what way? All iterations of FAT are and remain more recoverable then any version of NTFS... If you're referring to NTFS 'integrated' encryption; it's little different then 3rd Party solutions that will do the same on all iterations of FAT and NTFS, HPTF and even EXT -- perform better, offer all the same features like bootable encrypted IFS, and again are more recoverable and faster.

If you meant that NTFS is more fault tolerant because of journaling -- even that's arguable depending on your criterion for evaluating fault tolerance...

I'm not saying exFAT is 'superior' to NTFS, but if one qualifies how a particular system is to be used, and if exFAT were bootable and supported hard links -- it could easily be superior to NTFS for many home Users and Gamers where performance and recoverability are primary concerns, and especially SSDs where MTBF and performance are valid concerns.

The main reason NTFS prevails, is updated and present on consumer PCs is because it's an 'all eggs in one basket' solution for Microsoft with their monolithic approach to code; most Consumers don't benefit from or use any of the features realized in NTFS, and the few they do could easily be rolled into exFAT...

Night Hawk said:

I doubt very much the OP or hoak even will read the reply here after this amount of time being started last year. Everyone has moved onto newer threads.

Well it's an interesting topic, and while Members here don't seem particularly interested or concerend; it's still an active topic of discussion on the, Microsoft Developer & TechNet Forums, Netbook, OCZ's and a few other SSD forums -- where Hackers, Gamers and Experimenters see the potential of exFAT as performance alternative to the parade float of performance robbing features and bad coding practice NTFS has become...