I didn't know that. Never noticed any difference in my cards performance though. However I am going to reformat my cards now with panasonic formatter.MUDjoe2 said:Yes, but the Windows formatter slows down micro SD performance terribly. You're much better off using the Panasonic formatter.
idk, FAT, FAT32, either one will work.N1nt3nd0gam3r said:thanks guys wut do i format it to tho?
Advice Dog said:idk, FAT, FAT32, either one will work.N1nt3nd0gam3r said:thanks guys wut do i format it to tho?
QUOTE said:In 1988 the improvement became more generally available through MS-DOS 4.0 and OS/2 1.1. The limit on partition size was dictated by the 8-bit signed count of sectors per cluster, which had a maximum power-of-two value of 64. With the standard hard disk sector size of 512 bytes, this gives a maximum of 32 KB clusters, thereby fixing the "definitive" limit for the FAT16 partition size at 2 gigabytes. On magneto-optical media, which can have 1 or 2 KB sectors, the limit is proportionally greater.
Another World said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocati...ble#Final_FAT16
QUOTE said:In 1988 the improvement became more generally available through MS-DOS 4.0 and OS/2 1.1. The limit on partition size was dictated by the 8-bit signed count of sectors per cluster, which had a maximum power-of-two value of 64. With the standard hard disk sector size of 512 bytes, this gives a maximum of 32 KB clusters, thereby fixing the "definitive" limit for the FAT16 partition size at 2 gigabytes. On magneto-optical media, which can have 1 or 2 KB sectors, the limit is proportionally greater.
i'm nizzot saying that wiki articles are always corrizzect by quoting thizzat. i do believe if you use the 64k clizzusters you cizzan format a 4gb drizzive with fat16. i am way to lizzazy to dizzoo the math to see if that statement is correct, tho.
-another world