Hacking Windows XP... Windows Formatter

[Nero]

Yep... I don't get how to do it in XP since it doesn't show an option for that, while my Vista Laptop does.

Is there anyway to format with the cluster size of my choice? I want to get the best performance out of my 2GB MicroSDs.

~Nero

 

[kellyan95]

Try
format /?
in CMD for all the options. It's in there.

 

[Nero]

Ah... I forgot ALL about Command Prompt!

Thanks man, it works fine.

~Nero

 

[Destructobot]

If you don't want to use the command prompt, you can set the allocation unit size when you format via Disk Management.

Start -> Run -> diskmgmt.msc
or
Start -> Settings -> Control Panel -> Administrative Tools -> Computer Management -> Storage -> Disk Management

 

[Nero]

NOOO!! I've been up for a couple hours now and I CANNOT get it to format in the cluster size I want. Because I don't know how to.

If you don't want to use the command prompt, you can set the allocation unit size when you format via Disk Management.

Start -> Run -> diskmgmt.msc
or
Start -> Settings -> Control Panel -> Administrative Tools -> Computer Management -> Storage -> Disk Management

That won't work.. It says the Logistic Drive has been disabled..

~Nero

 

[Destructobot]

What file system are you trying to format it in, and what size allocation units are you trying to use?

 

[Nero]

What file system are you trying to format it in, and what size allocation units are you trying to use?

I'm trying to format my 2GB Sandisk into FAT32 + 64KB clusters to squeeze the best performance out of it.

But no luck.

I have no idea how to format it's cluster size... I had a link to Microsoft where it showed all the parameters for it, but I lost it.

~Nero

 

[Destructobot]

You can't use 64K allocation units with FAT32. I just tried, and it wouldn't let me.

If you want to have the fastest, least efficient (space-wise) file system, you want FAT with 64K allocation units.

 

[Nero]

You can't use 64K allocation units with FAT32. I just tried, and it wouldn't let me.

If you want to have the fastest, least efficient (space-wise) file system, you want FAT with 64K allocation units.

Odd... Other people have always recommended 64K + FAT32 for 2GB MicroSDs..

~Nero

 

[Destructobot]

No, people recommend FAT with 64K allocation units. I think FAT32 only goes up to 16K or 32K.

Anyway, FAT with 64K supports volumes up to 4GB, so it should work just fine for your purposes.

 

[Nero]

No, people recommend FAT with 64K allocation units. I think FAT32 only goes up to 16K or 32K.

Anyway, FAT with 64K supports volumes up to 4GB, so it should work just fine for your purposes.

Well.. Do you know any format parameters for CMD?

~Nero

 

[Destructobot]

FORMAT x: /FS:FAT /A:64K should do it. Obviously you'll need to change x: to the drive letter for the microSD card.

Or you could follow the instructions I posted earlier, right click the microSD card, click 'format', and choose the appropriate options.

 

[Nero]

FORMAT x: /FS:FAT /A:64K should do it. Obviously you'll need to change x: to the drive letter for the microSD card.

Or you could follow the instructions I posted earlier, right click the microSD card, click 'format', and choose the appropriate options.

Thanks so much for the parameter!

I forget these little things all the time.

Hey, when I did (Format h: /FS:fat32 /A:32K) it said that the Specified Cluster size is too big for FAT32...

I think I'll stick to FAT now.. I thought at least 32K clusters was allowed on Fat32...

Oh and that Disk Management thing, It said it wouldn't connect with the logistic drive or something...

~Nero

EDIT-ADD: When I used FORMAT h: /FS:FAT /A:64K
It said something about making programs/applications would have compatibility problems... I should ignore this, right?

 

[Destructobot]

FAT32 is slower than FAT for the same reason that smaller allocation units are slower than larger ones: more data has to be dealt with in order to perform any given operation. Even if FAT32 supported 64K allocation units, FAT would still be faster.

As for the Disk Management problem, I've never seen that before so I don't know what's going on there.

EDIT-ADD: When I used FORMAT h: /FS:FAT /A:64K
It said something about making programs/applications would have compatibility problems... I should ignore this, right?

Yes, ignore it. It just means that 64K allocation units were not supported in previous versions of Windows.

 

[Nero]

FAT32 is slower than FAT for the same reason that smaller allocation units are slower than larger ones: more data has to be dealt with in order to perform any given operation. Even if FAT32 supported 64K allocation units, FAT would still be faster.

As for the Disk Management problem, I've never seen that before so I don't know what's going on there.

EDIT-ADD: When I used FORMAT h: /FS:FAT /A:64K
It said something about making programs/applications would have compatibility problems... I should ignore this, right?
Yes, ignore it. It just means that 64K allocation units were not supported in previous versions of Windows.

Alright.. Thanks so much!

You helped me through an hour or two of hell.

for Destructobot

~Nero