Good question... I have no idea what you’re talking about so I’m looking forward to some answers, too!
Snood stoopid question - External Hard drives for playback on System - Power cord or Portable powered by laptop?
- Thread starter Snood
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
Good question... I have no idea what you’re talking about so I’m looking forward to some answers, too!
The external drive you use comes formatted exFAT...according to the description in the tab marked DEMO and you are able to connect it straight from the Oppo.....
Well if ya didn't reformat it is probably FAT32 which limits files to 4 gigs or exFAT which is standard now.....
NTFS not koo for Mac
I am reading that oppo203 supports reading writing of fat FAT32 exFAT and ntfs
NTFS not koo for Mac
I am reading that oppo203 supports reading writing of fat FAT32 exFAT and ntfs
The 103 is probably the same...
Yep OPPO 203 manual says ....Supported USB drives can be formatted with the FAT FAT32 EXFAT or NTFS file systems
For external drives typically NTFS. No reason to bother with FAT32. For my file server/NAS ZFS
jimfisheye
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,032
I'm not completely up to speed with every disk format...
NTFS is the least supported and is often mounted as read only. I don't know the exact reason OSX (for example) mounts it read-only by default and gives you a little CYA statement if you enable writing. Maybe NTFS is not case sensitive or has additional restricted characters? Sorry, not sure.
exFAT looks to be the most compatible among various OS's as well as devices that are not computers. I don't know what limitations this has compared to HFS+ There may be the odd non-computer device that only reads FAT32 but most devices should read and write to exFAT. I think this is the default for Linux too.
HFS+ has been the default for OSX forever. This isn't supported by many devices that are not computers though. And I have no idea why the Windows camp went to a unique unsupported format (NTFS) instead of HFS+ when they evolved from FAT32.
Then we have the brand new APFS which is optimized for SSD's. This is new enough that it almost certainly will not be supported by any non-computer devices. The Disk Utility app will not even let you format HDD's with this (but is supposed to be allowed in the future). You won't even be able to mount an APFS drive to to read from it on a Mac unless you have newer firmware support.
For most compatibility with all computer OS's along with non-computer devices: exFAT
FAT32 is the one with the 4GB file size restriction. If your non-computer device only supports this, you're going to have a bad time with HD surround libraries with many files well over 4GB!
NTFS is the least supported and is often mounted as read only. I don't know the exact reason OSX (for example) mounts it read-only by default and gives you a little CYA statement if you enable writing. Maybe NTFS is not case sensitive or has additional restricted characters? Sorry, not sure.
exFAT looks to be the most compatible among various OS's as well as devices that are not computers. I don't know what limitations this has compared to HFS+ There may be the odd non-computer device that only reads FAT32 but most devices should read and write to exFAT. I think this is the default for Linux too.
HFS+ has been the default for OSX forever. This isn't supported by many devices that are not computers though. And I have no idea why the Windows camp went to a unique unsupported format (NTFS) instead of HFS+ when they evolved from FAT32.
Then we have the brand new APFS which is optimized for SSD's. This is new enough that it almost certainly will not be supported by any non-computer devices. The Disk Utility app will not even let you format HDD's with this (but is supposed to be allowed in the future). You won't even be able to mount an APFS drive to to read from it on a Mac unless you have newer firmware support.
For most compatibility with all computer OS's along with non-computer devices: exFAT
FAT32 is the one with the 4GB file size restriction. If your non-computer device only supports this, you're going to have a bad time with HD surround libraries with many files well over 4GB!
I am not saying this in support of FAT32 by any means, but in my experience, the 4GB limitation mainly comes in during the ripping process. A typical ripper may extract an entire disk to a single wave file before separating it into individual tracks. And though most album long WAV files will fit under that 4GB limit, some wont, especially multi-channel Hi-res files. Beyond that if you are the type that likes to store ISO files of SACDs, DVD-As and the like, they will likely be close to, if not larger than, that 4GB limit as well.
From a maximum compatibility stand point and file size limit exFAT is likely the better choice. My machines are all either Linux/Linux based or Windows 7 under which NTFS works just fine without any file size limitations. If one is into storing their movie and music video collections as well the 4 GB limit is simply a non starter.
Similar threads
