Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Data Storage Microsoft Windows

Microsoft Increases the FAT32 Limit From 32GB To 2TB (windows.com) 83

Posted by BeauHD from the long-overdue-changes dept.
Longtime Slashdot reader AmiMoJo writes: Windows has limited FAT32 partitions to a maximum of 32GB for decades now. When memory cards and USB drives exceeded 32GB in size, the only options were exFAT or NTFS. Neither option was well supported on other platforms at first, although exFAT support is fairly widespread now. In their latest blog post, Microsoft announced that the limit for FAT32 partitions is being increased to 2TB. Of course, that doesn't mean that every device that supports FAT32 will work flawlessly with a 2TB partition size, but at least there is a decent chance that older devices with don't support exFAT will now be usable with memory cards over 32GB.

Microsoft Increases the FAT32 Limit From 32GB To 2TB More | Reply

Microsoft Increases the FAT32 Limit From 32GB To 2TB

Comments Filter:

  • just in time (Score:5, Funny)

    by awwshit ( 6214476 ) on Friday April 17, 2026 @01:03PM (#66098796)

    Just in time for the 21st century.

  • FAT32 Gaslighting (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TwistedGreen ( 80055 ) on Friday April 17, 2026 @01:12PM (#66098822)

    The limit of the filesystem was always 2TB, but Microsoft had this artificial 32GB limit in their built-in format tool. You could easily format a larger FAT32 partition using third-party or Linux-based tools.

    I think this was an artificial limit kept in place to ensure exFAT adoption, specifically to ensure manufacturers paid their licenses.

    Of course, there is still the 4GB file size limit to contend with, but I've never had a problem using a 256GB FAT32 partition on older devices, for example.

    • Thank you, I thought I remembered the limit being 2TB.

    • Re: FAT32 Gaslighting (Score:4, Informative)

      by newcastlejon ( 1483695 ) on Friday April 17, 2026 @02:07PM (#66098926)

      Of course, there is still the 4GB file size limit to contend with, but I've never had a problem using a 256GB FAT32 partition on older devices, for example.

      The file size limit has always been more of a problem for me. One of our LG TVs refuses to read memory sticks unless they're FAT32, while an older LG model has no problems with exFAT or NTFS. A good quality rip of a film can easily exceed 10GB.

      • So you cant watch pirated films on one of your TVs? Oh the humanity!

        • What an odd thing to say.

          I rip my DVD and Bluray discs to a NAS and play them with Jellyfin. There's not even an optical player near a TV anymore. The last one died in about 2008.

          But I have put some of those files on USB before for the kids.

          Used Blurays are about $5 usually and much better quality than any streaming service rental.

        • it is my hardware, i use it as i see fit. if the hardware is 2T, i don't need an artificial limit.

          what i do or don't with it is nobody's concern until they can prove I've done something legally unacceptable.

          Problem?

        • Who said a movie rip is pirated? Are you ignorant or a corporate bootlicker continuing to spread the lie that format conversion is 100% legal and not piracy?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dryeo ( 100693 )

            Breaking the DRM is illegal in most jurisdictions due to the Americans insisting on it as part of trade deals. Illegally acquired rips would be considered piracy, even if no one cares. I know I don't care and neither does my government but strictly speaking, it is illegal.

      • I believe this is a real limit of FAT32 though as the header only allocates 4 bytes for size. Same as .wav files. I guess nobody wanted to waste the bytes imagining files could ever exceed that size.

      • ffmpeg -i bigfile.mkv -c copy -to 1:00:00 part1.mkv

        ffmpeg -i bigfile.mkv -c copy -ss 1:00:00 part2.mkv

        plus mkclean if your TV is fussy like mine

        • for x in $(seq 0 9); do ffmpeg -i bigfile.mkv -c copy -ss $x:00:00 -to $((x+1)):00:00 part$((x+1)).mkv; done

      • If you omit menu and extra features, most DVDs could be ripped 100% quality to fit a 4.7 GB dvd rw+. What are you talking about?

    • I think this was an artificial limit kept in place to ensure exFAT adoption, specifically to ensure manufacturers paid their licenses.

      Oh boy did that dredge up some fun memories from an embedded-Linux project I was working on a while back. Like this gem here:

      15. What are some of the risks OEMs face when using open-source code for a Linux Kernel versus a proprietary solution from Paragon Software?

      If an issue is found within the open-source code and no one is willing or able to fix or maintain it, then the code can be excluded from Linux. For example of this was the removal of EXOFS from Linux in version 5.1.
      If an issue is caused by the open-source code (e.g. fails completely, causes extensive memory or CPU usage with an OEM’s hardware configuration, performance degrades with a new Linux update, etc.), then the only resource for assistance is the open source community. OEMs should not expect any assistance from commercial exFAT providers since GPL v2 requires the source code to be published.
      OEMs can become a target for legal inquiries for GPL compliance concerning full disclosure of the source code related to the OEM’s product. The main problem with such demands for source code disclosure is determining to what extent an OEM is obligated to disclose the source code of its product – especially since OEM products typically use a mix of both proprietary and open source GPL code. An experienced (i.e. expensive) lawyer is required to address such GPL compliance inquiries properly and determine to what extent source code should be disclosed.
      Open-source code is not free of vulnerabilities that are easy to exploit for viruses and cyber attacks. Vulnerabilities of SMB protocol have already led to major virus attacks. Proprietary code, which is not available as source code, is safer and decreases the risk of an OEM’s product being susceptible to such vulnerability-based attacks.

    • Wish I had modpoints. I never created a FAT32 partition in Windows, so I never ran into this limitation.
      The headline is so misleading it's basically a lie.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      I think this was an artificial limit kept in place to ensure exFAT adoption, specifically to ensure manufacturers paid their licenses.

      Except the guy (Dave Plummer) who wrote the dialog (back in the 90s) picked 32GB as a "big enough" limit that never was updated.

      In other words, back then if you had a large enough drive, you were forced to use NTFS. exFAT came well after the dialog limit.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    • Re:FAT32 Gaslighting (Score:4, Interesting)

      by codemachine ( 245871 ) on Friday April 17, 2026 @05:48PM (#66099266)

      Bingo. Until recently, vendors implementing exFAT required licensing from Microsoft. Now that those patents have expired, there is no reason to arbitrarily limit FAT32 anymore.

      • This makes no sense. There was no patent related reason FAT32 couldn't be have larger sizes, and in fact since the issue was Windows GUI related only vendors could do any number of user friendly yet completely solutions:

        a) Format FAT32 in hardware without limit.
        b) Provide FAT32 formatting in their software without limit.
        c) Provide a simple GUI front end that calls Windows existing formatter from the command line to format without limit.

        Specifically I use a lot of memory cards in a lot of different devices.

        • I think the problem was installing exFAT drivers on a device (like a camera) required the manufacturer pay a licensing fee.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by antdude ( 79039 )

      Can't MS increase that 4 GB file size limit when updating its FAT32?

      • They didn't update the format; just the Windows tool that had the limit--which was never part of the format.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by BKX ( 5066 )

        No, the 4GiB file limit is part of the filesystem itself. Changing that would be a breaking change. That's why, when they changed it, they also changed the name to ExFAT, along with a number of other fixes and updates. The 32GiB limit was just an artificial limitation of the GUI formatting tool. IIRC, the command line tools have never had such a limitation, and the drivers can access larger filesystems just fine. The 2TiB limit is a hard limit of the filesystem spec and going higher would be a breaking chan

    • Their format tool has no such limitation, the limitation is purely a gui one.

  • Just a GUI change (Score:5, Interesting)

    by idontusenumbers ( 1367883 ) on Friday April 17, 2026 @01:13PM (#66098826)

    This is just a GUI change. Windows already supports mounting these larger drives and already supports formatting these larger drives on the command line. Nothing about the actual spec is changing.

    • This is just a GUI change. Windows already supports mounting these larger drives and already supports formatting these larger drives on the command line. Nothing about the actual spec is changing.

      What you casually call a GUI "change", I would more call an error/bug in need of correction, long overdue.

      How long have the other methods built into Windows, functioned properly in supporting these larger drives again?

      Call a spade a spade already. Otherwise, the next Spectre Ping Death Touch Meltdown will be dismissed as a Class-3 Annoyance, because stock price.

      Fuck that.

  • huh? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ZERO1ZERO ( 948669 ) on Friday April 17, 2026 @01:14PM (#66098828)
    I thought the limit was due to intrinsic nature of the FS, but I just looked it up and that limit is 4GB for files. The 32GB limit for the volume is apparently an arbitrary decision made by Dave Plummer 30 years ago, to encourage use of NTFS instead of FAT.

    Personally I just use exFAT if I need to format e.g. a USB stick gtr thn 32 that I need on linux / mac / windows.

  • First world problem.
  • FAT32 has been long gone because Windows 95/98 died back then. All modern OS are now using NTFS for 2 decades now. The only place that I can think of still using FAT32 is probably the FAA. Why do they even improve something that's unlikely be used by any good amount of audience.

    • Re: Unproductive improvement (Score:5, Insightful)

      by newcastlejon ( 1483695 ) on Friday April 17, 2026 @02:02PM (#66098918)

      All modern OS are now using NTFS for 2 decades now.

      Except, you know, everyone who doesn't use Windows.

      Incidentally, the XBox 360 couldn't mount NTFS volumes, but HFS+ was fine. I always thought that was odd.

    • Re:Unproductive improvement (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PPH ( 736903 ) on Friday April 17, 2026 @02:15PM (#66098938)

      All modern OS are now using NTFS for 2 decades now.

      Hmm. I recently bought a game camera. Following the instructions, I inserted and formatted (using the camera's utility) a 32G microSD card. After use, I pulled it out and stuffed it in my Linux system. Linux says exFAT.

      I suspect that a lot of smaller devices will avoid NTFS for its complexity and go with FAT, exFAT, etc. for their relative simplicity.

      • Re: Unproductive improvement (Score:5, Informative)

        by wierd_w ( 1375923 ) on Friday April 17, 2026 @02:35PM (#66098964)

        It has *much* more to do with the memory card's erase block size.

        NTFS wants to use a 512 BYTE or 1kbyte allocation unit size. (Dont believe me? Right click your system volume, and choose properties. See what your allocation unit size is.)

        This size was selected because it is 1:1 the sector size of original winchester style hard disk drives, which makes those sizes the most efficient to transfer to or from the disk controller.

        Modern drives tend to favor 4kbyte sized sectors, but still emulate 512 BYTE ones.

        FAT had cluster (allocation unit) sizes quite a bit larger than this. Usually between 4k and 16k, but 32k and 64k clusters are supported.

        For early flash memory cards, 32k and 64k cluster sizes were 1:1 what the eraseblock sizes of the flash array were, meaning having the filesystem use that size gave the best possible efficiency with the device controller.

        SDHC and SDXC devices though, have erase block sizes that (cough), 'greatly exceed' (cough) what FAT32 can support.

        ExFAT however, happily lets you use cluster sizes in the MULTIPLE MEGABYTES size range, allowing the flash makers to still have 1:1 cluster->erase unit parity, and maximized device IO efficiency.

        Your camera formats that card as ExFAT because that's what the SDCard Assn demands.

        The SDCard Assn demands it, so that they can reliably claim the write speeds written on the top of the card.

        NTFS will annihilate flash cards with write amplification, and have piss-poor io performance writing to them.

        • Thank you for this explanation! I was wondering why, when I got a new exFAT-preformatted 2 TB SSD, it had a cluster size of a massive 8 MB.

          I assumed there was some technical reason for it to have been set that way so I left it, even though it's pretty annyoing if every little plain textfile note takes up 8 MB. (Don't npm install on that sucker!) I couldn't find a confident explanation back then, but this finally explains it.

    • All modern OS are now using NTFS for 2 decades now.

      Really? I don't think I've ever used NTFS on any machine I've owned.

  • Windows 98 SE could format and use 64GB FAT32 volumes out of the box and even larger after patching, so kudos to MS for finally making Windows NT series exceed the capabilities of mighty Windows 98.

  • A million years ago I was on a call at work, with the person on the other end on speaker. They mentioned that "So-and-so lost his FAT." So-and-so was quite obese, so of course I said, "Good! He needs to lose his fat!" So-and-so was present and heard my comment.

    Fortunately So-and-so had a sense of humor.

  • 2TB of un-journaled data? I recommend you just don't.

  • As a Linux user I primarily use EXT4, so I've gotten used to assigning 'natural language' filenames to my files. Being able to use spaces, and many punctuation characters, makes filenames more descriptive and easier to read. That's important to me for large libraries of certain file types.

    With few exceptions NTFS does allow that; but FAT32 doesn't. I like some of my external drives to be accessible by Windows machines 'just in case'.

    Granted, Linux's handling of NTFS drives is a bit limited. An accidental di

  • I've been using 128 GB SD card in my phone for many years. Linux had no problem formatting it to fat32.

  • unless you dig deeply.

    Anyone remember the Microsoft FAT patents in the 90's?

  • It would not surprise me that patents are involved.

  • Why is this outdated system full of flaws still being pushed onto us? Even patents on exFAT expire next year btw (unless this new FAT32 trick is patented, of course).

  • Dave Plummer wrote the GUI for Windows NT 4.0. As Dave explains, using the command line tools, you have been able to make bigger FAT32 partitions this whole time, just not using the GUI. It was supposed to be looked at by a GUI designer after, but never was. It was designed for Windows NT 4.0 only, and he figured it would be revised by people in the future. His biggest removable drive to test with was a whopping 16mb CF. He figure that a cluster size of 32kb was big enough for the foreseeable future of Wind

Slashdot Top Deals

America has been discovered before, but it has always been hushed up. - Oscar Wilde

Close