Includes editor’s rating, user rating and total downloads. Mac os games. You just have to know where to look. Here are just a few places to check out: • – Over 3,000 games for Mac, with the majority of them being free. • – AppStorm’s compilation of free games for Mac. Find Free Mac Games There are plenty of places online to get free games to download. Jun 14, 2017 - Similarly, Mac OS Extended drives work flawlessly with macOS and not. Note: All benchmarks show that NTFS is much faster than exFAT. I have 2 WD external drives i just dumped to my NAS and i want to reformat them Which is better? And does Mac OSX write on exFAT? I know it doesn't write on NTFS wtf. Yes Mac OSX will write to exFat, but not NTFS Do not confuse Fat32 And exFat they are not the same, fat32 is limited to 4g Both the Mac and Windows, Vista and 7 ( xp with a Patch ) will Read and Write to exfat. There is no file size limitation with exFat, so it will support files much larger then 4g. A better more informed explanation can be found at If your sharing the drive between Mac OSX and Windows. I would, and do, use exfat. No, it's not as fast. I tested it myself with a ADATA S102 16GB USB3.0 stick on a USB2.0 port on my Vaio laptop with Windows 7 64-bit. Speeds (MB/s)? FAT32 - about 25-30 write / 30 read, but of course the limitation of a single file that's not larger than 4GB is silly on a 16GB stick NTFS - about 25-35 write / 30 read exFAT - about 17 / 25 the write speeds were enormously different (copying same files - an ~8GB.iso file, and a full HD movie in.mkv format (~8GB)). I tested it because I use Windows at home, but there are Macs at my University and I wanted compatibility. But when I saw the write speeds on exFAT. I just decided 'No way, I'm goin' back to NTFS!' And so I did. No, it's not as fast. I tested it myself with a ADATA S102 16GB USB3.0 stick on a USB2.0 port on my Vaio laptop with Windows 7 64-bit. Speeds (MB/s)? FAT32 - about 25-30 write / 30 read, but of course the limitation of a single file that's not larger than 4GB is silly on a 16GB stick NTFS - about 25-35 write / 30 read exFAT - about 17 / 25 the write speeds were enormously different (copying same files - an ~8GB.iso file, and a full HD movie in.mkv format (~8GB)). I tested it because I use Windows at home, but there are Macs at my University and I wanted compatibility. But when I saw the write speeds on exFAT. I just decided 'No way, I'm goin' back to NTFS!' And so I did. You first said 'No, it's not as fast.' Then at the end, you said exFAT is faster. So which is which? What's the real deal? Go with NTFS (New Technology File System) - FAT (File Allocation Table) is the old system. Don't know about Macs exFAT is actually newer than NTFS. In terms of newness: exFAT > NTFS > FAT32 > FAT16 > FAT However, newer is not the same as better. ExFAT is specifically designed for USB thumb drives (for SSDs without wear leveling). Such drives should not be formatted using a journaling file system like NTFS or ext2+. This is why they are most commonly formatted using FAT32, however FAT32 is ancient and thus MS made exFAT especially for such drives. A western digital external drive is going to be a spinning disk drive and as such should be formatted as NTFS on a windows system, not exFAT. Go with NTFS (New Technology File System) - FAT (File Allocation Table) is the old system. Don't know about Macs ExFat is the newer system. I believe you didn't read the question properly or else you didn't understand it. If you want to swap files between Windows and Ubuntu then you need your USB stick formatted to ExFat. Ubuntu won't use NTFS because it's Microsoft's copyrighted version of Fat 64. This led me to believe that ExFat must be public domain. Having read some of the replies I now think that it may not be the case. However, Ubuntu and Windows speak Fat32 which is public domain. Fat32 has limitations but can be read by any computer and that is why USB sticks are sold with it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |