C2-01 memory card

The documentation says it will take 16GB max. This will be a microSDHC.

Any good reason why it won't take 32GB?

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:22:31 +0100, Jake wrote:

> The documentation says it will take 16GB max. This will be a microSDHC.
>
> Any good reason why it won't take 32GB?

Proprietary card formatting? Crippled file handling implementation? Idiot
writing the blurb?

Rgds

Denis McMahon

"Denis McMahon" <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f860daf$0$2822$a8266bb1@newsreader.readnews. com...
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:22:31 +0100, Jake wrote:
>
>> The documentation says it will take 16GB max. This will be a microSDHC.
>>
>> Any good reason why it won't take 32GB?
>
> Proprietary card formatting? Crippled file handling implementation? Idiot
> writing the blurb?

I was guessing at the time that they wrote the blurb when 16GB was the
largest available card you could buy.

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:15:34 +0100, Jake wrote:

> "Denis McMahon" <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4f860daf$0$2822$a8266bb1@newsreader.readnews. com...
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:22:31 +0100, Jake wrote:
>>
>>> The documentation says it will take 16GB max. This will be a
>>> microSDHC.
>>>
>>> Any good reason why it won't take 32GB?
>>
>> Proprietary card formatting? Crippled file handling implementation?
>> Idiot writing the blurb?
>
> I was guessing at the time that they wrote the blurb when 16GB was the
> largest available card you could buy.

I thought that SDHC implied at least 32Gb ....

Rgds

Denis McMahon

"Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk> wrote in message
news:l8ndo7l2k3shs2k5n80nd9hfqg7gcqi6s4@4ax.com...
> On 12 Apr 2012 13:03:38 GMT, Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I thought that SDHC implied at least 32Gb ....
>
> No, at most. SDHC implies from 4GB minimum up to 32GB maximum.
>
> https://www.sdcard.org/consumers/choices/

Actually you can get 2Gb SDHC.

In message <l8ndo7l2k3shs2k5n80nd9hfqg7gcqi6s4@4ax.com>, at 14:54:02 on
Thu, 12 Apr 2012, Anthony R. Gold <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk> remarked:

>> I thought that SDHC implied at least 32Gb ....
>
>No, at most. SDHC implies from 4GB minimum up to 32GB maximum.

And there can be other irritating restrictions. My Win7 laptop has an
SDHC socket and works perfectly well with a 16GB card, until I tried to
copy a 10GB file onto it the other day and was told "<the file> is too
large for the destination file system".
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

> Anthony R. Gold <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk> remarked:
>
>> SDHC implies from 4GB minimum up to 32GB maximum.
>
> And there can be other irritating restrictions. My Win7 laptop has an
> SDHC socket and works perfectly well with a 16GB card, until I tried to
> copy a 10GB file onto it the other day and was told "<the file> is too
> large for the destination file system".

But isn't that simply a FAT32 limitation, rather than SDHC?

In message <qb2eo7db9i2nnegr8srav24nqfvkkii80s@4ax.com>, at 18:06:06 on
Thu, 12 Apr 2012, Anthony R. Gold <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk> remarked:
>> And there can be other irritating restrictions. My Win7 laptop has an
>> SDHC socket and works perfectly well with a 16GB card, until I tried to
>> copy a 10GB file onto it the other day and was told "<the file> is too
>> large for the destination file system".
>
>With which file system was the card formatted? FAT32 can only handle up to
>4GB (minus one byte) per file. Did you try NTFS?

That may be it. FAT32.

By some freak chance, an earlier file on the card was 2Kb less than
4GB!!
--
Roland Perry

Gordon Freeman wrote:

> For SDXC I believe a souped up variant of FAT32 has been created for
> cards of over 32GB, I wonder if this allows files of over 4GB

There is exFAT which does allow larger files, but it's a proprietary
Microsoft format, there having been a few patent spats about Linux
devices using FAT32.

"Denis McMahon" <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f86d2aa$0$2865$a8266bb1@newsreader.readnews. com...
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:15:34 +0100, Jake wrote:
>
>> "Denis McMahon" <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4f860daf$0$2822$a8266bb1@newsreader.readnews. com...
>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 22:22:31 +0100, Jake wrote:
>>>
>>>> The documentation says it will take 16GB max. This will be a
>>>> microSDHC.
>>>>
>>>> Any good reason why it won't take 32GB?
>>>
>>> Proprietary card formatting? Crippled file handling implementation?
>>> Idiot writing the blurb?
>>
>> I was guessing at the time that they wrote the blurb when 16GB was the
>> largest available card you could buy.
>
> I thought that SDHC implied at least 32Gb ....

It might just be that 16GB was the biggest they tested with before release
or there might be a real reason that 16GB is the max.

Several years ago I had a camera that said 512MB was max allowed in it's
manual but I found it worked fine with 1GB and 2GB.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)
ng@bgdsv.co.uk
To email me remove the letter vee.

"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:V67c8vKEAxhPFAuk@perry.co.uk...
> In message <qb2eo7db9i2nnegr8srav24nqfvkkii80s@4ax.com>, at 18:06:06 on
> Thu, 12 Apr 2012, Anthony R. Gold <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk> remarked:
>>> And there can be other irritating restrictions. My Win7 laptop has an
>>> SDHC socket and works perfectly well with a 16GB card, until I tried to
>>> copy a 10GB file onto it the other day and was told "<the file> is too
>>> large for the destination file system".
>>
>>With which file system was the card formatted? FAT32 can only handle up to
>>4GB (minus one byte) per file. Did you try NTFS?
>
> That may be it. FAT32.
>
> By some freak chance, an earlier file on the card was 2Kb less than 4GB!!

Try exFAT.
It's more suited to flash memory that NTFS is.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)
ng@bgdsv.co.uk
To email me remove the letter vee.

"Gordon Freeman" <Gordon@freeman.invalid> wrote in message
news:XnsA0358FCBAB364C9A7@127.0.0.1...
> "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:28:41 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <l8ndo7l2k3shs2k5n80nd9hfqg7gcqi6s4@4ax.com>, at 14:54:02
>>> on Thu, 12 Apr 2012, Anthony R. Gold <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk>
>>> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> I thought that SDHC implied at least 32Gb ....
>>>>
>>>> No, at most. SDHC implies from 4GB minimum up to 32GB maximum.
>>>
>>> And there can be other irritating restrictions. My Win7 laptop has an
>>> SDHC socket and works perfectly well with a 16GB card, until I tried
>>> to copy a 10GB file onto it the other day and was told "<the file> is
>>> too large for the destination file system".
>>
>> With which file system was the card formatted? FAT32 can only handle
>> up to 4GB (minus one byte) per file. Did you try NTFS?
>
> I thought NTFS wasn't suitable for flash storage, since it continually
> writes to the device. That's presumably why Windows atill lets you
> format disks of up to 32GB as FAT32 despite Microsoft trying to enforce
> the use of NTFS on hard drives.
>
> For SDXC I believe a souped up variant of FAT32 has been created for
> cards of over 32GB, I wonder if this allows files of over 4GB, if not

I think it does.
It's called exFAT.
I think you can use it on smaller drives too.

> there would seem to be no reason not to use FAT32 for the bigger cards
> too, as long as you have a format utility that doesn't have Microsoft's
> arbitrary 32GB limit.

Indeed.
Until a few months ago I had an external USB2 500GB HD formatted as FAT32
for maximum compatibility with different OSs.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)
ng@bgdsv.co.uk
To email me remove the letter vee.

"Andy Burns" <usenet.aug2009@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote in message
newsIydnf4VdYui4hTSnZ2dnUVZ8m6dnZ2d@brightview.c o.uk...
> Gordon Freeman wrote:
>
>> For SDXC I believe a souped up variant of FAT32 has been created for
>> cards of over 32GB, I wonder if this allows files of over 4GB
>
> There is exFAT which does allow larger files, but it's a proprietary
> Microsoft format, there having been a few patent spats about Linux devices
> using FAT32.

I think I read that Microsoft's FAT patents have now been proved invalid
with the help of Linus Torvalds.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)
ng@bgdsv.co.uk
To email me remove the letter vee.

"Andy Burns" <usenet.aug2009@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8fydnbWLRb5MlhrSnZ2dnUVZ8sWdnZ2d@brightview.c o.uk...
> Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> Anthony R. Gold <not-for-mail@ahjg.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>> SDHC implies from 4GB minimum up to 32GB maximum.
>>
>> And there can be other irritating restrictions. My Win7 laptop has an
>> SDHC socket and works perfectly well with a 16GB card, until I tried to
>> copy a 10GB file onto it the other day and was told "<the file> is too
>> large for the destination file system".
>
> But isn't that simply a FAT32 limitation, rather than SDHC?

Correct.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)
ng@bgdsv.co.uk
To email me remove the letter vee.

Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:

> I think I read that Microsoft's FAT patents have now been proved invalid
> with the help of Linus Torvalds.

I don't know whether the prior art has been "proved", TomTom certainly
coughed-up, but to my mind a reason to not get sucked into using exFAT.

Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:

> "Gordon Freeman"<Gordon@freeman.invalid> wrote:
>
>> there would seem to be no reason not to use FAT32 for the bigger cards
>> too, as long as you have a format utility that doesn't have Microsoft's
>> arbitrary 32GB limit.

Informally referred to as FAT+ or FATPLUS
http://www.fdos.org/kernel/fatplus.txt

> Indeed.
> Until a few months ago I had an external USB2 500GB HD formatted as FAT32
> for maximum compatibility with different OSs.

No difficulties in practice with OS lack of FAT+ knowledge/support?

On Sun, 2012-04-15 at 02:20 +0100, Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:
> I think I read that Microsoft's FAT patents have now been proved invalid
> with the help of Linus Torvalds.

They were, but unfortunately nobody actually ended up in jail for the
fraud that they were trying to commit.

And now they're running an entirely new protection racket with a *new*
set of patents for exFAT.

I believe that, as usual, they aren't actually listing the specific
patents that they claim are relevant; it's just a shake-down for now.