Microsoft Increases the FAT32 Limit From 32GB To 2TB (windows.com)
- Reference: 0181739130
- News link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/26/04/17/1623236/microsoft-increases-the-fat32-limit-from-32gb-to-2tb
- Source link: https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2026/04/10/announcing-windows-11-insider-preview-build-26300-8170-dev-channel/
> 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 [2]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.
[1] https://slashdot.org/~AmiMoJo
[2] https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2026/04/10/announcing-windows-11-insider-preview-build-26300-8170-dev-channel/
Re:Why (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course they could have, it's an artificial limit imposed by MS likely to make NTFS look good. Also note this change won't be reflected in the GUI tools, the same 32GB limit still applies there. But you can format to the full 2TB from the command line.
Re: Why (Score:3)
Yes, and no.
For PCs of the late 90s and early to mid 00s, yes. 'To promote NTFS.'
For Memory cards?
No.
That's much more closely tied to 'convenience of the memory card consortium'. Specifically, 'It's VERY convenient for the filesystem to have an allocation unit size that is a whole divisible factor of the erase unit size, with 1:1 being *oh so VERY convenient*!'
For devices up to about 32gb in size, this 'convenient coincidence!' Held. Larger devices however, have erase unit sizes far too large for FAT32 to
Re: (Score:3)
ExFAT has other useful features for applications that stream data to storage (e.g. recording audio/video). It's a lot more efficient than FAT32 for these applications.
Re: (Score:2)
> [ExFAT] also let mictosoft (sic) get a shiny new exclusive patent that *everyone* would need to get a license for, which is what *microsoft* THIRSTED for.
I have re-formatted several USB drives to ExFAT using Linux. Not to create partitions greater than 32 GB, but to support boot-drives with ISO files that are too large for Fat32. Did the creators of the Linux distro or exfatprogs need to send a check to Redmond for supporting ExFAT? I don't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
A simple search reveals that MS excused Linux but charges commercial product producers $300,000.
Re: (Score:2)
They did.
Earlier windows versions didn't have this limitation, they introduced it in xp as far as i remember. Other systems also had no trouble formatting fat32 volumes up to 2tb in size, and windows would happily read such volumes it just couldn't format them.
Re: (Score:2)
They've actually reduced the format tool's limit over the years: Windows 98 could format FAT32 volumes up to 128 GB.
FAT32 Gaslighting (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: FAT32 Gaslighting (Score:2)
Thank you, I thought I remembered the limit being 2TB.
Re: FAT32 Gaslighting (Score:2)
> 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.
Re: FAT32 Gaslighting (Score:1)
So you cant watch pirated films on one of your TVs? Oh the humanity!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: FAT32 Gaslighting (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
> 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
> 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.
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bikbJPI-7Kg
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Just a GUI change (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Just a marketing "change". (Score:2)
> 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)
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.
Fatter FAT? (Score:2)
First world problem.
Unproductive improvement (Score:1)
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:4, Insightful)
> 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: (Score:1)
> Except, you know, everyone who doesn't use Windows.
Who are you talking about?
- Linux uses ext3, then ext4. Some use xfs, zfs, etc...
- MacOS uses Apple's FS now
Re: Unproductive improvement (Score:2)
Did you not read what I wrote, or did you not read what you wrote?
Re: (Score:3)
> 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:3)
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.
FA
About time (Score:2)
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.
Useless comment (Score:2)
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.
Oy Vey! (Score:2)
2TB of un-journaled data? I recommend you just don't .
I'll still use NTFS (Score:2)
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
mkfs.vfat has so such limitation (Score:2)
I've been using 128 GB SD card in my phone for many years. Linux had no problem formatting it to fat32.
They probably didn't metion that pasky patent (Score:2)
unless you dig deeply.
Anyone remember the Microsoft FAT patents in the 90's?
gues educated (Score:2)
It would not surprise me that patents are involved.
just in time (Score:4, Funny)
Just in time for the 21st century.
Re: (Score:2)
Now if only they would let hostnames be more than 15 characters
Re: (Score:1)
I use greek gods for my hostnames, but my challenge is to find the short names because I'm too lazy to type long names.