Talk:File Allocation Table

message: The information on the FATX epoch is somewhat confusing. I cannot tell if "in FATX, the epoch is 2000. On the Xbox 360, the epoch is 1980," is meaning to say that FATX itself uses an epoch of 2000 but on the 360 is modified to use an epoch of 1980. I used to reverse engineer and write applications for modifying the contents FATX-formatted devices, and these applications displayed timestamps fine with an epoch year of 1980. Here's a link to one of my very old project's code, showing that the year is given as timestamp year value + 1980 (user images show valid dates as well). Is it acceptable to just remove the part I quoted above since FATX is only used on the Xbox 360, and the epoch does not differ from normal FAT?
Landaire (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  FATX Epoch 

message: The right hand summary box does not contain size limits for FAT16
This is commonly known as 2GB with 32kB clusters
The value given for "Max. number of files" "65,536 for 32 KB clusters" cannot be correct
According to https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/118335 the "The FAT file system is limited to 65,525 clusters."  A usable default format must reserve a number of units for root directory entries etc.  The summary box for FAT states a more credible limit "FAT16: 65,460 for 32 KB clusters" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.252.157 (talk • contribs) 08:38, July 31, 2015 (UTC)
: According to https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/default-cluster-size-for-ntfs-fat-and-exfat-9772e6f1-e31a-00d7-e18f-73169155af95 FAT32 volume size is wrong.  The tables on that website also have NTFS, FAT16, and exFAT. JarvMonster (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  problems with incorrect/inconsistent information presented 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on File Allocation Table. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720115141/http://patersontech.com/Dos/Byte/InsideDos.htm to http://www.patersontech.com/dos/Byte/InsideDos.htm#InsideDos_44
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130507183540/http://www.microsoft.com:80/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/IPLicensing/Programs/exFATFileSystem.aspx to http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/IPLicensing/Programs/exFATFileSystem.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130930190707/http://www.cipa.jp/english/hyoujunka/kikaku/pdf/DC-009-2010_E.pdf to http://www.cipa.jp/english/hyoujunka/kikaku/pdf/DC-009-2010_E.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on File Allocation Table. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330171510/http://macarlo.com/fat32v074.htm to http://macarlo.com/fat32v074.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/IPLicensing/Programs/exFATFileSystem.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on File Allocation Table. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090822044026/http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/dec03/12-03ExpandIPPR.mspx to http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/dec03/12-03ExpandIPPR.mspx
*Added  tag to ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/misc1/PEROPSYS/MSDOS/KB/Q78/4/07.TXT
*Added  tag to ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/misc1/PEROPSYS/MSDOS/KB/Q68/1/76.TXT
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: in the section overview: concepts the article contains the line  'each of these variants is still[when?] in use'. The [when] tag does not seem appropriate as that is clarified  in the section FAT12. The quickest way to find the information is to search for 2.88. As a side note, even though actual floppies are becoming rare, the use of floppy images for CD booting, virtual machines, network booting, and other uses keeps fat12 in use. For references for current usage look at syslinux's memdisk, vbox (or any other virtual machine), and mkisofs's man page. 71.212.217.88 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  still inuse (when?) answered 

message: This article says the time resolution of the 'created time' is 10ms. But I found this reference on the net: https://staff.washington.edu/dittrich/misc/fatgen103.pdf which says the resolution is only 100ms. Could the figure 10ms be a mistake, arising from the actual resolution being 'tenths of a second', not 10ms?
Avl (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong resolution of timestamps 

message: I think all the FAT patents have expired in 2011-2018:
* 5367671 in 11/2011
* 5579517 in 4/2015
* 5745902 in 4/2018
* 5758352 in 9/2017
* 6286013 in 1/2017
IANAL, but these can be verified using patent databases and calculators.
2001:14BA:1AFC:72F0:0:0:0:E18 (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Expired patents

message: Are flash file systems implemented as FAT or do they appear as FAT with respect to external APIs?
DGerman (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean file systems on flash drives: it depends on the filesystem that you have installed on the flash drive. You could install FAT on a flash drive (and people often do, since it's quite cross-platform), but flash drives could have essentially any filesystem type on them. 95.199.3.30 (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  flash FS appear as FAT 

message: The Limits section measures clusters and sections in "KB," but there's no such unit as a "KB." There are kB (1000 bytes) and KiB (1024 bytes). Please fix that by replacing "KB" with the correct unit. 91.193.176.8 (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Beating a dead horse. It's been some time now when Wikipedia finally and fortunately accepted that everybody (except hard drive manufacturers) means 1024 when they discuss kilobytes.  CapnZapp (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-existent information units in the Limits section of the summary box