[Galaxy S III Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] ImgBurn:
I though about this also. Here's my conclusion.

FAT32 (File Allocation Table)

Read/Write FAT32 from both native Windows and native Mac OS X.

Maximum file size: 4GB.

Maximum volume size: 2TB

NTFS (Windows NT File System)

Read/Write NTFS from native Windows.

Read only NTFS from native Mac OS X

To Read/Write/Format NTFS from Mac OS X: Install NTFS-3G for Mac OS X (free)

Some have reported problems using Tuxera (approx 33USD).

Native NTFS support can be enabled in Snow Leopard, but is not advisable, due to instability.

Maximum file size: 16 TB

Maximum volume size: 256TB

HFS+ (Hierarchical File System, a.k.a. Mac OS Extended)

Read/Write HFS+ from native Mac OS X

Required for Time Machine or Carbon Copy Cloner backups of Mac internal hard drive.To Read/Write HFS+ from Windows, Install MacDrive

To Read HFS+ (but not Write) from Windows, Install HFSExplorer

Maximum file size: 8EiB

Maximum volume size: 8EiB

exFAT (FAT64)

Supported in Mac OS X only in 10.6.5 or later.

exFAT partitions created with OS X 10.6.5 are inaccessible from Windows 7

Not all Windows versions support exFAT. *See disadvantages.

exFAT (Extended File Allocation Table)

Maximum file size: 16 EiB

Maximum volume size: 64 ZiB

*Disadvantages

The disadvantages compared to FAT file systems include:

Microsoft has not released the official exFAT file system specification, and a restrictive license from Microsoft is required in order to make and distribute exFAT implementations. Microsoft also asserts patents on exFAT which make it impossible to re-implement its functionality in a compatible way without violating a large percentage of them.[11] This renders the implementation, distribution, and use of exFAT as a part of free or open-source operating systems or of commercial software, for which the vendors could not obtain a license from Microsoft, not only technically difficult, but legally impossible in countries that recognize United States software patents.

Limited or no support outside Windows and Mac OS X operating systems as of 2012—most consumer electronic devices, such as televisions and A/V receivers, could only handle FAT12/FAT16/FAT32, rendering exFAT (and flash memory formats using it) impractical as a universal exchange format. (This may change if SDXC cards and Memory Stick XC come into wide use, as they define exFAT as the file system to be used in their specifications even though this is not a technical requirement.)

Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 users must have Service Pack 2 or later and install an update to support exFAT.

Windows Vista must be Service Pack 1 or later for exFAT support.

Drives formatted using exFAT cannot be read by any version of Windows prior to Windows XP or by any version of DOS or OS/2 (unless emulated as otherwise).

Windows Vista is unable to use exFAT drives for ReadyBoost. Windows 7 removes this limitation, enabling ReadyBoost caches larger than 4 GiB.[12]

The standard exFAT implementation only uses a single file allocation table and free space map. FAT file systems instead used alternating tables, as this allowed recovery of the file system if the media was ejected during a write (which occurs frequently in practice with removable media). The optional TexFAT component adds support for additional backup tables and maps, but may not be supported.

Support for up to 2,796,202 files per subdirectory only.[1][nb 3] While Microsoft documents a limit of 65,534 files per sub-directory for their FAT32 implementation, technically there is no such limit and FAT32 implementations in other operating systems allow an unlimited number of files up to the number of available clusters (that is, up to ca. 268,304,373 files, 228 - 11[13] - 131,072[14]

Reduced file data I/O performance compared to FAT32 due to smaller cluster sizes and more complex data structures.[citation needed]

More complex design results in higher code footprint and memory usage compared to FAT implementations. FAT12/FAT16/FAT32 can be implemented in as little as a 512 bytes code and 1 KB data for low-performance read-only versions and a few kilobytes code plus a few hundred KB data for high-performance read-write versions, allowing native support for them even in light-weight operating systems such as DOS, thereby enabling their usage also on older PCs and in small embedded systems. exFAT implementations require magnitudes more system resources rendering this approach impractical.

And added to this I spoke to Samsung Tech on this issue particularly the (Samsung Galaxy S III).I was told Samsung Galaxy S III has no support for exFAT.

---------- Post added at 03:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:36 PM ----------

Also check this out:cool: http://xdaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1724078