What happened to the Messenger Plus! forums on msghelp.net?
Shoutbox » MsgHelp Archive » Skype & Technology » Tech Talk » 16GB memory stick on XP...

16GB memory stick on XP...
Author: Message:
whiz
Senior Member
****


Posts: 568
Reputation: 8
– / – / Flag
Joined: Nov 2008
O.P. 16GB memory stick on XP...
I recently bought a new 16GB memory stick to use for backing up files, using portable apps and so on.

I seem to be having a problem with using it on Windows XP.  I started using it on Windows 7 (formatted as FAT32), but when I edit any files on it using XP, the next time I connect it to Windows 7, I get a "do you want to scan and fix" message, which reports any edited files as being "irretrievable" (or something along those lines).

In addition, if I browse to those files (not the fragments placed in the "FOUND.000" folder, but the original locations), the files are of the right size but only contain spaces.

Any ideas?
03-27-2011 08:02 PM
Profile E-Mail PM Find Quote Report
nimicitor
Junior Member
**


Posts: 60
Reputation: 37
Joined: Apr 2004
RE: 16GB memory stick on XP...
Format the drive as NTFS or exFAT.

To use exFAT on XP you will need this addon from Microsoft: exFAT

Install it on every XP computer you will use this drive with.

This post was edited on 03-28-2011 at 12:46 PM by nimicitor.
03-28-2011 09:23 AM
Profile PM Find Quote Report
CookieRevised
Elite Member
*****

Avatar

Posts: 15521
Reputation: 173
– / Male / Flag
Joined: Jul 2003
Status: Away
RE: 16GB memory stick on XP...
quote:
Originally posted by nimicitor
Format the drive as NTFS or exFAT.
That really shouldn't be needed.

I have been using 16GB USB sticks (Cruzer type from SanDisk) on XP, Vista and Win7 myself for a few years now, without any problems at all. They all were preformatted as FAT32. So, I doubt this has anything todo with the filesystem.

However, it is quite possible that whiz' Windows XP doesn't have the proper updated drivers for such USB peripherals and/or there is something wrong with the USB stick itself.

It is also possible that some settings in Windows are not exactly right.
eg: You can optimize the USB connection between "fast removal" and "better performance" (in the usb device properties). If you choose the later, and you pull out the USB too early, you will have errors on the disk*. It is best to set it to "fast removal" imho so you don't need to use the 'Safely remove hardware' wizard each time when you want to pull the stick out (the performance gain with "better performance" is neglectible anyways tbh). Although, you will often see that people do recommend using the 'Safely remove hardware' wizard though. I can't blame them. But from my experience it is not needed if you choose "optimize for fast removal" and, to be sure, if you always wait like at least 10 seconds after you are sure Windows has been done writing. Never had any problems doing that (and I use those 16GB sticks all the time on a daily basis both at home and at work - I really need to start thinking to install a home network :p).


This said, on one computer at parents home (Windows XP too; but not quite up-to-date) I have problems with many USB sticks too, no matter how big or small they are. I suspect this is due to the USB hardware itself, some sort of caching problem. Because I noticed that when I write large amounts of data to the USB stick in one go, Windows can't 'keep up' so to speak and kind of chokes up and fails to write the last couple of data. When you write in small amounts (eg: only a few files at a time) it works without any problems. I also have tried the formatting method (reformatted to NTFS) before but that didn't help either.

* Formatting the usb stick with a journaled file system like NTFS or Ext3 might prevent some write errors, but this comes with a cost too if such events happen: they become slower (because the next time the journal needs to be cleaned up, rewriting out to the stick, etc). And Ext3 (or other more 'exotic' file systems) are not compatible with Windows without installing additional stuff.

So, even if you do choose to reformat the stick (although, as said, most likely this is not were the problem is), you better choose NTFS over any other, just for the sole fact you then don't need to install anything else then. Also the fact that there is no extra benefit from installing Ext3 or other *nix compatible filesystems if you never are going to use that drive on *nix.

This post was edited on 03-28-2011 at 02:14 PM by CookieRevised.
.-= A 'frrrrrrrituurrr' for Wacky =-.
03-28-2011 01:54 PM
Profile PM Find Quote Report
nimicitor
Junior Member
**


Posts: 60
Reputation: 37
Joined: Apr 2004
RE: RE: 16GB memory stick on XP...
I don't agree, FAT32 is old, full of limitations and not as stable as exFAT. You will get better performance changing it to a newer file system, especially if the files are large. Drives are preformatted FAT32 because it supports pre XP OS's as well as other devices, although most of them also support newer file systems including exFAT and\or NTFS.
Since the drive will be used for XP and 7 then there is no good reason not to wipe the drive and try it out. I'm not saying its a guaranteed fix, but it as least the drive will have a upto date file system and I will then be able to assist him further with other suggestions.
FAT32 might be good for you Cookie but I could never recommend using a 15 year old file system made for Windows 95b when there are newer, better alternatives. [Image: old.gif]
Linux wasn't even mentioned so Ext3 is moot.




03-28-2011 02:27 PM
Profile PM Find Quote Report
CookieRevised
Elite Member
*****

Avatar

Posts: 15521
Reputation: 173
– / Male / Flag
Joined: Jul 2003
Status: Away
RE: 16GB memory stick on XP...
Not using FAT32 because it is 'old' is no reason at all....
Choosing another file system just for the reason that it is 'newer' is imo stupid (yes, I said stupid). That's almost like wanting to always have the lastest just because you can. There may be other reasons why you don't want to use FAT32 though but age shouldn't be anything do with it.
File size shouldn't be a factor either as that doesn't matter as long as the file size is smaller than 4GB. Which is unlikely, but granted not entirely impossible, seeing we're talking about using it on a USB stick.

But I do agree that it wouldn't hurt either if you reformat to NTFS of course, as I already said in my previous post. But it is not 'needed' per-say for stuff like this.

And as for Ex3, you missed the point I think. I know Linux wasn't mentionned anywhere, but this isn't about Linux but about other file systems than the build-in ones on XP. Ex3 was just given as yet another example of such an alternative filesystem, just like you already mentionned exFAT as another alternative (which isn't nativly supported on XP either). It is just the same thing for that matter.

I could have mentionned any other existing journaled filesystem made for any other existing OS for that matter. So it is as much mute as your given alternative I think, because they all require additional drivers on XP and they all don't bring much extra if he is never going to use the USB stick on anything else than a Windows system (incl XP) to begin with, not to mention he wouldn't be able to use it on other Windows XPs which don't have the extra driver installed nomatter if it is Ex3 or exFAT.

This post was edited on 03-28-2011 at 05:09 PM by CookieRevised.
.-= A 'frrrrrrrituurrr' for Wacky =-.
03-28-2011 02:38 PM
Profile PM Find Quote Report
nimicitor
Junior Member
**


Posts: 60
Reputation: 37
Joined: Apr 2004
RE: RE: 16GB memory stick on XP...
As usual, complete and utter rubbish. Technology moves on and exFAT is superior and was brought in to replace FAT32 which doesn't even support files over 4GB which is why it is also known as FAT64 and why it isn't just 'an alternative'.
It being new was never my only argument for exFAT, there are were more in my last post and alot more I could have added.


quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised

And as for Ex3, you missed the point I think. I know Linux wasn't mentionned anywhere, but this isn't about Linux but about other file systems than the build-in ones on XP. Ex3 was just given as yet another example of such an alternative filesystem, just like you already mentionned exFAT as another alternative (which isn't nativly supported on XP either). It is just the same thing for that matter.

I could have mentionned any other existing journaled filesystem made for any other existing OS for that matter. So it is as much mute as your given alternative, because they all require additional drivers on XP and they all don't bring much extra if he is never going to use the USB stick on anything else than a Windows system (incl XP) to begin with.


I think you missed the point on Ex3, nowhere in whiz's post did it say he uses Linux so there was no need to randomly and arrogantly rant about file systems that aren't made for Windows, you are wasting everybody's time by posting crap that isn't relivant. I hardly think installing one addon for XP is a problem if it gives your computer a better way to format USB drives.
exFAT can be used on other OS's, not just Windows, and was specifically built for flash drives, unlike NTFS which makes it the better option.
Formatting the drive as exFAT is whiz's best option. Test the drive out and post your results back. If it doesn't fix the problem I have plenty more methods that could help him.*




*Note I am here to help whiz, not (as usual) pompously starting meaningless arguments with people.
03-28-2011 05:27 PM
Profile PM Find Quote Report
CookieRevised
Elite Member
*****

Avatar

Posts: 15521
Reputation: 173
– / Male / Flag
Joined: Jul 2003
Status: Away
RE: 16GB memory stick on XP...
nimicitor, before apparently wanting to start a fight here by calling everything I said "the usual rubbish" and "arrogant", please read what I've said...

1) I replied to your argument of FAT32 being a few decades old, not about the rest of your arguments why he should try another file system. In fact, I said I do recognize that there are also other arguments for upgrading then just the age. So, before accusing me of whatever, first read what I posted:
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
There may be other reasons why you don't want to use FAT32 though but age shouldn't be anything do with it.


2) As for the file size argument: I also recognized that it can be a reason, eventhough for what whiz want to use it for it shouldn't be that much of an issue:
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
File size shouldn't be a factor either as that doesn't matter as long as the file size is smaller than 4GB. Which is unlikely, but granted not entirely impossible, seeing we're talking about using it on a USB stick.


3) Again, my reply did NOT have anything to do with linux per-say, but with file systems which are NOT nativly supported by Windows XP, like exFat or like Ex3 or like any other exotic file system. exFAT is NOT supported by native Windows XP either!! You must install an extra driver for that just as you would need to install an extra driver for any other filesystem, like for example Ex3.
You are staring blind on the fact that I said "*nix" and completely missing the point why I gave that example in the first place.

So I'll repeat it again in a different way so maybe you'll understand what I'm saying now and maybe you'll see that this isn't about what you thought it is: Even for exFAT you must install extra drivers on every Windows XP system you're going to plug the USB stick in, just as any other non-natively supported file system, like Ex3. There is NO difference, and it doesn't matter for what OS they originally were made (or when). Thus I'm not saying there is no difference between the two file systems, I'm saying there is no difference in how you would make it so you can use it. Thus making that option of using exFAT unusable too if he is going to use that USB stick on other Windows XPs like at his public school library or whatever. Thus exFAT is equally unusable (or as you put it "mute") as any other file system (like Ex3) for which you first need to install drivers too. That is the whole point.


quote:
Originally posted by nimicitor
*Note I am here to help whiz, not (as usual) pompously starting meaningless arguments with people.
With all respect but then don't start arguments and don't call people arrogant or their posts the usual rubbish or putting words in their mouth. I am also here to help whiz; we all are...

This post was edited on 03-28-2011 at 07:39 PM by CookieRevised.
.-= A 'frrrrrrrituurrr' for Wacky =-.
03-28-2011 06:21 PM
Profile PM Find Quote Report
whiz
Senior Member
****


Posts: 568
Reputation: 8
– / – / Flag
Joined: Nov 2008
O.P. RE: 16GB memory stick on XP...
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
This said, on one computer at parents home (Windows XP too; but not quite up-to-date) I have problems with many USB sticks too, no matter how big or small they are. I suspect this is due to the USB hardware itself, some sort of caching problem. Because I noticed that when I write large amounts of data to the USB stick in one go, Windows can't 'keep up' so to speak and kind of chokes up and fails to write the last couple of data. When you write in small amounts (eg: only a few files at a time) it works without any problems. I also have tried the formatting method (reformatted to NTFS) before but that didn't help either.
Yeah, I tried it again just copying a few files and it seemed to work alright.  The XP computers I'm using it on are mostly at my sixth form college, so I can't install drivers and stuff...  Although my XP at home causes similar issues and I'm not too sure what drivers are on here (but I've now turned on fast removal so hopefully it'll work better at home at least).
03-28-2011 06:26 PM
Profile E-Mail PM Find Quote Report
Chancer
Senior Member
****

Avatar

Posts: 648
Reputation: 7
29 / Male / Flag
Joined: May 2005
Status: Away
RE: 16GB memory stick on XP...
It usually happens to me when I remove my stick without ejecting it before. Windows 7 just want to make sure none of your data was damaged after a "not proper" removal.
03-30-2011 12:48 AM
Profile E-Mail PM Find Quote Report
« Next Oldest Return to Top Next Newest »


Threaded Mode | Linear Mode
View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe | Add to Favorites
Rate This Thread:

Forum Jump:

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new threads
You cannot post replies
You cannot post attachments
You can edit your posts
HTML is Off
myCode is On
Smilies are On
[img] Code is On