Rufus is one of several programs that allow you to create an ISO image on a USB stick.So that's probably why it might be easier to make it work with exFAT. How to Create a Bootable USB using Rufus. This can be useful if you ever need to recover, repair or install an operating system on your computer. This is done by adding a USB filter to the VM, picking the device that we want to make visible to the VM.By running the bootable USB however, you can boot up your computer using the USB’s ISO image instead.Besides, considering that a decent USB 3.0 drive should only set you back 3 minutes on Windows 10 boot drive creation in Rufus, reformatting a single flash drive for boot or file transfer isn't that big a deal (and may also prevent you from inadvertently lift confidential work data which you don't need, and which your company may not be too happy to see being copied by an employee).All in all, I don't see much of a case to justify adding exFAT support specifically for Windows installation media in Rufus. Surely, you can reformat the drive to exFAT if you need to transfer files after you're done with creating bootable media for work, and I would also expect you to have a dedicated USB drive at work for OS installation if you are being tasked with performing those (I doubt a workplace would be so cheap as to refuse the purchase of a flash drive, especially if it's related to performing OS installs, and I would strongly encourage you to use a different flash drive if you must copy files to or from work). In other words, you can say that Rufus provides everything you need to install Windows as bootable USB.I also find it a bit strange that you must use a bootable drive created by Rufus to transfer files between home and work. I just don't see enough people who would benefit from that feature compared to the amount of time it would take me to add and, more importantly, support it in Rufus.(Windows, Linux, UEFI, etc.), you can download ISO of Windows 10 and use in Rufus bootable USB (create bootable USB from iso). On the other hand, Rufus also supports Linux, DOS, UEFI and other boot modes, so adding exFAT just for Windows images, and just to satisfy the very few people who will want to use their bootable drive between a Mac and a PC (and MUST have a >4GB file to justify not being able to use FAT32) seems like a waste of development time, to be brutally honest.So there's a good chance most Linux distros won't work if you're using exFAT.Same goes for UEFI. Without this, you may boot the kernel, but the whole process will probably fail along the way, if it is designed only to look for FAT32 content. It's not because you might be able to get a first stage to boot through exFAT, which is the only part where Rufus can intervene, that you will get anywhere.For instance, Linux distros must have special boot code in their later boot stage to be able to boot from FAT32. The boot process is a multi stage affair, which is A LOT more complex than people imagine.
Can Rufus Create Bootable Usb On Software Patents WhichFor instance, boot loaders like Syslinux have introduced NTFS support, but haven't done much when it comes to exFAT support.All in all, I'm afraid there simply just isn't enough support and demand for exFAT boot, for me to spend time on it, so I don't think you will be seeing such a feature in Rufus. As a matter of fact, I have failed to see the adoption of exFAT growing, with most parties, for which FAT32 limitations are becoming an issue, choosing to switch to NTFS (which has its own issues, but is better supported) instead. So, instead of what is the case for FAT32 (where you can just copy the bootx64.efi or bootia32.efi files for the whole thing to boot), you'd have to use workarounds, which no guarantee whatsoever that the later boot stages will be able to handle exFAT content.Also, on a separate matter, exFAT is encumbered by software patents which makes it unfriendly for use with Open Source software (which Rufus is), so, on political grounds, I would tend to discourage its use.Also, almost all flash drives these days have circuitry that aims at reducing wear and tear from write operation, so that even if you tell your drive to write block #0 repeatedly (as would typically happen if you repartition a drive over and over), internally a different memory block will be written each time, so again, it's no more hazardous than writing to a regular file.Yet, strangely, the UEFI committee, hardware manufacturers and the Open Source community still don't seem to have been convinced with exFAT's oh so incredible advantages compared to NTFS. You can completely screw up a format or partition operation, and your drive will be no less recoverable than it would if you had interrupted the writing of a regular file. In quick format mode (which is the default), only a handful of blocks are written, and, as far as the flash drive is concerned, those blocks are no more different than regular data blocks. This couldn't be further from the truth. And remember that Rufus will always reformat your drive when you create a bootable USB (because there are way too many circumstances where we need to repartition the drive and/or start with conditions that we can control so that we can ensure reliable boot).Also is it okay to frequently reformat drives to different filesystems?Many people mistakenly assume that reformatting a drive is a very low level and super critical operation, that is hazardous. This will change according to the ISO you pick. Tere ishq ne rahim shah mp3 downloadIf you want to have to spend your time explaining to people while their OS can't install because Rufus allowed them to select exFAT, and they happen to use a Windows 7 ISO, please be my guest. I really fail to see what using exFAT over NTFS for the vast majority of Rufus usage scenario which is OS installation, as this is pretty much a read-only operation. Do you not realize that Rufus is mostly designed for one-of OS installation? This means that, once a user is done installing their OS, and they want to use their drive for data, they can (and usually should) reformat it to whichever file system they like, and remove the OS installation files. NTFS is what most people have chosen as de facto replacement for FAT, and as long as this is the case, I don't see much point in adding support for another file system, when it will not bring any single advantage over NTFS, except calming down purist who think that flash drive technology is still in its infancy and that using NTFS means that you should expect a life expectancy of 1, 2 weeks tops!But, since the message doesn't seem to go through, let me educate you a bit further: Flash player for mac 90For instance, I will dispute the fact that manufacturers are switching to using exFAT for large flash drives as the last large flash drive I bought was NTFS formatted. I hope you can understand that, if I'm going to try to anticipate a trend, I'd rather spend my development time on supporting trends that tend to have some factual credibility to support them. Yet, that still hasn't happen. Oh, and I've also been promised, by many people over the years, that exFAT "will be more and more important". I'd really like to see your sources on flash drive media degradation when NTFS is being used, especially for a usage scenario that is 95% read-only ops. Yeah, I'm sure this will take no time at all, especially with AIO ISOs. Considering that I don't expect many Rufus users to bring their Rufus formatted drive to a Mac without reformatting them (since Rufus does not support Mac or Mac OS installation), I still don't see much point in adding exFAT support, if it's just to follow what (some/most) flash drive manufacturers choose to use for blank drives that will be use purely for data and not for boot. You get into this mess only if you override the default.As to what you indicate about exFAT format being used as default by flash drive manufacturers for Mac + Windows compatibility, I'd really like to see a verifiable trend (or actual flash drive manufacturer guidelines) before I'd draw any conclusion. Write-behind caching is disabled by default on removable drives. From that same article:It seems that people missed the first sentence of this article. As long as the UEFI committee has made no stride to include exFAT support natively (even though they fairly easily could, as, if the GRUB FAT vs exFAT driver different is anything to go by, there isn't much to it), I'm going to follow their lead and not bother with exFAT either, especially when I have comprehensive support for NTFS and it all but looks to me like the only benefit of adding exFAT support would be to silence a bunch of vocal people who mistakenly think that NTFS will reduce their flash drive's life.So that's about all I have say about exFAT support.If you still want to press me to add exFAT support in Rufus, then you'd better come prepared with verifiable proofs that exFAT would bring significant advantages for Rufus users.Please try again. I develop for what is actually happening.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorManuel ArchivesCategories |