Re: Exfat Driver Windows 7 Download
Joao Charlesbois
is a file system driver. If ExFAT File System Driver fails to start, the error is logged. Windows 10 startup proceeds, but a message box is displayed informing you that the exfat service has failed to start.
the very first introduction of exfat had built in backwards compatibility with fat32 systems. However you couldn't write a file over 4tb in dos windows nor use disk and defrag utilities on exfat partitions. That patch on xp was replaced and there were patches for vista+ the original has since disappeared.
There are a few places left in the world to get it last seen 2018 I may try fetch it and confirm.
I'm not sure if this is helpful, but there's an experimental exFAT driver for MS-DOS.
It's read-only and in an early stage, but it might be useful for file transfer (pendrive -> Win98 system / DOS 7.1).
"Currently it is read-only, and has some limitations (e.g., it uses codepage
866 permanently and doesn't use uppercase tables of exFAT - "thinks" that
Abc and abc are different filenames), bugs are possible to, because
testing was rather limited (but I've tested it under HX DOS extender under
plain DOS)."
Programs that don't expect Windows 9x to do certain things may break when Windows 9x gives them a different result/or if certain "missing" system calls are now present. Look at what happened when Xeno and some other developers had initially attempted to add unicode support to Windows 98 - certain programs that don't expect Windows 98 to support unicode broke (My Chinese IME was one of them - and still is).
Once upon a time exfat had fat32 backwards copatability mode but it was revised. It allowed dos windows to boot but not store data over 4gb. It was revised as a security risk. Also other consumer electronics malfunctioned trying to access the old exfat as fat32 which had over 4gb data files on the file system. You'd be hard pressed obtaining that patch for windows xp32. still you can read those massive files but cannot write them in a dos windows enviroment.
So therefore like 3rd party utilities you can read your files over 4tb but that's all. Everything dos windows size compliant can be written and read on it however and taking the exfat disk and defragging it on windows xp was by far a superior strategy than dos windows.
Good luck finding the very first install patch of exfat on xp windows. If you do share it put it on archive dot org its a true piece of history needing preservation not cover up (like original virtual pc 2004 with real disk access sp1 took away and left only virtual disk crap)
Contrary to first thing we can think about this, a VHD file is not capable to boot from a exFAT partition even on new 10 versions. As I tested creating a exFAT partition on my internal HD and copying there a previously made 10x64-19H1.vhd NTFS formated.
2.- To create an install on a exFAT formated VHD, first make an standard install on a NTFS formated VHD and boot it and install your prefered software, then capture it to a WIM or ESD image file, and latter apply it to a new exFAT formated VHD.
3.- It is better to iniciate as MBR your VHD, but UEFI booting is also possible, VHD has to be active and PBR requires botmanager. He also suggest exFAT format with cluster size 4K (not the standard exFAT cluster of 32K).
4.- Booting process is very slow on x64, but there are links to download a modded exFAT driver to make the booting pocess faster. he also suggest to use a SSD device not mechanical HD. But also said after booting speed should be as usuall.
To test this I created a logical 16 GB NTFS partition, and latter reformated it as exFAT with cluster size 4K with PartitionGuru, on my internal HDD and deployed there my 10x64-19H1 WIM image using wimlib-clc (wimlib-imagex GUI). NO pagefile or hiberfile. Used size was 12GB (it was before 7.71 GB used size on a normal install on NTFS formated VHD). After this created the BCD entry with BootIce and rebooted to the new install.
Booting process was too slow and I got tired of waiting and just terminated it, and reformated the drive as NTFS. Maybe as ZhuMa said on an SSD could be faster, but on a HDD it is unusable and I don't have at the moment an spare SSD to try it.
Some advantages of installing and booting Windows system in exFAT partition:
Optimize volume bitmap management and page block allocation to improve the read and write speed of flash storage media
No volume log records, reducing the number of flash memory read and write operations to extend its service life
The non-authority management mechanism defaults to the highest authority, and management system files no longer report insufficient authority errors
Windows To Go cooperates with platforms such as Mac and Linux to have stronger interaction capabilities and wider compatibility
Allows to allocate larger clusters to improve IO performance
Support TFAT protection mechanism (Win8 only)
Support ECC checksum (metadata only)
To test this I created a logical 16 GB NTFS partition, and latter reformated it as exFAT with sector size 4K with PartitionGuru, on my internal HDD and deployed there my 10x64-19H1 WIM image using wimlib-clc (wimlib-imagex GUI). NO pagefile or hiberfile. Used size was 12GB (it was before 7.71 GB used size on a normal install on NTFS formated VHD). After this created the BCD entry with BootIce and rebooted to the new install.
Booting process was too slow and I got tired of waiting and just terminated it, and reformated the drive as NTFS. Maybe as the guy said on an SSD could be faster, but on a HDD it is unusable and I don't have at the moment an spare SSD to try it.
Most probably during first boot a number of things need to be self-adjusted by the OS, but it is also possible (due to the complexity of the procedure) that simply *something* went wrong, very likely the (well documented) issue with the exFAT driver signature:
When the exFAT driver added the built-in digital signature and tested the 64-bit system, the startup time of the 64-bit system was shortened from the original few hours to the same ten seconds as the 32-bit system. The problem was solved successfully!
I don't see - at face value - any reason (set apart the above and the "on VHD" way) why an exFAT volume should be much slower than a NTFS one (even if most probably the good MS guys have optimised NTFS booting sequence), at least during my (old, quick and dirty) windows 7 on FAT32 experiment I didn't notice any particular increased slowness of the system.
IMNSHO the tests should be repeated (and completed) before deriving any conclusion, in any case it would be easier to test the 32 bit version(s) as they don't need the replacement of the exFAT driver.
I tested booting 10x86-19H1 applied on a exFAT drive, and it boots fine at usuall speed. NO pagefile or hiberfile. Used size is 9.65GB, it was before 5.70 GB used size on a normal install on NTFS formated drive, as Wonko said diference in size is because exFAT do not alow the use of hardlinks and/or softlinks, then all files are full size files.
To boot Windows from exFAT volume, please install the system in the root directory of the partition as much as possible. It is not recommended to boot VHD(X) from the exFAT partition unless it is particularly necessary. Microsoft's Windows Boot Manager and OS Loader are extremely poorly optimized for exFAT boot. Installation Booting into VHD(X) requires not only reading the VHD(X) file but also parsing the system files inside, so traversing the file system multiple times will cause the operating system to boot very slowly.
I have successfully implemented running Windows systems on UDF and ReFS partitions, but for the time being only supports running Windows Preinstallation Environment.
=no
The problem is that running Windows PE on UDF and ReFS partitions has some limitations and no advantages. It is better to use exFAT.
Most Android phones use an external kernel module that is not a part of the main kernel tree to support exFAT. The main caveat is that to actually sell a device with exFAT support the OEM is obliged to buy a license from Microsoft, no matter what driver implementation they are using.
Of course, it has never been mainlined because of patent issues, but thankfully this will change thanks to Microsoft (not necessarily using the Samsung driver, but makes no difference to me either way as long as it works).
If Microsoft really loves Linux make the exfat specification GPL. What ever they are doing will be to eventually sell more windows software and lock users intos windows. Thats my opinion. Did you know camera manufactures have to pay a lenience fee of about $300,000 to use exfat on their phones?
Could you please clarify the license/patent issue with exFAT? So is anyone now free (as in freedom) to implement, use, and distribute drivers and other types of software that implement (parts of) the exFAT specification?
We are making the technical specification for exFAT freely available to all, and exFAT code incorporated into the Linux kernel will be available under GPLv2. See -us/windows/win32/fileio/exfat-specification for more detail.
Microsoft has joined the OIN as of late 2018, and has already started the process on many technologies, including ExFAT. No patent or other IP license will be required if used under the terms of the GPLv2.
Probably because not only does the NT exFAT code not work 1:1 on IEEE POSIX platforms like Linux and its Virtual File System (VFS), but there are already several other, proprietary licensees (prior to this) who have created native Linux drivers and GNU tooling on several platform, that already released their code under the terms of GPLv2.
exFAT (Extensible File Allocation Table) is a file system introduced by Microsoft in 2006 and optimized for flash memory such as USB flash drives and SD cards.[6] exFAT was proprietary until 28 August 2019, when Microsoft published its specification.[7] Microsoft owns patents on several elements of its design.[2]
7fc3f7cf58