Related
Maximize Storage Capacity
SwellDisk is a proven way to maximize storage capacity. SwellDisk is fully compatible with Windows CE based device and successfully tested with Microsoft embedded partners. Your storage card will enlarge to 300% of the original capacity. SwellDisk maximizes memory card capacity!!!
http://www.swelldisk.com
i tried but nothing happened
if you read the reviews all say its the best
As with any capacity expansion tools, they all work using compression and the trade off is reduction in speed, with the Universal already being a little on the slow side I think I would rather be more carefull in what I do and don't install than suffer an even slower device.
Just my thoughts...
As far as I know the storage on Pocket PCs is already compressed by the OS. You will not gain anything by compressing this again, it may rather have the opposite effect.
I think he was referring to SD cards not the internal memory, the SD memory is not compressed by the OS AFAIK.
Regards
Hello ..
Im using this software .
gotit from pocketgear.
Im using a 2GB SD card and now using SwellDisk300% have 5.8GB of space indicated by rescoexplorer and tools.
sad to say there is no demo to test it.
I took the risk.
up to now im satisfied
I think this is something similar...http://www.pocketgear.com/software_detail.asp?id=22364
Post any comments and expiriences with these two apps
can you give us some realworld numbers? how much data do you have on your card? how much has it been compressed, new free space, etc? reminds me of MSDOS's doublespace
I read that the compression only works when the card is inside the Universal; what happens when you load stuff straight onto the card using a card reader?
Ok...it says 5.8GB...but I highly doubt that you can put 5.8GB of JPEG or DivX AVIs on it...they just don't compress so well (they already are...in a way). Then, my question is, what else will I put on my SD card that'll need more space that 2GB isn't already enough?
ASCII Pr0n <grin>
Ain't nothing compresses better =)
PReDiToR said:
ASCII Pr0n <grin>
Ain't nothing compresses better =)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hahaha...ok...you got me right there...never thought of that
<--click me
As above, does this use a compressed volume (like doublespace), compress to archived files (eg zips) on the fly, or something else? I'd be interested to see what happens when you put it in a card reader, but frankly given the low (relative) CPU power of the devices, and the relatively low price of memory, better buy a bigger sd card for $40, then slow down your $1000 phone any more.
V
do you know how windows vista can use external memory and make it into additional RAM? well can the G1 be programed to take memory from the SD-Card and turn it into more RAM?? I know that it might not work but its worth a check!
IF your not sure about it check this it will explain ((http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-6039379.html))
I believe you're thinking of Swap - check out http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=531988
Also don't forget using your SD card as swap partition will thrash it and could shorten the life of your SD card due to alot of writes.
If you really want to do this look for a program called 'swapper'.
oh ok thanks for the heads up !
johnnie93 said:
do you know how windows vista can use external memory and make it into additional RAM? well can the G1 be programed to take memory from the SD-Card and turn it into more RAM?? I know that it might not work but its worth a check!
IF your not sure about it check this it will explain ((http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-6039379.html))
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is pretty much the function the swap file provides. There is a differentiation on a desktop because on a desktop files are stored on a hdd, whereas a portable device usually uses flash as its storage and swap.
And just to clarify, Vista readyboost is completely different to RAM or swap partitions.
Flash memory is limited to a certain number of writes, it is a very large number so in normal use you will probably never hit it. Reading however will not affect the lifetime of your flash memory.
Hard drives do not have any such limits.
Readyboost uses an SD/USB memory card/stick as a cache to quickly load frequently used files, this is because it's generally faster to read from flash memory than from the hard disk. Readyboost DOES NOT write very often, this is why it is suitable for use with flash memory.
Swap/Paging/Virtual memory is completely different, it is an area on a disk, a file on windows or a seperate partition on linux, where the operating system can dump some of the data that is in RAM if it runs out of space. If you have low RAM or are using high memory applications this will do alot of reading AND writing, therefore will reduce the lifetime of your flash memory. This is why swap partitions are normally on hard disks.
Hope this helps explain it!
robblue2x said:
Hard drives do not have any such limits.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure they do. Just considerably longer. Also, hard disks, for quite a long time now, have been capable of dynamically remapping around worn out sections and come with a decent chunk of unused space that is used for remapping. Hard disks also suffer from gradual demagnetization -- over time, the differing magnetic fields on the platter will interact with each other, causing data loss. You can generally expect a finite life time of any hard disk before large sections of the platter become unusable. I have noticed this particularly to be the case with winvista, which by default likes to catalog and recatalog your disk (they say for fast searching), but the end result is writing and rewriting of the same small portion of the disk, which causes it to wear out VERY quickly, though leaving the balance of the disk perfectly functional.
there might be a way to physically remove (with a soldering iron) the 192MB ram chip, and solder on a 288MB ram chip like those on the newer HTC phones.
I really want more RAM, but I also want a keyboard. and with Android, you can't have both right now
That would be an impressive waste of time and energy but kudos if you could manage that. Best bet would be to buy the Hero when it comes out and get a bluetooth keyboard.
SyXbiT said:
there might be a way to physically remove (with a soldering iron) the 192MB ram chip, and solder on a 288MB ram chip like those on the newer HTC phones.
I really want more RAM, but I also want a keyboard. and with Android, you can't have both right now
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
R3nrut said:
That would be an impressive waste of time and energy but kudos if you could manage that. Best bet would be to buy the Hero when it comes out and get a bluetooth keyboard.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Does hero even work on tmob 3g in the US? Looks like its geared for at&t.
I'd say replace the memory chip if you can and report back!
I would definitely try it (I'm an Electrical Engineer, and solder at work all the time)
But i'd rather buy a 288MB chip from somewhere, rather than rip it from a different device.
I don't wanna throw away money.
if someone knows a supplier for those chips let me know and I'll try it and post screenshots
The last 2 smartphones I have owned there has been a discussion on upgrading the memory with huge threads and a few people trying. The end result has always been it is by far cheaper to get a new phone in another year which will have a faster processor, more memory, more storage etc...
Sure it can be done but with how fast technology changes it probably isn't worth it.
So is HTC HERO worth buying for more RAM and speed??
Only if the HTC Magic also is, because they're exactly the same except for the shape of the plastic.
I wouldn't give up the keyboard.
lbcoder said:
Only if the HTC Magic also is, because they're exactly the same except for the shape of the plastic.
I wouldn't give up the keyboard.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the htc magic isn't exactly the same. Some htc magic models (like google ion and tmobile mytouch) only have 192megs of RAM.
My understanding is that apps are limitted to 16mb of ram anyway. The real problem is the data rate of the ram. Some have hinted that a class 6 sd card is just as fast at read/write as the phone's ram. So more ram in theory won't really help if it's still limmited by read/write rate speed. More internal memory would be nice but again won't make the phone any faster, just help with our 'out of room for apps issue'.
Perhaps on the hero motherboard buss speeds themselves are faster but I doubt there's much we could to speed up the dream :/ someone please correct me if I'm wrong tho..
You are probably confusing internal FLASH with RAM. A class 6 uSD card is NOWHERE NEAR the speed of the ram. The RAM is orders of magnitude faster.
sonikamd said:
My understanding is that apps are limitted to 16mb of ram anyway. The real problem is the data rate of the ram. Some have hinted that a class 6 sd card is just as fast at read/write as the phone's ram. So more ram in theory won't really help if it's still limmited by read/write rate speed. More internal memory would be nice but again won't make the phone any faster, just help with our 'out of room for apps issue'.
Perhaps on the hero motherboard buss speeds themselves are faster but I doubt there's much we could to speed up the dream :/ someone please correct me if I'm wrong tho..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Reminds me of the days when people soldered on extra RAM on the XBOX1 to increase performance when using XBOX Media Center!
I thought there was a technical manual out for the G1 somewhere that listed parts... Not just the service manual which showed you how to open the device for repair. Could be worth running a decent google search for the motherboard and parts and then find a supplier for the RAM if you're game in trying to solder more on.
Thanks to the flexibility of Android as well, I'm pretty sure it would be able to read and make use of the extra RAM too.
blackeyedbrian said:
Does hero even work on tmob 3g in the US? Looks like its geared for at&t.
I'd say replace the memory chip if you can and report back!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Last I heard it was going to Sprint instead possibly. I really hope it doesn't!
NeoBlade said:
Reminds me of the days when people soldered on extra RAM on the XBOX1 to increase performance when using XBOX Media Center!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
...this is exactly what I thought...
With the recent rumors of the g1 not supporting donut due to its lack of memory... this mod is number 1 on my list... I plan to do this soon... any one else?
SKTools tests:
Integer;325.4344;Moves/25 usec
Floating point;6.517;MWIPS
RAM access;459;Speed index
Draw bitmaps;570;Speed index
Main storage (write);1503.67;KB/sec
Main storage (read);5120.00;KB/sec
Storage Card (write); 260.04;KB/sec
Storage Card (read);7366.91;KB/sec
Tests Explained:
- Integer: Comparable to other MSM7201a devices and in SKTools listed as one of the fastest.
Only faster devices are Touch HD2 and Samsungs OmniaII, scoreing 813 and 530 respectivly, showing what we already knew, the new generation of ARM's is quite a bit faster.
- Floating Point: Okish with only new CPU's being much faster (HD2 is 5x faster in FPU operations.)
- RAM Access: REDICULOUSLY SLOW, but exactly the same as all other MSM7201a devices. But scoring just around old 200Mhz device speeds. There are PXA2xx based devices with a RAS from 4x that of what our MSM7201a's show to 20x that speed.
- Draw Bitmaps: Okish compared to other MSM devices, but way slower then Intel PXA's and even the HD2 is only 2ce as fast. (PXA's go up to 3x-4x as fast, Omnia 1 and Omnia 2 being nice examples.)
-Main Storage (Write): Here is where it gets interesting and clear something is funky as hell, either the HD has ****ty ROM chips or the interface in Windows Mobile is messed up. There are devices scoring from 2x to 10x the speed the HD does and some of them (notably the Diamond and Sony X1i which are MSM72xx devices) are 10x faster.
-Main Storage (Read): Same as with Write, slow as ****, the Diamond scores 3x the Diamond, same for X1i, with the HD2 surprisingly being able to read its internal storage at 64MB/s! Our HD's around 5MB/s, pitifull, even a Class 2 SD reads 2ce that easily.
- Storage Card (write): I ran this test a billion times and found the score going from 50KB/s to 500KB/s but never higher. There is a serious problem here, I use class 6 SDHC's of several sizes and all of them score very low. The SD interface is slow as hell which I'm certain is a software / driver problem, because I've tested some drivers from other devices, which worked mindbendingly fast.
As you can see, Ram, Internal Storage and SD speed are all lacking extremely.
Compared to other devices (notably, even the Diamond) its quite ridiculous how slow the HD's internal storage really is.
I propose taking a new approach to speeding things up, most other projects so far have been about tweaking graphics drivers, to offload graphics to more optimized routines, streamlining roms, etc etc.
I propose we start looking for ways to get Ram, Internal storage and SD storage speeds up to par with other devices. That is, if its not all limited to hell by substandard hardware. Which would piss me of even more, since the HD is the most expensive phone HTC had at the time and way cheaper devices like the Diamond score much much better.
A few weeks ago, I tested a driver for the SD Interface in Windows Mobile and overal, read and write for the SD were boosted to phenomenal levels, Class 6 cards were actually worth using (while the above results show a class 2 card doesn't even get used right)
Problem was that after a while I was experiencing data corruption on the SD card, mostly after syncing the phone with Outlook to my Exchange account and getting several thousands of small files on there.
I cleaned the card and did the sync again and the same corruption happend.
My tests with big files (MP3's and AVI's) showed no corruption.
So, I'm at least sure that SD speed can be improved quite seriously. And seeing there are devices like the Diamond, which have a lot of the same hardware the HD does, internal storage should be possible to be boosted quite a bit too.
RAM is weird and I don't really see how it can be so bad because of software alone. Did HTC really set us up with ****ty ram chips there? I don't know.
So yeah, anyone with me to explore the storage area to improve the HD's speed?
I'm wondering whether there's a way to test the internal NAND speed, then we can compare and balance whether to use extend SD card.
I have a Sandisk Class4 !6G microsd which has 19M/16M read and write, but if the NAND still much faster than this card, im considering to use internal storage only(less mp3 and game instead), its hard to balance.
Sorry to re-awaken an old thread, but since you've had no reply: I had the same question, and found an app in the Market called "Android Hacker's System Tool" that includes a storage speed test (among many other things).
On my Motorola Droid1 running MIUI (not o/c'ed currently), I was shocked to see NAND speeds of only 1.9 MB/s read and 0.21 MB/s write. The OEM 16gb SD card showed a bit over 2 MB/s for both read and write... at least symmetrical, but still very slow. No wonder apps on the SD card seem just as quick as those in NAND!
Any thoughts as to why IO is this poor overall, and why NAND write in particular is so pathetic? The phone feels very smooth right now.
Why do you post questions about your Droid in a Windows Phone forum? Samsung Focus is Windows Phone 7. There is nothing in common with your Droid.
rvonder, interest numbers, thanks for the post. I'm a little surprised at the low numbers as well. Especially the writes. Hopefully we will have a test app for WP7 soon.
Just going by deduction from here. If the phone feels snappy even with those numbers, isn't it safe to assume it doesn't matter ?
rvonder said:
Sorry to re-awaken an old thread, but since you've had no reply: I had the same question, and found an app in the Market called "Android Hacker's System Tool" that includes a storage speed test (among many other things).
On my Motorola Droid1 running MIUI (not o/c'ed currently), I was shocked to see NAND speeds of only 1.9 MB/s read and 0.21 MB/s write. The OEM 16gb SD card showed a bit over 2 MB/s for both read and write... at least symmetrical, but still very slow. No wonder apps on the SD card seem just as quick as those in NAND!
Any thoughts as to why IO is this poor overall, and why NAND write in particular is so pathetic? The phone feels very smooth right now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
foxbat121 said:
Why do you post questions about your Droid in a Windows Phone forum? Samsung Focus is Windows Phone 7. There is nothing in common with your Droid.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
rather than waste anybody's time, please read the question first next time, it has nothing to do specificaly with android but rather about the use of external memory card considering the Focus uses built-in NAND memory that might be much faster than the external memory (or not). Since Windows 7 phone "merges" both memory, it would most likely be at the speed of the slowes of both...
thegarmac said:
rather than waste anybody's time, please read the question first next time, it has nothing to do specificaly with android but rather about the use of external memory card considering the Focus uses built-in NAND memory that might be much faster than the external memory (or not). Since Windows 7 phone "merges" both memory, it would most likely be at the speed of the slowes of both...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you read his question? He was asking why his Droid phone SD card IO is so slow. First of all the Android app in question does something really stupid. Last time I checked, it gives out really low IO score on my Captivate as well. So, I'd say it is the app that's not really designed well, or could be Android OS doesn't offer a good API for testing the SD performance. None of these are related to how WP7 works. As you mentioned above, WP7 treats memory differently and no one knows exactly how SD performance affects entire system (we knew that most 'faster' SD cards don't work). And we don't have any app to test native IO speeds of the combined memory. So, this is really comparing apples to oranges.
To All,
I did a bit of testing on Micro SD cards All claimed they were class 10 in other words they should (as claimed by the manufacturers) to read and write 10 mb per sec
The Reality is the only one that really hit that mark was the Wintec which also was cheap)
I used two of the sd card testers from the app store. One called sd card tester the other was ssd card tester (one was free one cost a buck)
I did the tests using various buffer size (2, 4 and 8 mb) did it 3 times and averaged. This is not scientific but it did show that there is alot of misrepresentation going on...........
The findings are as follows
Wintec averaged 9.3 write and 12.5 down
Patriot 7.8 write and 10 read
king max 7mb write and 8.2 read
Kingston 6 write and 8 read (what a dog)
None could really reach the 10 write threshold consistently. So, basically what I would recommend is read up and do your research and watch out for false review claims from the manufacturers.
I am now using the Wintec 16 gig and it does improve the response of the phone when writing or reading from the sd card. But this nothing compared to the awesome custom roms found in our dev forum. There is where the speed resides
It was fun doing this hope this helps some .........
That is weird because I have the Kingston 16gb Class 10 microsd card and I transferred my avatar movie at 11-12mb/s.
I found out that if you format the card through the phone, the speeds are slow. But if you format the card through windows, that card is fast.
mdkxtreme said:
That is weird because I have the Kingston 16gb Class 10 microsd card and I transferred my avatar movie at 11-12mb/s.
I found out that if you format the card through the phone, the speeds are slow. But if you format the card through windows, that card is fast.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
probably a file system difference. formatting in windows will make it ntfs, formatting on the phone will format it to...? rfs? fat32?
No I didn't format it in NTFS. I formatted to FAT32.
Ntfs has better perdormance than fat, anyways, so I dunno what he means by that.
Its cause the cards are low qual. Kingstons inclided. There was a huge article by someone on the internet about them (not directly the speeds, though).
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
N8ter said:
Ntfs has better perdormance than fat, anyways, so I dunno what he means by that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that was my point, that if you formatted it ntfs in windows it would perform better than the phone's formatting (which is probably fat32). but looking into it, i don't think android supports ntfs.
Like I said guys, I formatted in FAT32 and it outperformed the phone's formatting scheme. I didn't know I could format it in NTFS because I didn't know if it would work or not so I formatted in FAT32
yea NTFS wont work on android
Formatting on the phone is standard fat is all it recognizes it is possible if you are on 4ext instead of 2e (stock like my phone) then you could get better speeds. The problem as one of you stated is the low quality control, all these cards rarely get the stated speeds.
Yea, I made my initial statement knowing it didn't support NTFS.
But the other person gave me the idea that he thought NTFS would give lower performance than FAT32.
And yes, even Kingston's expensive cards are in many cases low quality cards, Sandisk as well.
That is why most knowledgeable users prefer a hefty amount of NAND storage in the phone as well as an SD slot just in case we need a bit more storage (and that's part of the reason the Galaxy S is so popular as well... No other Android phone has this much in-built storage).
N8ter said:
Yea, I made my initial statement knowing it didn't support NTFS.
But the other person gave me the idea that he thought NTFS would give lower performance than FAT32.
And yes, even Kingston's expensive cards are in many cases low quality cards, Sandisk as well.
That is why most knowledgeable users prefer a hefty amount of NAND storage in the phone as well as an SD slot just in case we need a bit more storage (and that's part of the reason the Galaxy S is so popular as well... No other Android phone has this much in-built storage).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well put that is one of the reasons why I like this phone so many things are well thought out and yes san disk is real junk I never use them on my nikon they write way slow......
N8ter said:
Ntfs has better perdormance than fat, anyways, so I dunno what he means by that.
Its cause the cards are low qual. Kingstons inclided. There was a huge article by someone on the internet about them (not directly the speeds, though).
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/information/usb-flash-drive-comparison-part-2-fat32-vs-ntfs-vs-exfat/
I terms of speed NTFS came in last.
Hey OP, thanks for the test though. Because of this I am returning my Kingston for the Wintec since it's 50 dollars cheaper. Not countering or complaining about this thread, it's just I think most people get different results when it comes to SD cards. I actually thought about it and don't even need that high of a speed for external microsd because my nand is fast enough. Thus the reason why I want the lower pricing. Thanks again for the results.
t1n0m3n said:
http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/information/usb-flash-drive-comparison-part-2-fat32-vs-ntfs-vs-exfat/
I terms of speed NTFS came in last.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's almost a 2 year old article, and it's hardly scientific.
It fails to mention a bunch of factors that affect the performance of NTFS, and doesn't really optimize the other filesystems for the media.
FAT32 is a simple file system with no security, encryption, and recoverability. FAT scaled up for larger volume sizes, basically. (using Fat32 is the reason why Android cannot encrypt SD cards).
NTFS performace scales up (i.e. gets better) the larger the volume gets. FAT32 performance scales down (i.e. gets worse) the larger the volume gets. Typically above 8GB it's better to use NTFS, if you can. The largest size in that article is 8GB and the disks weren't used in a way to really show how the filesystems perform in common scenarios (i.e. searching for files on a disk with lots of files that's 75% full, where NTFS would best FAT easily).
Testing NTFS vs. FAT32 on a bunch of 4GB and 8GB memory sticks proves nothing.
It's not January 2009 anymore. Lots of people have 32 GB+ memory cards/thumb drives and FAT32 performance simply does not scale up at all to those volume levels (not to mention it doesn't support volumes over 32GB without a modified version) compared to NTFS, which gain in performance as the volume size grows larger.
In addition to that, formatting as FAT32 wastes lots of space compared to NTFS. It has HUGE cluster sizes on large volumes (i.e. 16-32GB microSD cards).
exFAT is a pretty good middle road between the two, but NTFS will probably outperform it on large volumes. Its performance is more consistent than FAT32, though.
SD and Thumb drive filesystems corrupt more when formatted as FAT, compared to NTFS, as well.
That article you linked is useless.
N8ter said:
That article you linked is useless.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Since the file systems are older than the article, I don't see how that article doesn't apply.
You are are welcome to link your own test. Give more proof than your word. (Because I, for one, do not believe you.) In terms of raw speed, in our phone, on an SD card (with it's size limitations) ... Give more proof. The other factors are irrelevant to this discussion IMO, due to the discussion being about performance (I infer "performance" to mean "speed" due to the discussion about SD card speed.) Although they are admittedly important, I think you are just trying to use them as a point of obfuscation to try to worm your way out the erroneous statement:
N8ter said:
Ntfs has better perdormance than fat...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A link to a test performed would do nicely.
I picked up Patriot 8gb class 10 from frys yesterday. I haven't done any tests but the card is significantly faster than stock 2gb card. When i started transferring my files to new card, i thought i copied them to wrong location cause it was going so fast.
I'll run few tests and post results.
mrxela said:
I picked up Patriot 8gb class 10 from frys yesterday. I haven't done any tests but the card is significantly faster than stock 2gb card. When i started transferring my files to new card, i thought i copied them to wrong location cause it was going so fast.
I'll run few tests and post results.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would be very interested in seeing these results, I have yet to see a card faster than a SanDisk Class 6 8GB. However, I would like to start seeing some Class 10 16GB cards that step up to compete with the SanDisk in terms of raw speed.
t1n0m3n said:
Since the file systems are older than the article, I don't see how that article doesn't apply.
You are are welcome to link your own test. Give more proof than your word. (Because I, for one, do not believe you.) In terms of raw speed, in our phone, on an SD card (with it's size limitations) ... Give more proof. The other factors are irrelevant to this discussion IMO, due to the discussion being about performance (I infer "performance" to mean "speed" due to the discussion about SD card speed.) Although they are admittedly important, I think you are just trying to use them as a point of obfuscation to try to worm your way out the erroneous statement:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Anyone with any knowledge about filesystems knows that FAT32 performance degrades when the size of the volume increases. That is why FAT32 has a maximum volume size of 32GB (without workarounds) and even a low maximum file threshold on the volume. It can also hold a low maximum number of files on the volume, because a FAT32 volume with as much files as NTFS supports would probably crash and burn.
When you a volume with a lot of files on it, NTFS will outperform FAT.
If that wasn't the case, Microsoft would have simply added the security and fault tolerate features (among other things) on top of FAT instead of developing NTFS for Windows NT.
FAT lived long because:
1. It's simple to implement, which makes it a great system for inter-OS compatibility.
2. Consumer disk sizes did not grow at a rate proportional to server storage sizes during the reign of pre-NT consumer Winodws OS.
3. Reliability and Security on consumer OSes (including Macs and PCs) simply wasn't taken all that seriously back in the day.
4. Hardly anyone with a PC had a volumes with a ridiculous amount of files on them.
Performance is more than just raw speed. NTFS is faster at searching for files on large volumes than FAT32 - why do you think Media scanner takes forever when you have tons of files on the SD card? It stores small files in the MFT if they can fit there, which makes accessing them monumentally faster than FAT, etc.
The robustness of a filesystem is a component of its performance.
Look at any HD2 thread and one thing you always see is "make sure to format your SD card before installing Android to it, to avoid constant FC's."
The only three advantages over NTFS that FAT32 has is that it is very fast on small volumes (and by volume I mean Capacity as well as the amount of data on the disk), it's relatively cross platform, and it doesn't fragment as much, due to larger cluster sizes (but fragmentation is not much of an issue on flash disks, unless they have very bad random I/O performance).
No links to back you up... Most of what you are talking about doesn't apply in context of this thread. Were this a thread about a pc you would have some valid points.
I am done.
Eat at Joe's
I'm not talking about a PC. I'm talking about storage cards. Load up a 32 GB card with 20GB of music and Albulm Art/Meta Data, Documents, etc. and then compare the FS performance.
I'm sorry you have no idea what you're talking about, that you want me to scour the internet to "back up" something any decent developer/IT professional can agree with.
LOL @ Troll. Were you not the one who responded with a one liner of inconsequential info in an article from almost 2 years ago (Microsoft improved NTFS. NTFS in Win7 isn't the same as NTFS in Windows XP, 2000, or NT 3.1).
At least you got fed.
Like I said, that article you linked is not a "test" in any serious use of the word. I'm not going buy SD cards/thumbdrives to do any sort of test, and I'm certainly not Googling for you. If you want to verify, you can do that yourself. Ad hominems, do not help your point.
Ciao!