Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

OSX Extended (Journaled) Drives /w Windows 7

R

Ryan Lightbourn

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2012
Messages
310
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Orlando, FL
Long time OSX user here, about to build my second Hackintosh, but in the chance it performs better in Windows 7 I may hot swap frequently between OSX & Windows.

My question is this:

Will my OSX Extended (Journaled) drives perform the same in Windows using MacDrive as they do in OSX, or will they take a performance hit?

Thanks in advance!
 
Thanks for the info. I'll probably cut my 4k captures in Windows & 2k/1080p in OSX. I have a 6 Gbps HDD hot swap mount on top of my case, which makes the transition between Mac/PC nice & easy.

Would it makes sense to format my future drives in something like ExFat to make them cross compatible? Sorry for my naivety, I've always cut on Macs & used OSX Extended.
 
Ryan Lightbourn said:
Thanks for the info. I'll probably cut my 4k captures in Windows & 2k/1080p in OSX. I have a 6 Gbps HDD hot swap mount on top of my case, which makes the transition between Mac/PC nice & easy.

Would it makes sense to format my future drives in something like ExFat to make them cross compatible? Sorry for my naivety, I've always cut on Macs & used OSX Extended.
Click to expand...

No, do not use ExFat. I believe it's limited to 2GB per file.
 
jake blackstone said:
No, do not use ExFat. I believe it's limited to 2GB per file.
Click to expand...
This is not correct. FAT32 is limited to 4GB per file, however exFAT is not feasibly limited (16EB per file). I would however, do some research before implementing exFAT in a data-critical environment. Jeff and others here have offered their opinions in various threads.

I personally use exFAT on my 2TB storage drive on my dual-boot (Win7/ML) machine. For the most part, it works well. Occasionally OSX and Windows don't agree on something, and I have to error check/repair disk. It also occasionally doesn't immediately show up in OSX, and I have to manually mount it in Disk Manager. Small annoyances for me and my personal use, but potentially a bigger problem for a professional workstation.
 
Kevin Marshall said:
I personally use exFAT on my 2TB storage drive on my dual-boot (Win7/ML) machine. For the most part, it works well. Occasionally OSX and Windows don't agree on something, and I have to error check/repair disk. It also occasionally doesn't immediately show up in OSX, and I have to manually mount it in Disk Manager. Small annoyances for me and my personal use, but potentially a bigger problem for a professional workstation.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks for the info...I'll hot swap between an OSX Journaled Mavericks SSD & an NTFS Windows 7 SSD.

I'll use ExFat for my "assets" drive, which is the only drive that will be used by both operating systems (it's loaded up with stock footage libraries, compositing assets, stock audio sounds, software downloads, etc.).
 
Kevin Marshall said:
This is not correct. FAT32 is limited to 4GB per file, however exFAT is not feasibly limited (16EB per file). I would however, do some research before implementing exFAT in a data-critical environment. Jeff and others here have offered their opinions in various threads.

I personally use exFAT on my 2TB storage drive on my dual-boot (Win7/ML) machine. For the most part, it works well. Occasionally OSX and Windows don't agree on something, and I have to error check/repair disk. It also occasionally doesn't immediately show up in OSX, and I have to manually mount it in Disk Manager. Small annoyances for me and my personal use, but potentially a bigger problem for a professional workstation.
Click to expand...

Well, ask said, "I believe" not "it is":-)
Anyway, I would still stay away from any FAT type of file. NTFS and HFS+ are both proven in mission critical situations, supported by commercial software manufacturers. FAT is not supported by Linux, but that may be a moot point. Also, FAT file structure drives are very easily fragmented, which for video use is very important. So, rather than jumping right in and choosing the seemingly easiest solution, it may be prudent to do some research and testing.
 
HFS+ performs better ie better drive bandwidth but NTFS is more robust to endure data corruption. Those are the 2 main considerations when deciding which is best for your situation.
 
jake blackstone said:
Well, ask said, "I believe" not "it is":-)
Anyway, I would still stay away from any FAT type of file. NTFS and HFS+ are both proven in mission critical situations, supported by commercial software manufacturers. FAT is not supported by Linux, but that may be a moot point. Also, FAT file structure drives are very easily fragmented, which for video use is very important. So, rather than jumping right in and choosing the seemingly easiest solution, it may be prudent to do some research and testing.
Click to expand...

Bear in mind that redmags themselves are FAT32.

-n
 
FAT32 is pretty good, but that 4GB file limit is the main reason that you don't see it more often.

exFAT has caused some bugginess, but I personally haven't had any of it. Typically, when a client has to have a drive that goes between Windows and OSX, I advise exFAT. However, the kinds of clients that are asking me such a thing are a bit on the . . . lower tech-end of the spectrum. Having to use something like Paragon or the like would typically be beyond them. I advise the use of exFAT because it is the quickest way to give them a short answer that should work for their purposes.

That is not the same as being the best, most rock solid way to store, read, write, and use video files. In other words, I consider exFAT, in it's current utilization, to be sort of "prosumer" level tech. Maybe a little above.
 
We've done this for many years and have found going with HFS+ best using Mac Drive 7 on windows to access those drives. Paragon and a couple other options started corrupting drives a couple years ago. Also the combination of Disk Warrior recovering HFS+ drives is an unbeatable combo…will recover anything but a crashed platter o_0

Regarding speed, I think you'll get close to max speed with this suggestion…

PCG
 
Thanks for the advice everyone!

PC Greene said:
We've done this for many years and have found going with HFS+ best using Mac Drive 7 on windows to access those drives. Paragon and a couple other options started corrupting drives a couple years ago. Also the combination of Disk Warrior recovering HFS+ drives is an unbeatable combo…will recover anything but a crashed platter o_0

Regarding speed, I think you'll get close to max speed with this suggestion…

PCG
Click to expand...

Good to know. This is actually what I've been doing for the past couple of days (Mac Drive) aside from one shared ExFat drive which is loaded with compositing assets, stock sounds & stock footage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top