iMac's Mac OS X Snow Leopard supports ExFAT

[Hendrick]

Yeah same for me on my Macbook Pro 2009, with 10.6.5 (beta) exfat is there!

Yay! Same computer I have, but not in 10.6.4

At this point is seems as if it's unique to the 27-inch iMac as some 21,5-inch iMac owners have claimed on another forum that they don't have it. Also you can format any drive as exFAT. Be it a SDHD card, USB-key, internal or external HDD.

MacBook Pro's have an SD Slot too.

[.Neo]

People confirmed to me that their 21,5-inch iMacs have exFAT support too, yet some don't. At this point I believe only very recently shipped iMacs support it.

[Xtreme $niper]

I just popped a usb drive into my 2010 MacBook Pro i7 with all the latest OS updates, went to Disk Utility, and there was no ExFAT. Just FAT.

[.Neo]

Yea, it seems to be limited to the 2010 iMac and Mac Pro, and even then only the ones that shipped very recently.

[AltecXP]

I have to say that is something I HATE about Apple, they have so many random KIND OF updated versions of OS X that only come out with specific hardware. LIke when they started to com out with the new Power settings and tracpad settings, they showed up on new hardware first then later in a service update.

[+Warwagon MVC]

Now if only the ps3 would support this.

[.Neo]

I have to say that is something I HATE about Apple, they have so many random KIND OF updated versions of OS X that only come out with specific hardware. LIke when they started to com out with the new Power settings and tracpad settings, they showed up on new hardware first then later in a service update.

Obviously a new iMac needs a special v10.6.4 build. If I slam in a retail disc that's older I will end up with a Kernel Panic because it lacks the necessary drivers for this hardware. Things like that are corrected with the next service update as well. Simple as that.

Things that are ready will sometimes make it early into the Mac OS X build that ships with new hardware. Logical, because it helps them sell new hardware.

The exFAT thing is weird though. I agree on that.

[Xtreme $niper]

Now if only the ps3 would support this.

Ding ding ding ding ding. We have a winner. Until more consumer and multimedia devices support this format, it's useless to me. The only reason why I ever transfer things over a FAT32 format is because I'm trying to move it to a non-networked computer or gaming console. If it's another computer, network transfer is not only faster, but it doesn't have file size restrictions.

[rajputwarrior]

Now if only the ps3 would support this.

exactly. ps3 got this it would be awesome. tested this on my mid 2010 macbook, exfat isn't there.

[divinatum]

Now if only the ps3 would support this.

Xbox as well.

[Southern Patriot]

I have to say that is something I HATE about Apple, they have so many random KIND OF updated versions of OS X that only come out with specific hardware. LIke when they started to com out with the new Power settings and tracpad settings, they showed up on new hardware first then later in a service update.

Most of the time, there is a logical reason for it (such as the new hardware requiring support from the software to work) and they really don't do it all that often.

[Corris Veteran]

Ding ding ding ding ding. We have a winner. Until more consumer and multimedia devices support this format, it's useless to me. The only reason why I ever transfer things over a FAT32 format is because I'm trying to move it to a non-networked computer or gaming console. If it's another computer, network transfer is not only faster, but it doesn't have file size restrictions.

Same situation here, would be great to use but if only my computers can use it at this point it is mostly useless to me.

Still, there's always the future and updates can do magical things, lol.

[rawr_boy81]

Obviously a new iMac needs a special v10.6.4 build. If I slam in a retail disc that's older I will end up with a Kernel Panic because it lacks the necessary drivers for this hardware. Things like that are corrected with the next service update as well. Simple as that.

Things that are ready will sometimes make it early into the Mac OS X build that ships with new hardware. Logical, because it helps them sell new hardware.

The exFAT thing is weird though. I agree on that.

It would be part of the SDHC/etc standard - IIRC they standardised on exFAT as the 'official' file system for the specification hence Apple had to add it before people it gained market share or otherwise you would end up having a situation of customers with hardware unsupported and Apple having to play catch up. I wonder how much it costed Apple in terms of licensing it off Microsoft - whether they already have an established cross IP agreement between the two.

[.Neo]

I wonder how much it costed Apple in terms of licensing it off Microsoft - whether they already have an established cross IP agreement between the two.

From what I understand exFAT has to be licensed from Microsoft. On the other hand it could be in Microsoft's best interest to get Apple on board to push the format. I just think its weird only a select portion of Macs support it, instead of just pushing it through all at once with v10.6.5.

It would be part of the SDHC/etc standard - IIRC they standardised on exFAT as the 'official' file system for the specification

I don't think so. At least not actively. I recently bought two SDXC/HC cards and they both came formatted as FAT32.

[rawr_boy81]

From what I understand exFAT has to be licensed from Microsoft. On the other hand it could be in Microsoft's best interest to get Apple on board to push the format. I just think its weird only a select portion of Macs support it, instead of just pushing it through all at once with v10.6.5.

They will push it all at once with 10.6.5 - the included it as part of the gradual role out and probably thought it would be best to get it out on the latest generation of Mac's then eventually push it out to all with 10.6.5 - that is no different than Sun with Solaris and hardware supporting only being merged in the next quarterly release.

I don't think so. At least not actively. I recently bought two SDXC/HC cards and they both came formatted as FAT32.

Sorry, I should have said the next generation; there was a big commotion over exFAT being the official file system for future cards that are big but they'll still come pre-formatted in many cases with FAT32.

[.Neo]

They will push it all at once with 10.6.5 - the included it as part of the gradual role out and probably thought it would be best to get it out on the latest generation of Mac's then eventually push it out to all with 10.6.5

Except for the fact not ALL 2010 iMacs ship with it. Some do, some don't. Whether its a 21,5 or 27-inch model doesn't matter. Which is weird.

[.Neo]

Same situation here, would be great to use but if only my computers can use it at this point it is mostly useless to me.

Still, there's always the future and updates can do magical things, lol.

I think you should see this more as a blessing for people that need to share files between Mac OS X and Windows.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

There are different versions of the SD card standard, the latest version mandates exFAT. but the old versions said plain FAT.

So you'll find most cards use the older standard, even if they're brand new.

[AltecXP]

Obviously a new iMac needs a special v10.6.4 build. If I slam in a retail disc that's older I will end up with a Kernel Panic because it lacks the necessary drivers for this hardware. Things like that are corrected with the next service update as well. Simple as that.

Things that are ready will sometimes make it early into the Mac OS X build that ships with new hardware. Logical, because it helps them sell new hardware.

The exFAT thing is weird though. I agree on that.

Really? because I've NEVER seen Microsoft have this problem. All they have to in include the different DRIVERS not a different version of OS X that still has the same version number. You don't see Microsoft including DVD's of Windows 7 thats really almost SP1 on it until SP1 is officially released. There is a difference in including updates, and including OS changes that are not available to everyone else. I have a feeling this is another one of Job's dumb decisions, that no one wanted to say 'no' on.

Apple was never great because of Jobs, it was because of it's community, and more often Jobs likes to ignore what made his company great. It just ****es me off that people think that it was HIM that made it great. Was he good at design? sure, but there are a few stories where he tried to stick his nose in Engineering an it didn't go wo well. Apple only survived until 96 because of its uses, and he doesn't care about them. In many ways I feel that NextSTEP really took over Apple and rebranded as Apple, not that Apple bought NextSTEP. I dont really feel like the heart of Apple is really there anymore. they aren't the lovable underdog anymore In a few markets they are even they are the evil over lords. Microsoft isn't the enemy any more. It's Google, and Facebook, and free email/bookmark syncing/storage sites. Google doesn't even see Apple as "the enemy" they are more scared of Bing... not Microsoft, just the Bing team. More and more I'm started to become disenchanted by Apple when I look around and see cheaper and faster machines, Web services that are Free instead of $99/yr, phones that allow the developer to make anything they want only for the cost of their time, media devices that have better audio quality and cost less. I'm starting to feel that Apple is ONLY out for how to milk the user base for more money, and for years has not been about the user experience at all.

[.Neo]

Really? because I've NEVER seen Microsoft have this problem. All they have to in include the different DRIVERS not a different version of OS X that still has the same version number. (...) There is a difference in including updates, and including OS changes that are not available to everyone else. I have a feeling this is another one of Job's dumb decisions, that no one wanted to say 'no' on.

That's what Apple does as well. They take a vanilla Mac OS X v10.6.4 copy in today's case and add extra drivers and perhaps some other software needed to support all of the hardware's new features. Who cares if they slightly bump the build number in order to differentiate? You sure as hell won't notice during daily usage. If software package X or hardware Y had minimal system requirements like Mac OS X Snow Leopard version 10.6.4 build 10F2090 I would agree something is wrong with their system. However, that's not the case.

Big difference with Microsoft is that Apple wants its users to have a installation environment that fully supports everything, rather than having an installer using 16 bit colors and a 800 x 600 res on a 27-inch screen. Another difference is that Apple gives its user a seamless experience between hardware and software. So rather than installing Mac OS X first using a crappy installer and installing the hardware-specific drivers afterwards using a separate disc or partition (the Windows way), all of the necessary drivers and software for your machine are installed at the same time as the operating system (the Mac way). The latter requires Apple to ship out Mac-specific Mac OS X Install DVDs when new hardware is released before a service update.

Personally I prefer the Apple way of doing things. If you don't, simply use Windows or Linux.

You don't see Microsoft including DVD's of Windows 7 thats really almost SP1 on it until SP1 is officially released.

I wish they would... None of my Macs take nearly as long to download and install updates after reinstalling Mac OS X as they do after reinstalling Windows 7.

Like others and I said before, everything will corrected during the v10.6.5 update so I have absolutely no idea what you're getting so upset over. Unlike a Microsoft Service Pack an Apple service update is never that far away...

I'm starting to feel that Apple is ONLY out for how to milk the user base for more money, and for years has not been about the user experience at all.

You act as if you're forced to buy services like MobileMe from Apple. Problem I see with some people here (I'm not saying that's you per se) is that they want something but can afford it. So instead they just complain about how insanely expensive it is.

[Xtreme $niper]

We're making a huge assumption here. Who says that the iMacs have a "special" version of OS X? It's very likely that every OS X installation has the same drivers, but some are only triggered or initialized when certain hardware specifications are detected.

[.Neo]

We're making a huge assumption here. Who says that the iMacs have a "special" version of OS X? It's very likely that every OS X installation has the same drivers, but some are only triggered or initialized when certain hardware specifications are detected.

That's not the case. The Mac OS X Install DVDs (retail) are still at v10.6.3. Apple doesn't update them after every service update. Next to that the iMac and Mac Pro are the latest Macs, which were released long after 10.6.4 so that requires Apple to ship updated versions with new drivers. You can check it yourself: What's the build number of your 10.6.4 installation on your MacBook Pro?

It's very likely my Mac OS X version includes the drivers for your MacBook Pro as well. However, your MacBook Pro doesn't include the drivers for my iMac. At least not until v10.6.5 is released.

[Xtreme $niper]

That's not the case. The Mac OS X Install DVDs (retail) are still at v10.6.3. Apple doesn't update them after every service update. Next to that the iMac and Mac Pro are the latest Macs, which were released long after 10.6.4 so that requires Apple to ship updated versions with new drivers. You can check it yourself: What's the build number of your 10.6.4 installation on your MacBook Pro?

The build is 10F569.

It's very likely my Mac OS X version includes the drivers for your MacBook Pro as well. However, your MacBook Pro doesn't include the drivers for my iMac. At least not until v10.6.5 is released.

Right, that's pretty much what I was trying to say anyway. Newer hardware released in the same "release cycle" of OS X will invariably have drivers that older models did not ship with, but that new release will have all the older model's drivers plus the new ones.

At least that's what I think, anyway. So yeah, if you try to use my MacBook Pro's OS disk on your iMac, it probably won't work. I have no idea if it would raise any flags and stop you if you try, though.

And I somehow doubt that all the OS X release disks sold at retail are still 10.6.3. I think that would only be the case until the existing stock is depleted. I can't imagine many people buy retail OS X disks since most Mac users just upgrade to a new machine every few years anyway.

[.Neo]

If I put a retail Mac OS X Snow Leopard disc or your MacBook Pro's Install DVD into my iMac and try to boot from it I'll end up with a Kernel Panic, simply because the drivers aren't there.

And I somehow doubt that all the OS X release disks sold at retail are still 10.6.3. I think that would only be the case until the existing stock is depleted. I can't imagine many people buy retail OS X disks since most Mac users just upgrade to a new machine every few years anyway.

You can doubt it all you want but that doesn't make it less true. Apple never updated the retail discs with every single service update. Just look back at Tiger's and Leopard's history: Leopard retail discs only shipped as v10.5, v10.5.1, v10.5.4 and v10.5.6 (Mac Box Set). There are no v10.6.1 and v10.6.2 retail discs either.

And obviously Apple takes into account how many DVDs they expect to sell to prevent stockpiling.

The build is 10F569.

Well there you have it, my iMac ships with:

[divinatum]

Nobody's asked it. So, how about someone post a copy of the kext? :D