1) "FAT" is basically a synonym for FAT12, FAT16, FAT32 ... for the drive you linked
(which is a 500GB device) FAT12 or FAT16 are simply not sufficient to address all
the space on the device, therefore, FAT32 is needed. If you format the drive with
FAT, the formatter will (likely) select FAT32 implicitely.
2) Yes, FAT(32) will work without a problem in Win7, as it did in WinXP ... but
there are restrictions (for both XP and Win7) which are due to FAT itself:
No files larger than 2GB (eventually a restriction with videofiles). No
priviledges as there are in NTFS.
3) Tiff supports various internal representations for images. One of the
very basic things that Tiff does, is to allow Intel- and Motorola- bygteordering
to be used (you will notice this in the fileheader of the Tiff file ... "MM" or "II"
are the first 2 bytes). So, a file from a Mac might (depending on the processor
used) use Motorola byteordering, whereas one from Windows will use Intel-
byteordering ... however, a program understanding the Tif-Fileformat is required
to handle both ... so you will not notice any difference due to this.
Rainer
(which is a 500GB device) FAT12 or FAT16 are simply not sufficient to address all
the space on the device, therefore, FAT32 is needed. If you format the drive with
FAT, the formatter will (likely) select FAT32 implicitely.
2) Yes, FAT(32) will work without a problem in Win7, as it did in WinXP ... but
there are restrictions (for both XP and Win7) which are due to FAT itself:
No files larger than 2GB (eventually a restriction with videofiles). No
priviledges as there are in NTFS.
3) Tiff supports various internal representations for images. One of the
very basic things that Tiff does, is to allow Intel- and Motorola- bygteordering
to be used (you will notice this in the fileheader of the Tiff file ... "MM" or "II"
are the first 2 bytes). So, a file from a Mac might (depending on the processor
used) use Motorola byteordering, whereas one from Windows will use Intel-
byteordering ... however, a program understanding the Tif-Fileformat is required
to handle both ... so you will not notice any difference due to this.
Rainer