by chickeneps » Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:03 pm
Thanks for the correction, I think you are right (137GB).
The FAT format isn't exactly FAT32 although it's close. They call it EOS FAT. It really was a bad idea to be non-standard with it.
They strongly recommend not hooking it up to a computer, but wasn't that mostly the point???
At least the naming convention was built to be numerically viable with the old EMu format, since FAT doesn't have the concept of numbered files.
It's not that bug a deal, but one major incompatibility is that if you have Banks that have non-standard DOS names they aren't saveable unless you change the Bank name. There was a way around this - simply make the Bank name internal to the Bank and have the file name be something entirely different.
But now I'm rambling...