Tag Archives: windows

UDF (a FAT32 replacement) Part 3

I tested UDF and exFAT over a fairly wide range of non-computer devices, and none of the devices could read or write to it. If you need something that will work with non-computers, stick to FAT32. If you just need interoperability between computers (but don’t need to boot from the drive), switch over to UDF.

I UDF and exFAT did not work with:

I plan on testing UDF and exFAT with a few phones and will update this post when I do.

UDF (a FAT32 replacement) Part 2

Comparison of cross platform filesystems for flash memory and/or external hard drives.

The Universal Disk Format (UDF) is maintained by Optical Storage Technology Association while FAT32 and exFAT are maintained by Microsoft.

FAT32’s primary limitation is its 4GB file size limit. Microsoft also recommends limiting Volumes formatted in FAT32 to be limited to 32 GB, although many implementations support larger volumes.

Microsoft created exFAT to get around the limitations of FAT32 relating to file and volume size limitations.

Overall, exFAT and UDF appear to be very comparable. They both support Unicode filenames and long filenames.
UDF supports a journaling and ECC (Error Correction Codes). The MacOS format utility provides an option for specifying the number of blocks to use for ECC. I assumed that this option was some type of ratio, but when I changed the number from 1 to 2, my formatted drive had exactly one block less space available. UDF “journaling” features are designed around optical media, so it is unclear if flash and hard drive implementations of UDF use the Logical Volume Integrity Descriptors.

Overall, FAT32 has the best compatibility. It is supported by nearly every device from phones, to cameras, to picture frames.

If you are only concerned with accessing your data from a computer, UDF is probably the file system to pick since Linux’s support for exFAT is not 100%.

Next I’m going to explore the compatibility of UDF and exFAT in other devices.

References

  1. UDF Spec – http://www.osta.org/specs/pdf/udf260.pdf
  2. FAT32 Spec – http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/gg463080.aspx
  3. exFAT Spec – unable to find
  4. exFAT description – http://support.microsoft.com/kb/955704
  5. exFAT description – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT

UDF (a FAT32 Replacement) Part 1

I’m always hearing about how FAT32 is a poor choice for a filesystem, but it’s also the universal filesystem that Mac, Windows, and Linux can all natively read and write. A few quick searches turned up the Universal Disk Format (UDF). It started off life as ISO 9660 (CD File Format), which we know pretty much all operating systems can read. As UDF has gone through a few versions, support for read/write block devices was added. I have verified that MacOS Mountain Lion, Windows 7, and Ubuntu 12.10 can all read and write to a UDF formatted flash drive. For reference I used a Toshiba 8GB Flash Drive.

To format a flash drive as UDF using MacOS:

  1. Plug the drive in
  2. Open Disk Utility
  3. Select the mounted partition of the flash drive, and click “Unmount”
    DiskUtility-Unmount
  4. Select the physical disk and click “Info”. This will tell you which device the disk is currently identified as. In this case, it is disk2.
    DiskUtility-Info
  5. Open Terminal with an Administrator account
  6. Type sudo newfs_udf /dev/<disk_from_step_4> (e.g. sudo newfs_udf /dev/disk2)
  7. You’re done.

The defaults for newfs_udf should be left alone, as the program picks the appropriate values for your drive. The one value you might want to edit is the -ecc-in-blks (Error correction code size). I will follow up on ECC in the comparison of file systems.

Coming next, a comparison of UDF, exFAT, and FAT32.

Simple Print to PDF

It’s surprising that as of Windows 8, Microsoft hasn’t added a native print to PDF function. In searching for a free solution, I looked at CutePDF Writer, doPDF Free PDF Converter, and PrimoPDF. I thought this would be a straightforward comparison, there ended up being no clear winner.

I printed (using program defaults) one page from the Wikipedia PDF page and compared the output. On Windows 7 Home Premium, I used Google Chrome‘s (version 25.0.1364.172 m), Firefox (version 8.0.1), and Internet Explorer (version 9.0.8112.16421) 64-bit Edition. I also compared the output of these PDF printers to Chrome’s and MacOS’s built in PDF printers.

CutePDF

Link: http://www.cutepdf.com/products/cutepdf/writer.asp
Version: 3.0

CutePDF-Save

Pros

  • High Quality Images: I could not discern a degradation of the image compressed by CutePDF.
  • Clean Interface: CutePDF does nor present the user with options. When you click “Print”, it asks you where you’d like to save the file.

Cons

  • Slow initialization: 2 seconds or more from clicking “Print” to when the save dialog appears
  • The save dialog doesn’t grab focus. After clicking “Print” and waiting a few seconds, I had to click on the browser window to get the save dialog to appear.
  • Large Files: the PDFs generated by CutePDF were between 79KB and 84KB
  • Old Save Dialg: CutePDF uses Windows save dialog that does not display the Navigation Pane.
  • Installer tried to install two foistware that I had to opt-out of. Make sure you opt out of these, but install ps2pdf which is required.

doPDF Free PDF Converter

Link: http://www.dopdf.com/
Version: 7.3.388

doPDF-Settings

Pros

  • The installation was straightfoward with no surprises.
  • Small files: the PDFs generated by doPDF were between 17KB and 27KB

Cons

  • Errors: Clicking cancel when printing from IE resulted in IE thinking there was an error printing. Also, saving to my E: drive, doPDF gave me permission errors, and I haven’t been able to figure out why.
  • Low quality images: There is noticeable blurring of the PDF icon even without zooming in.

PrimoPDF

Link: http://www.primopdf.com/
Version: 5.1.0.2

PrimoPDF-Settings

Pros

  • The installation was straightfoward with no surprises.
  • Lots of options, but tested with the default of saving files for viewing on a Screen.

Cons

  • Low quality images: There is noticeable blurring of the PDF icon even without zooming in.
  • Large files: the files generated by PrimoPDF were between 69KB and 82KB.

PDFCreator

Link: http://www.pdfforge.org/download
Version 1.6.2

Be careful while downloading, because the download page has ads that include “Download” links along with links to download other PDFForge programs.

Also while installing, make sure you uncheck the extra software. I don’t think you need to install “PDF Architect” or “COM samples”.
PDFCreator-Install

After installing (assuming you live in the US and want to print to letter sized paper), perform the following steps (in Windows 7) to change the default paper size:

  1. Open the Start menu
  2. Click “Devices and Pinters”
  3. Right click on “PDFCreator” and select “Printing preferences”
  4. Click the “Advanced…” button
  5. Use the “Paper Size:” drop down menu to select a new default paper size
  6. Click “OK”, “OK”, and close

Thanks thundt for the tip on PDFCreator’s default paper size.

Settings Dialog:
PDFCreator-Settings

Pros

  • Quick, accurate PDF creation.
  • Straightforward, no settings.
  • Quality: The icon on the page shows minor blurring when zooming in but does not show visible artifacts.
  • Uses the standard Windows save dialog
  • Allows the user to set a few properties in the PDF without complicating the creation process.

Cons

  • Attempts to install extra unnecessary software.
  • Large files, the sample was comparable to MacOS and CutePDF.

Reference Implementations

Chrome’s built in PDF function saved a sharp image, but generated a 110KB file.

MacOS PDF printer (used from Safari) saved a sharp image and generated a 82KB file.

Conclusion

For a simple straightforward print to PDF solution that you don’t have to worry about, I think PDFCreator is the best. It is quick, is very straightforward once configured, and produces quality PDFs. CutePDF is second, because of its quirks (the save dialog). Nowadays, space is cheap, so I’d rather make sure I’m saving what I’m seeing instead of saving some space.

The other options aren’t bad, and can probably produce comparable results, but I think printing to PDF should be a process that doesn’t require thought.

Files