Does Rufus Have a Mac Version Rufus is primarily a Windows application and currently, it supports 64 or 32 bit Windows XP/7/8/10 only.This software currently only support Windows bootable disk, can work with both BOOTMGR and NTLDR boot modeMoreover, people might be looking for extra features and have other options as well for Linux or MAC OS computers. Rufus is small in size, but it surprisingly has everything you need as far as the above are concerned. Rufus is a free, portable open-source utility that you can use to create bootable USB flash drives.
Rufus Bootable Usb Creator Install MacOS FromAlso, I'd be very surprised if that exFAT drive boots in UEFI mode. Now you should be able to install macOS from a USB drive.So that's probably why it might be easier to make it work with exFAT. Note: I use Rufus for all other USB writing and formatting for Windows systems, its a great. Some of The Best Features of Rufus: Rufus is Quick: It is significantly faster than the opposition, mainly because we utilize an. That’s it Folks It is very easy to create a bootable USB drive using Rufus. For Linux, click on rufus for linux free download.It's not because you might be able to get a first stage to boot through exFAT, which is the only part where Rufus can intervene, that you will get anywhere.For instance, Linux distros must have special boot code in their later boot stage to be able to boot from FAT32. The boot process is a multi stage affair, which is A LOT more complex than people imagine. Instead I would suggest that you use the Alt- E cheat mode to enable dual BIOS+UEFI (which should allow you to use FAT32 for Windows installation, and therefore allow R/W on Mac), or use UltraISO if you really MUST deal with Windows bootable media and use exFAT.As almost no ISO's support booting from exFATPrecisely. Besides, considering that a decent USB 3.0 drive should only set you back 3 minutes on Windows 10 boot drive creation in Rufus, reformatting a single flash drive for boot or file transfer isn't that big a deal (and may also prevent you from inadvertently lift confidential work data which you don't need, and which your company may not be too happy to see being copied by an employee).All in all, I don't see much of a case to justify adding exFAT support specifically for Windows installation media in Rufus. Surely, you can reformat the drive to exFAT if you need to transfer files after you're done with creating bootable media for work, and I would also expect you to have a dedicated USB drive at work for OS installation if you are being tasked with performing those (I doubt a workplace would be so cheap as to refuse the purchase of a flash drive, especially if it's related to performing OS installs, and I would strongly encourage you to use a different flash drive if you must copy files to or from work). I just don't see enough people who would benefit from that feature compared to the amount of time it would take me to add and, more importantly, support it in Rufus.I also find it a bit strange that you must use a bootable drive created by Rufus to transfer files between home and work.Instead, I would encourage you to use NTFS, which is better supported, and for which Rufus does have provisions in the form of UEFI:NTFS.Should I format it as NTFS or FAT32 for usage as a bootable USB?You should use whatever file system Rufus will select by default. For instance, boot loaders like Syslinux have introduced NTFS support, but haven't done much when it comes to exFAT support.All in all, I'm afraid there simply just isn't enough support and demand for exFAT boot, for me to spend time on it, so I don't think you will be seeing such a feature in Rufus. As a matter of fact, I have failed to see the adoption of exFAT growing, with most parties, for which FAT32 limitations are becoming an issue, choosing to switch to NTFS (which has its own issues, but is better supported) instead. So, instead of what is the case for FAT32 (where you can just copy the bootx64.efi or bootia32.efi files for the whole thing to boot), you'd have to use workarounds, which no guarantee whatsoever that the later boot stages will be able to handle exFAT content.Also, on a separate matter, exFAT is encumbered by software patents which makes it unfriendly for use with Open Source software (which Rufus is), so, on political grounds, I would tend to discourage its use. There is no UEFI firmware that I am aware of, that allows booting from exFAT. So there's a good chance most Linux distros won't work if you're using exFAT.Same goes for UEFI. ![]() If you want to have to spend your time explaining to people while their OS can't install because Rufus allowed them to select exFAT, and they happen to use a Windows 7 ISO, please be my guest. I really fail to see what using exFAT over NTFS for the vast majority of Rufus usage scenario which is OS installation, as this is pretty much a read-only operation. Do you not realize that Rufus is mostly designed for one-of OS installation? This means that, once a user is done installing their OS, and they want to use their drive for data, they can (and usually should) reformat it to whichever file system they like, and remove the OS installation files. NTFS is what most people have chosen as de facto replacement for FAT, and as long as this is the case, I don't see much point in adding support for another file system, when it will not bring any single advantage over NTFS, except calming down purist who think that flash drive technology is still in its infancy and that using NTFS means that you should expect a life expectancy of 1, 2 weeks tops!But, since the message doesn't seem to go through, let me educate you a bit further: What we see instead is manufacturers adding native support for NTFS, NOT exFAT into their UEFI firmwares, and the Open Source community (such as Syslinux) concentrate on NTFS compatibility rather than exFAT (thanks in no small part to Microsoft having made their would-be FAT replacement proposal encumbered with patents).Once again, and whether you like it or not, there is such thing as de facto. Also, almost all flash drives these days have circuitry that aims at reducing wear and tear from write operation, so that even if you tell your drive to write block #0 repeatedly (as would typically happen if you repartition a drive over and over), internally a different memory block will be written each time, so again, it's no more hazardous than writing to a regular file.Yet, strangely, the UEFI committee, hardware manufacturers and the Open Source community still don't seem to have been convinced with exFAT's oh so incredible advantages compared to NTFS. Oh, and I've also been promised, by many people over the years, that exFAT "will be more and more important". I'd really like to see your sources on flash drive media degradation when NTFS is being used, especially for a usage scenario that is 95% read-only ops. Yeah, I'm sure this will take no time at all, especially with AIO ISOs. Insert a pivot chart in excel 2016 for macI develop for what is actually happening. I don't develop for what people would like to see happen. For instance, I will dispute the fact that manufacturers are switching to using exFAT for large flash drives as the last large flash drive I bought was NTFS formatted. I hope you can understand that, if I'm going to try to anticipate a trend, I'd rather spend my development time on supporting trends that tend to have some factual credibility to support them. You get into this mess only if you override the default.As to what you indicate about exFAT format being used as default by flash drive manufacturers for Mac + Windows compatibility, I'd really like to see a verifiable trend (or actual flash drive manufacturer guidelines) before I'd draw any conclusion. Write-behind caching is disabled by default on removable drives. From that same article:It seems that people missed the first sentence of this article.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorFritz ArchivesCategories |