07-07-2016, 10:56 AM
Don, I don't think they are bootleg cards, especially since all 3 showing exactly the same. I was seeing the same thing in Windows Explorer, the 32GB rooted showing at 30,981,120 KB (or 29.5GB), and the card showing 29.8GB out of the packaging. But I was seeing that error when I tried to burn. Maybe it is related to the sector size, I don't know. I tried to reformat, but didn't make a difference.
Luke, I thought I had seen this discussion previously as well, but I couldn't find it either, which is why I started the new thread. I did also pick up a 64GB Samsung EVO+ card (based on discussions of cards), and that is showing 59.6GB, which again makes sense if using the 1024 vs 1000 math.
Can anyone comment on what formatting the card should be in? I think the 32GB cards were exFAT32 or something, but that was not an option for the 64GB card. So what should the file system type be, and what should the sector size be?
And the follow up question, does it make sense to use a a 32GB image on a 32GB card, or is it better to use a smaller image and still have some memory available for storage (i.e. 32GB image on 64GB card)?
Luke, I thought I had seen this discussion previously as well, but I couldn't find it either, which is why I started the new thread. I did also pick up a 64GB Samsung EVO+ card (based on discussions of cards), and that is showing 59.6GB, which again makes sense if using the 1024 vs 1000 math.
Can anyone comment on what formatting the card should be in? I think the 32GB cards were exFAT32 or something, but that was not an option for the 64GB card. So what should the file system type be, and what should the sector size be?
And the follow up question, does it make sense to use a a 32GB image on a 32GB card, or is it better to use a smaller image and still have some memory available for storage (i.e. 32GB image on 64GB card)?
Kickstarter backer #5,864 -- SBC Noob -- SE Michigan, USA