That it is a Mac only format. FAT32 works on both PC & Mac, so it is the more universal option.
HFS+ vs. FAT32
I know that everyone seems to recommend FAT32 as the preferred format for rekordbox and CDJs. But, why? Anytime I copy to a FAT32 drive (on a mac) it takes 10 times longer. It just seems like HFS+ is the superior format. What are the known issues with HFS+?
Thanks for the reply. Do you know if there's any reason not to use HFS+ if I'm not using a PC?
If you are not going to be sharing files with a PC, then I'd go with HFS+ (its superior).
Alternatively, you could partition the drive (one large for HFS+ and one small (FAT)for sharing files).
I am so pissed at Rekordbox software. HFS+ (MAC EXTENDED JOURNAL) does read in CDJS FAT32 does but again long transfer times. Why does the manual say it supports HFS+ and in fact it doesn't. Also if it does support HFS+ why is it that only the content folder is on the drive and not the Pioneer. Isnt it suppose to copy the Pioneer folder as well. Will someone explain this reading the fourms here there alot of mixed solutions. Would like to here from a Pioneer rep or Mod that is involved with Pioneer.
HFS+ is supported and works perfectly in all modern CD models. I had a few problems with first generation XDJ-RX units but except for that, HFS+ is a much better option for any Mac user.
The Pioneer folder is hidden, if you hit "cmd"+"shift"+"." you can reveal / hide hidden files.
@Earl > Henrik is correct; HFS+ is supported, and I use it for most of my devices because I seldom use a PC, which does not support HFS+. The transfer time difference between the two is negligible for most users, although some have claimed faster write times with an HFS+ device over a FAT32 device (on Mac, obviously).
The Pioneer folder is typically hidden, there is usually no need for users to dive into those files. What device is it you're using that can't read your USB drive?
@Gavin > I don't recommend multiple partitions as rekordbox / players will only read the first partition.