I agree on this completely if we were talking about OS, but here we are dealing with HDD space and not RAM.
8 years ago I had HDD for 60GB and Win 98 with not even remote support of NTFS (which was introduced in XP). Every single HDD was formatted in FAT32 and was over 4GB. I can see where it can be a problem. FAT32 can't support single files over 4GB.
Sorry I prolly messed myself up in this question. Yeah, just chop that file down then.

 

You should agree completely anyway

Partition size is not the same as file size. The clusters are represented by 32 bits (hence FAT32). 28 of those 32 bits were for the actual cluster itself, (2^28 = 268435456 clusters) with 512k sectors the volume size is limited to 2TB. Windows put additional limits on partition sizes as time went on because for large volume sizes FAT kind of well, is poor.

Files are still limited to 2^32 - 1 bytes, which is actually a touch smaller than 4 GB but close enough.

 

Ohhh yea I'm aware that those things are different (partition size and file size) I actually figured out the problem by the end of writing my previous post.

 

Sometimes I have to refresh my memory on that stuff. I haven't needed to worry about cluster and sector size in 15 years or so.