Hacking FAT32 vs NTFS vs WBFS

[Foxi4]

I PLAYED WITH MY WII TOO MUCH THEN. OH GOD WHY.

You'll have to chop off your Wiiner. Fortunately we have a chopping equipment expert on the premises.

I'll get DeadlyFoez to reprogram it.

I see that you've heard of the epic "Hot NAND Swap" trick of his...

...do you plan on finding a Wiiner donor?

 

[midenok]

I PLAYED WITH MY WII TOO MUCH THEN. OH GOD WHY.

You'll have to chop off your Wiiner. Fortunately we have a chopping equipment expert on the premises.

And now you are vindictive.

 

[Sicklyboy]

I PLAYED WITH MY WII TOO MUCH THEN. OH GOD WHY.

You'll have to chop off your Wiiner. Fortunately we have a chopping equipment expert on the premises.

And now you are vindictive.

Don't fucking tell Foxi4 how to live his life.

 

[JoostinOnline]

By dawn half of this topic will be deleted.

 

[Foxi4]

C'mon, we're just having jolly fun. The pro's and con's are listed - I'm sure that if someone will require Wii games and Wii games only with no possibility of ever removing them without fragmenting the drive and without any option of doing anything else with the drive, they'll choose WBFS. You made your point clear, and we made our point clear.

 

[the_randomizer]

I still repeat, that WBFS is the best choice for using with Wii gaming. Fox, all your pros and cons are just non-sense!!! Nothing is really useful. You just put games and play! No more! For any other tasks like Gamecube games make second filesystem or put 32gb SD card in slot. Enough!

Ouch. Your hard drive will get corrupted, WBFS will never be supported on these forums again, whether you like or not. Too bad, so sad. Now, stop bothering us with your "WBFS is the best file system ever" bulls**t, it's pissing us off. And we wouldn't want the moderators to find out, do we?

 

[JoostinOnline]

C'mon, we're just having jolly fun. The pro's and con's are listed - I'm sure that if someone will require Wii games and Wii games only with no possibility of ever removing them without fragmenting the drive and without any option of doing anything else with the drive, they'll choose WBFS.

And if they don't mind risking corruption.

 

[midenok]

I PLAYED WITH MY WII TOO MUCH THEN. OH GOD WHY.

You'll have to chop off your Wiiner. Fortunately we have a chopping equipment expert on the premises.

And now you are vindictive.

Don't fucking tell Foxi4 how to live his life.

And who are you? His daddy? But this is hardly because of your bad habits.

I suppose, everything was said on the subject. So, this off-topic as all no-sense. And should be moved to other thread. I therefore, propose to all to stop.

 

[Sicklyboy]

I'm sure that if someone will require Wii games and Wii games only with no possibility of ever removing them without fragmenting the drive and without any option of doing anything else with the drive, they'll choose WBFS.

They'll release the magic smoke from their drive, too.

I PLAYED WITH MY WII TOO MUCH THEN. OH GOD WHY.

You'll have to chop off your Wiiner. Fortunately we have a chopping equipment expert on the premises.

And now you are vindictive.

Don't fucking tell Foxi4 how to live his life.

And who are you? His daddy? But this is hardly because of your bad habits.

I suppose, everything was said on the subject. So, this off-topic as all no-sense. And should be moved to other thread. I therefore, propose to all to stop.

Yes. And this thread should be merged with the Poopymon hack thread.

 

[Foxi4]

Now, now - there's no need to ridicule him. He has his opinion and he is *somewhat* right, to the extent that when you get down to basics, the RAW files are a *tad* quicker to read than the ones stored on FAT32 and NTFS. Unfortunately, he's simply not counting in the bottlenecks such as the libraries, the accessability of software to manage them, the current status of support as far as loaders are concerned, the failure rate, fragmentation issues, hardware bottlenecks like the USB slot and of course the other features of the filesystems. We may disagree, but it's his opinion.

His choice is legitimate. It's a deprecated, poorly supported choice, but it's his own. All WE are saying is that by today's standards it's not recommended due to all the reasons we listed. We should probably end this, the thread will be purged anyways.

 

[Sicklyboy]

The last thing the mods will expect when they wake up is an ancient, necro'ed thread about how good (bad) WBFS still is (isn't), masturbation and hairy palms, and porn.

What a night. Inb4lock/deletes.

Oh - and opinions can still be wrong.

 

[Etheboss]

Well, i think the choice is a easy one at the moment, every homebrew that is still developed or maintained for the wii is mainly developed for FAT32...

That said..i think ANY file system could have been the best choice, it is just a matter of support.
And one could argue a long time about which is technically the best, but it all depends on developers in the end.

If you look now how much is possible on a FAT32 file system i think that outweighes other arguments..
But of course that is also still up to the user itself to decide.

PS. I was sleeping when this all happened, otherwise i would have reacted earlier and would have tried to not make this a slugfest

 

[Wiimm]

Every few month the same discussion: Read this and the following discussion.

 

[Foxi4]

Every few month the same discussion: Read this and the following discussion.

It's all nice and dandy until you actually want to defrag it - those huge chunks you're using are quite troublesome to say the least. Fragmentation issues do surface regardless of the chunk size the moment you delete something and try to replace it with another file of a different size, as on any filesystem. Not to mention that WBFS doesn't and never will support homebrew, multimedia or Gamecube images. It's used for Wii ISO's and Wii ISO's only. The contemporary tools dedicated to Wii backups and other software are user-friendly and trim the game on-the-fly, there's really not much you can improve upon here. Moreover, that discussion is a year old. All that has been discussed already.

 

[raulpica]

I was thinking of closing this before Wiimm's post, but I'll keep this open for another while to let him reply to this.

Anyway, midenok is not trolling, he's just utterly convinced that WBFS is better. Let him believe that, and go on with your lives.


On a side note:
...he kinda reminds me of TaeWong

 

[Foxi4]

The whole "point" of this long chit-chat was simply to underline the limitations of WBFS compared to other filesystems. It doesn't really matter if it works a tad faster or not, it simply "doesn't do anything else", and with no updates since 2009 and support from one coder, I don't think it's such a good idea to use it.

As long as people are aware which filesystem allows what and they can make a concious choice by weighing pro's and con's of each, I'm entirely satisfied.

 

[midenok]

The whole "point" of this long chit-chat was simply to underline the limitations of WBFS compared to other filesystems. It doesn't really matter if it works a tad faster or not, it simply "doesn't do anything else", and with no updates since 2009 and support from one coder, I don't think it's such a good idea to use it.

As long as people are aware which filesystem allows what and they can make a concious choice by weighing pro's and con's of each, I'm entirely satisfied.

That's silliness to drop everything in one filesystem. Each kind of FS is designed and optimized for its purpose. WBFS optimized most for loading ISO images and it does its job a lot better than any other. Stupid and stubborn people don't understand that. They try to find universal decision (or Holy Grail). But, there is no Holy Grail... If you use 300Gb for ISO loading and choose FAT just for 1Gb of more tasks like WiiWare, etc. then you just lame noob who makes his hardware work more, wear more and spend more power. If you use 300Gb for GameCube games and only 1 Wii game -- then no talk, FAT is your choice. But reality is, that there are hundreds of gigabytes used for Wii games and only few gigabytes for everything other (personally for me 2Gb SD Card is more than enough). So all your lame chit-chat about universality is just amateur bluff... Use your system wisely and you will get more from it. More capacity of hard-drive, less wear of mechanics (because jumping back and forth from allocation table to data wears mechanical part of drive), less power consumption, better performance. People who consciously throw off all these details in regard of some mythic advantages they invented in their heads are just lazy and stubborn.

FAT is by no means stable, you have hundreds of ways to make it corrupted with no recovery. WBFS on the other hand due to its simplicity is much more stable if you will use it right. It is impossible to lose image once successfully written unless you have hardware failure. So all your chit-chat about FAT stability is also stupid talk. Yes, WBFS allows you to make bad things to it. But you just be aware of it and don't do them. Anyway, who consciously does FS fragmentation for such kind of tasks also can not be called wise user.

P.S. I'm sorry for my offensive tone. It's just my bad habit. No mean to harm anyone's feelings.

 

[Wiimm]

It's all nice and dandy until you actually want to defrag it

What is the definition of fragmented file?
One usual definition is, to calculate the fragments per MiB. Some NTFS defragger say: A ratio below 0.5 frags/MiB is defragmented and the tool will not try to defrag is.

For WBFS the ratio 0.5 is the maximum technical possible. On a 300 GB drive, the max ratio is 0.125 frags/MiB ==> No need to defrag.

and with no updates since 2009 and support from one coder, I don't think it's such a good idea to use it.

You are totally wrong. Since 2009 I have found 10-15 bugs, and repaired it. I have added timestamps. I have rewritten the LIBWBFS library. And finally in Dez 2011, I have added an new secure way to open a corrupted WBFS. And all is open source.

If I read your note, then I know that you have no knowledge about the WBFS development.

 

[Foxi4]

The original developers left it to rot, and I presume that for good reasons. FAT32 is superior in just about any way, especially considering that libfat is easily accessible and well-documented. The filesystem's also accessible via any standard computer, it's fully defragmentable if needs be, scannable if needs be and practically drag-and-drop. I find your attachment to WBFS, which is used for ISO storage and ISO storage only, highly unreasonable, but this debate has gone on long enough.

I don't know what kind of defragmenting tools you used, but the ones I use defragment on demand and down to 0% fragmentation if possible, including placing selected files in the so-called "Fast Access Area", close to the center of the disk itself to allow faster read speeds for the files you find most crucial.

You may hold onto your WBFS fascination and nobody tells you not to, but spreading misinformation isn't welcome either. The filesystem has been deprecated in favour of a more useful and user-friendly one. Those are the facts everybody has to deal with.

Unless your precious WBFS does what FAT32 does at the moment, nobody's going to switch. Huge clusters lead to one thing and one thing only - a huge waste of space when the file you are writing onto the disk is not divisible by the cluster size, or in fact, is smaller than the cluster size. Everything requires moderation, and that includes cluster size.

 

[midenok]

Yes, you have to do defragmentation and many other things that are required to be done for FAT. You find it more comfortable?! Hmmm... You see -- read Wiimm himself above and he says he still supports it!