Hacking FAT32 vs NTFS vs WBFS

[Fishaman P]

Ripping games to NTFS is fully supported in all popular loaders.

That being said, it's easiest to just format the whole drive to FAT32. You never have to worry about NTFS write corruption, and DM will work from the same drive.

 

[the_randomizer]

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!

And that's his opinion, but WBFS will not be supported forever. Newer versions of USB backup loaders no longer support it, emulators/ media players never supported it. Who cares if the ISO images are split when they're extracted? They function just as well as their non-split counterparts. WBFS takes up more system memory than FAT32 or NTFS, and yet, people are hellbent on using it till the end of the world occurs. You cannot avoid the inevitable fragmentation and inability to recover lost data; Windows and MacOS do not natively detect this format, and having to making multiple partitions on a hard drive is a real pain and not worth doing.

But I digress, trying to convince people to not use WBFS is like trying to convince people to use Chrome instead of Internet Explorer; it will never happen. People love their WBFS as much as they love IE6.

 

[Wiimm]

@[member='Foxi4']
Only one last note: Please tell me, what 0% fragmentation means!
And I tell you, it means not, that large files are stored in continuous order without any whole. For NTFS this is impossible because of the 'extends'.

@the_randomizer
If USB loaders will quit the WBFS support, WBFS files won't work any longer.

 

[midenok]

But I digress, trying to convince people to not use WBFS is like trying to convince people to use Chrome instead of Internet Explorer; it will never happen. People love their WBFS as much as they love IE6.

What a non-sense!!! It is you who must love MSIE (and Windows). You tend to keep repeating and repeating your empty arguments ignoring other arguments. That kind of problem we have here...

 

[the_randomizer]

@[member='Foxi4']
Only one last note: Please tell me, what 0% fragmentation means!
And I tell you, it means not, that large files are stored in continuous order without any whole. For NTFS this is impossible because of the 'extends'.
@the_randomizer
If USB loaders will quit the WBFS support, WBFS files won't work any longer.

WTF are you talking about? USB Loader GX extracts images into compressed/split WBFS files just fine. I have around thirteen WBFS files on a FAT32 formatted hard drive. I'd be more than happy to send a picture of my file structure. Oh, I should also mention that Wii Backup Fusion extracts, converts/copies and recompiles ISO images into WBFS and vice versa.

What a non-sense!!! It is you who must love MSIE (and Windows). You tend to keep repeating and repeating your empty arguments ignoring other arguments. That kind of problem we have here...

You should be glad I'm not going to tell you to sod off.
I really hope a mod sees this thread, it really has gone to hell.

WBFS IS DEPRECATED. IT IS DEAD. SUPPORTING WBFS WHILE CALLING IT THE BEST FILESYSTEM IS LAUGHABLE. LET IT GO, GET WITH THE TIMES. YOUR HDD WILL GET HEAVILY FRAGMENTED.

 

[midenok]

You should be glad I'm not going to tell you to sod off.
I really hope a mod sees this thread, it really has gone to hell.

WBFS IS DEPRECATED. IT IS DEAD. SUPPORTING WBFS WHILE CALLING IT THE BEST FILESYSTEM IS LAUGHABLE. LET IT GO, GET WITH THE TIMES. YOUR HDD WILL GET HEAVILY FRAGMENTED.

I think you are getting mad... That's not the quality of wise man. I will not answer all your arguments just because I'm tired of such kind of people (they are all answered here already, you just have no care to read them). Though if you will show thoroughness later, you will find by yourself why they are wrong. But, I think, for you it is the subject of many years.

 

[Wiimm]

@[member='the_randomizer']
A WBFS file and a WBFS partition have exact the same data structure. If a USB Loader (and the cIOS) opens a WBFS file, they must manage both file systems: WBFS and FAT/NTFS. So, WBFS support is also needed if only supporting WBFS files. And your red shouting will not change this behavior.

However, for an average user I recommend FAT because of easier management. But for me a WBFS partition is definitely the easier and faster solution, and I have tested+timed FAT and WBFS.

 

[Foxi4]

Y'know what? This is asinine.

Right now I have to study for exams, but rest assured, I will personally test *all three available systems* for Read speeds (typical loading times test on any random game) and Write speeds (dumping) and post my results here, even if it takes recording them on my crappy camera. I sincerely hope this will be enough to convince die-hard WBFS users that FAT32 doesn't bite.

 

[the_randomizer]

Y'know what? This is asinine.

Right now I have to study for exams, but rest assured, I will personally test *all three available systems* for Read speeds (typical loading times test on any random game) and Write speeds (dumping) and post my results here, even if it takes recording them on my crappy camera. I sincerely hope this will be enough to convince die-hard WBFS users that FAT32 doesn't bite.

Asinine? Yes. Sophomoric? Indeed. I don't consider myself an average user, seeing as I'm majoring in computer science, and taught myself the ins and outs of computers since 1994. Let's see, I also worked for Dell Tech Support, am Comptia/A+ certified and know the basics of programming. I think I can safely state that FAT32 and NTFS file systems are vastly superior and stable compared to WBFS. It is deprecated and no longer supported, it is unstable and has higher potentiality for failure than the other systems. I avoid using partitions like the plague, it is healthier for the hard drive to have one full partition, especially one that is recognizable by an OS. But you're right, though, there isn't a chance in hell I can convince WiiMM and midenok to use any other system beside WBFS. Arguing with them is like the Special Olympics...never mind I won't finish that, but you get my drift.

Their hellbent determination to state how WBFS is better is like me telling a CS major that Internet Explorer 6 is more secure than Chrome. I'll gladly await your test results for file system comparisons, and good luck with your exams!

 

[PsyBlade]

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.

and how many other tools use that updated lib?

 

[the_randomizer]

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.

and how other many tools use that updated lib?

WiiMM tools or whatever it's called....I think? WiiBaFu is easier to use anyway, and has the same functionality. Other than that, I don't think there was anything else.

 

[JoostinOnline]

@[member='the_randomizer']
A WBFS file and a WBFS partition have exact the same data structure. If a USB Loader (and the cIOS) opens a WBFS file, they must manage both file systems: WBFS and FAT/NTFS. So, WBFS support is also needed if only supporting WBFS files.

I'd been wondering about that. Thanks, that answers some questions I've been meaning to ask.

 

[PsyBlade]

@[member='the_randomizer']
A WBFS file and a WBFS partition have exact the same data structure. If a USB Loader (and the cIOS) opens a WBFS file, they must manage both file systems: WBFS and FAT/NTFS. So, WBFS support is also needed if only supporting WBFS files.

I'd been wondering about that. Thanks, that answers some questions I've been meaning to ask.

I think thats not actually true

from what I know the loader just locates the file on fat/ntfs/ext (and would not NEED to understand wbfs)
and give the files location (as a list of fragments) to the cios
the cios then just reads the wbfs located there without bothering about the underlying filesystem

 

[Foxi4]

I'm sure that the DS, being merely 67Mhz ARM9 + 33Mhz ARM7 uses FAT32 due to wizardry wheras the Wii, being just a gajizzilion times more powerful specs-wise is entirely incapable of using it.

Y'know what we need? A DSFS. That'd make things more interesting.

 

[raulpica]

Closed.