Wiiwu said:I think discussing which is the better file-system is a moot point in our usage context. FAT has been around over 30 years, its specifications are well documented and understood by developers. Again its ideal here because all major OS supports it, allowing easy data exchange. Plug in a FAT drive into any Mac/Linux/Win it'll just work and you are free to use any of the countless tools available to manage it.
On the other hand WBFS is a very new filesystem created to solve the problem of getting game loading from a USB drive. There is no clear specification or documentation, no one has a solid understanding of it. Developers create and abandon their WBFS manager projects. Users lose games from data corruption that no tools can fix because there are none! WBFS partition is unsupported and to rely on it is like beta-testing it but with real game data. We should move away from it asap to avoid future grief.
D34DL1N3R said:AllWiidUp said:D34DL1N3R said:3. if i already have a wbfs drive with 150 games on it, what are the advantages of changing?
For one, if you delete a game other than the last one installed on a wbfs partition you lose that space unless you move them all to another drive and then back again. Whereas using fat32 you can simply defrag the partition, consolidate free space, etc,...
4. will sites now start having files as .wbfs so we wont have to convert them?
piracy talk is not allowed here
Where did you get this information? I've noticed this whole thread is dependent on misinformation, by people who don't know.
before the fix that went into 1.4 or was it 1.5 ( in the loader only ) you only lost a block on delete, unless you used the one mod, which marked it deleted and didn't reclaim space until later. wbfs is enitrely better than fat, unless you are unable to use a wbfs manager or the loader itself ( as in not a pirate ).
So you're telling me for instance that if I have a 500GB wbfs formatted drive filled with games and no more room to install more, that I can delete 50 games I no longer want, at random places on the partition, and that I can then safely install 50 new ones to the drive with absolutely no issues to the newly installed games - or to the ones already on the drive?
You are correct, for the versions without the sorg mod, I think it was. The free list had an off by 1 error, caused the first block to not be freed and the last +1 to be marked free, which cause the next install to corrupt the game following the freed game and waste 1 block. My fix, fixed the off by one and the free list was correct and games weren't corrupted.doyama said:D34DL1N3R said:madeirabhoy said:D34DL1N3R said:So you're telling me for instance that if I have a 500GB wbfs formatted drive filled with games and no more room to install more, that I can delete 50 games I no longer want, at random places on the partition, and that I can then safely install 50 new ones to the drive with absolutely no issues to the newly installed games - or to the ones already on the drive?
surely the only problem is a tiny amount of fragmentation if the games were different sized. Since you are unlikely to be in such an extreme situation of having what 300 games and no space, for instance i have 150 games and 100 gig of space, so deleting files will free up space without real problems of fragmentation, surely?
I guess the entire point I was trying to make wasn't in regards to fragmentation, but rather in the inability to consolidate free space on a wbfs partition without transferring everything to a different drive and back again. I've read a lot of instances where deleting a game and then installing another has caused both minor and sever issues.
Plain and simple though... deleting files on a wbfs partition WILL cause you to lose space. Unless of course you find games that exactly match the size of the deleted ones to install in their place - while using FAT32 allows you to consolidate the space after deleting.
I thought this was only an issue in the older versions of the wbfs file system where library was deleting the wrong bits in the table so deleting games caused it to lose track of where things really were.
Once again, you're talking out of your ass. Earlier you said your point had nothing to do with fragmentation, yet your entire premise here is based completely on the concept of fragmentation (or the lack thereof). Go back and read what I fucking said. And then perhaps try refuting that instead of your straw men. Tell me what the difference would be with your first example on the 2GB drive using FAT32 or WBFS. NONE. WTF do you think you could do in that situation differently depending on the file system being used? NOTHING. If you can't find a game to fit into 100MB remaining on a 2GB drive, it isn't going to matter what FS the drive is using, is it? Yet here you are using that as the basis for your argument? LOL.D34DL1N3R said:Skizzo.... take a fucking chill pill dude. No need to be such a dick face about shit. Besides the fact that you don't know wtf you're talking about.
If I have a 2 GB usb drive and install 4 games on it with each being 500 MB and maxing out the entire drive, delete the 2 in the middle freeing up 1 GB of space, then install a new game with a size of .9 GB leaving 100MB left over and want to install another game but can't find one that's 100 MB or less... what happens? You basically lose that space since nothing can be done with it. Now, if your brain can handle it - take the same example and apply it to a 500 GB drive with 300 games on it and then delete 100 or more of them in random places on the partition. You're still telling me that only a couple of blocks will be lost?
And in case you still can't understand - it should be quite obvious that I don't mean a person actually loses space. I mean the space CAN become unusable and useless unless that free space is consolidated. I've had the "Not enough free space" message more than once when there was quite obviously plenty of space, it just wasn't all in one location that was large enough to do the install.
D34DL1N3R said:Skizzo.... take a fucking chill pill dude. No need to be such a dick face about shit. Besides the fact that you don't know wtf you're talking about.
If I have a 2 GB usb drive and install 4 games on it with each being 500 MB and maxing out the entire drive, delete the 2 in the middle freeing up 1 GB of space, then install a new game with a size of .9 GB leaving 100MB left over and want to install another game but can't find one that's 100 MB or less... what happens? You basically lose that space since nothing can be done with it. Now, if your brain can handle it - take the same example and apply it to a 500 GB drive with 300 games on it and then delete 100 or more of them in random places on the partition. You're still telling me that only a couple of blocks will be lost?
And in case you still can't understand - it should be quite obvious that I don't mean a person actually loses space. I mean the space CAN become unusable and useless unless that free space is consolidated. I've had the "Not enough free space" message more than once when there was quite obviously plenty of space, it just wasn't all in one location that was large enough to do the install.
Wiiwu said:FYI, FAT is a internationally recognized standard - you can find it published as ISO/IEC 9293 and ECMA-107 standards.
There is no perfect files system, but FAT is such a universal file-system, its used everywhere, in mp3 players, ipods even in Wii NAND, supported by all OS from Mac to Linux, there is no dispute - FAT is de-facto perfect for removable storage.
So given a choice between WBFS or FAT partition, you will naturally choose FAT to store your games.
WBFS as a partition will fade away like the telegram, in just a few months.
Wiiwu said:I think discussing which is the better file-system is a moot point in our usage context. FAT has been around over 30 years, its specifications are well documented and understood by developers. Again its ideal here because all major OS supports it, allowing easy data exchange. Plug in a FAT drive into any Mac/Linux/Win it'll just work and you are free to use any of the countless tools available to manage it.
On the other hand WBFS is a very new filesystem created to solve the problem of getting game loading from a USB drive. There is no clear specification or documentation, no one has a solid understanding of it. Developers create and abandon their WBFS manager projects. Users lose games from data corruption that no tools can fix because there are none! WBFS partition is unsupported and to rely on it is like beta-testing it but with real game data. We should move away from it asap to avoid future grief.
AllWiidUp said:Wiiwu said:FYI, FAT is a internationally recognized standard - you can find it published as ISO/IEC 9293 and ECMA-107 standards.
There is no perfect files system, but FAT is such a universal file-system, its used everywhere, in mp3 players, ipods even in Wii NAND, supported by all OS from Mac to Linux, there is no dispute - FAT is de-facto perfect for removable storage.
So given a choice between WBFS or FAT partition, you will naturally choose FAT to store your games.
WBFS as a partition will fade away like the telegram, in just a few months.
I guess if you are already stealing games, then stealing unlicensed FAT32 filesystem from microsoft is fine. All devices, using fat32 are supposed to license it, yet another reason to avoid it.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platf...are/fatgen.mspx
http://www.embeddedrelated.com/usenet/embe...how/39844-1.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table
anyone not being a pirate, would likely stay away from FAT.
Reminiscent of GEN v M33, AMD v Intel, PS2 v Xbox etc, flame wars lolFenrirWolf said:This is getting pretty ridiculous. XD
cwstjdenobs said:AllWiidUp said:Wiiwu said:FYI, FAT is a internationally recognized standard - you can find it published as ISO/IEC 9293 and ECMA-107 standards.
There is no perfect files system, but FAT is such a universal file-system, its used everywhere, in mp3 players, ipods even in Wii NAND, supported by all OS from Mac to Linux, there is no dispute - FAT is de-facto perfect for removable storage.
So given a choice between WBFS or FAT partition, you will naturally choose FAT to store your games.
WBFS as a partition will fade away like the telegram, in just a few months.
I guess if you are already stealing games, then stealing unlicensed FAT32 filesystem from microsoft is fine. All devices, using fat32 are supposed to license it, yet another reason to avoid it.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platf...are/fatgen.mspx
http://www.embeddedrelated.com/usenet/embe...how/39844-1.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table
anyone not being a pirate, would likely stay away from FAT.
Erm sorry but backwards engineering isn't illegal, how else do you think OSS can support NTFS, HFS, vFAT etc... and software patents are only an issue if your country has f$£ked up IP laws.
Edit: Sorry that should have being seriously badly f*%ked up IP laws
Skizzo said:And since you were arguing about WBFS, YES, you ARE saying that the person actually loses space, for all intents and purposes, becaues there are NO tools to 'defrag' or 'consolidate' free space on a WBFS partition. I think most people are well aware that moving the games off and then back onto a freshly formatted drive would do that.
No shit retard!!! Exactly my point. With Fat32 a person can consolidate that space withOUT having to move them all off and back on again! Christ you are st00pid!
QUOTE(AllWiidUp @ Nov 4 2009, 08:15 PM) ok, you don't understand much either, wbfs handles this situation without issue, infact fat32 with .wbfs files would have more of an issue. I mean WOW, you are so clueless, and yet trying to call others clueless. please read, learn and then share, because you are so lost.
In fact you just made the best argument for WBFS over fat32.
AllWiidUp said:I'm highly doubting they reversed anything, and while I agree software patents are stupid, you are comparing apples to oranges. NTFS is not patented, its a trade sceret, so reversing is possible to make a work alike product. fat32 is published and patented, therefore reversing doesn't apply.
madeirabhoy said:sorry mate and thank you, i never saw that.FenrirWolf said:There's a mac executable in the wbfs_file download.
i downloaded the file and it doesnt work though, i get
Last login: Mon Nov 2 22:22:25 on ttys000
wardrobes-power-mac-g4:~ j$ /Users/j/Downloads/wbfs_file_1.3/mac_osx/wbfs_file ; exit;
wbfs_file 1.2 by oggzee, based on wbfs by kwiirk
Usage: wbfs_file [OPTIONS] [COMMAND [ARGS]]:
Given just a filename it will convert from iso to wbfs or vice versa:
wbfs_file filename.iso
Will convert filename.iso to GAMEID.wbfs
And create an info file GAMEID_TITLE.txt
wbfs_file filename.wbfs
Will convert filename.wbfs to GAMEID_TITLE.iso
Use -h for help on commands and options
logout
[Process completed]
its logged out automatically so i cant use any commands. Anyone else tried it? Could it be because im on a ppc mac?
thanks anyone and again apologies and thanks fenrirwolf
oggzee said:madeirabhoy said:sorry mate and thank you, i never saw that.FenrirWolf said:There's a mac executable in the wbfs_file download.
i downloaded the file and it doesnt work though, i get
Last login: Mon Nov 2 22:22:25 on ttys000
wardrobes-power-mac-g4:~ j$ /Users/j/Downloads/wbfs_file_1.3/mac_osx/wbfs_file ; exit;
wbfs_file 1.2 by oggzee, based on wbfs by kwiirk
Usage: wbfs_file [OPTIONS] [COMMAND [ARGS]]:
Given just a filename it will convert from iso to wbfs or vice versa:
wbfs_file filename.iso
Will convert filename.iso to GAMEID.wbfs
And create an info file GAMEID_TITLE.txt
wbfs_file filename.wbfs
Will convert filename.wbfs to GAMEID_TITLE.iso
Use -h for help on commands and options
logout
[Process completed]
its logged out automatically so i cant use any commands. Anyone else tried it? Could it be because im on a ppc mac?
thanks anyone and again apologies and thanks fenrirwolf
Since it printed out the usage help, it means the executable works just fine.
But it is not interactive, you can't just click on the wbfs_file executable.
It is a command line app, so you have to open a Terminal first and run it from there.
That means, typing the command (probably with the full path) and giving it a iso file as a parameter.
It has been tested by me and other people and is reported to work fine.
Like this:
wardrobes-power-mac-g4:~ j$ /Users/j/Downloads/wbfs_file_1.3/mac_osx/wbfs_file /Users/j/Downloads/WiiPlay.iso
But you have to open a terminal first, so that you get just to the prompt:
wardrobes-power-mac-g4:~ j$
where you can type these commands.
It's a pity the finder doesn't let you drag and drop files over executables the way windows does...
cwstjdenobs said:AllWiidUp said:I'm highly doubting they reversed anything, and while I agree software patents are stupid, you are comparing apples to oranges. NTFS is not patented, its a trade sceret, so reversing is possible to make a work alike product. fat32 is published and patented, therefore reversing doesn't apply.
I didn't say NTFS was patented numbnuts. I gave a list of FSs which have been backwards engineered and used by OSS projects. And yes I doubt oggzee backward enginered anything, but you're basicaly accusing whoever wrote libfat and whatever fat drivers it was based on of steeling from MS!!! Why don't you go to the devkit forum, the linux kernel mailing list, NTFS-3Gs mailing list etc and let them know about your in depth knowledge of how these things work and that, accordong to you, they are thieves.
As you can see, the newly added game is 3888MiB and it first FILLS UP THAT ALLEGEDLY (ACCORDING TO YOU AT LEAST), UNUSABLE, WASTED SPACE (blocks a401-a46b) and then places the remaining fragment of the game at the end, filling up blocks b668-b6ef.D34DL1N3R said:Dump of Wii disc #XXX of XXX:Skizzo said:And since you were arguing about WBFS, YES, you ARE saying that the person actually loses space, for all intents and purposes, becaues there are NO tools to 'defrag' or 'consolidate' free space on a WBFS partition. I think most people are well aware that moving the games off and then back onto a freshly formatted drive would do that.
No shit retard!!! Exactly my point. With Fat32 a person can consolidate that space withOUT having to move them all off and back on again! Christ you are st00pid!
Again, this game is not fragmented, and the last block used on the partition is b667.AllWiidUp said:ok, you don't understand much either, wbfs handles this situation without issue, infact fat32 with .wbfs files would have more of an issue. I mean WOW, you are so clueless, and yet trying to call others clueless. please read, learn and then share, because you are so lost.
In fact you just made the best argument for WBFS over fat32.
You're about as brilliant as Skizzo. Grow at least HALF a brain to replace that reeking gob of ass spooge you have in your head.
LOL. Listen 'retard'. Your whole argument is centered around the notion that WBFS WILL NOT FRAGMENT A GAME WHEN ADDING IT. THAT IS COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT. Clear? You've stated that misinformation several times, yet not once have you actually demonstrated it with concrete data. Just your questionable anecdotes. So here, if you can wrap your 'retard' brain around this, perhaps you'll STFU once and for all with regards to spreading misinformation about WBFS. Of course, an apology wouldn't be out of order, but given your level of maturity (the l33t speak in the name pretty much says it all), I won't be holding my breath.
Here's a map of a game on my WBFS partition:
See, all the game blocks are contiguous, i.e. not fragmented. Blocks a401-a46b.Code:Dump of Wii disc #XXX of XXX: ÂÂÂÂname:ÂÂ We Rock: Drum King ÂÂÂÂtitle:ÂÂWe Rock: Drum King ÂÂÂÂid6:ÂÂÂÂRUKPGT ÂÂÂÂregion: PAL [PAL ] ÂÂÂÂsize:ÂÂ 1712 MiB ÂÂÂÂWii disc memory mapping: ÂÂÂÂÂÂwii disc blocks :ÂÂwbfs blocks :ÂÂÂÂÂÂdisc offset range :ÂÂÂÂ size ÂÂÂÂ -------------------------------------------------------------------- ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 0 ..ÂÂ 200 :ÂÂÂÂ a401ÂÂÂÂ :ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 0 ..ÂÂ 1000000 :ÂÂ1000000 ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ1e00 ..ÂÂ2000 :ÂÂÂÂ a402ÂÂÂÂ :ÂÂ f000000 ..ÂÂ10000000 :ÂÂ1000000 ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 15e00 .. 23000 : a403 .. a46b :ÂÂaf000000 .. 118000000 : 69000000
Here's a map of the last game on the same partition:
CODEDump of Wii disc #XXX of XXX:
ÂÂÂÂname:ÂÂ LEGO Rock Band
ÂÂÂÂid6:ÂÂÂÂR6LEWR
ÂÂÂÂregion: NTSC [NTSC]
ÂÂÂÂsize:ÂÂ 3776 MiB
ÂÂÂÂWii disc memory mapping:
ÂÂÂÂÂÂwii disc blocks :ÂÂwbfs blocks :ÂÂÂÂÂÂdisc offset range :ÂÂÂÂ size
ÂÂÂÂ --------------------------------------------------------------------
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 0 ..ÂÂ 200 :ÂÂÂÂ b57cÂÂÂÂ :ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 0 ..ÂÂ 1000000 :ÂÂ1000000
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ1e00 ..ÂÂ2000 :ÂÂÂÂ b57dÂÂÂÂ :ÂÂ f000000 ..ÂÂ10000000 :ÂÂ1000000
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ5c00 .. 23000 : b57e .. b667 :ÂÂ2e000000 .. 118000000 : ea000000
After gathering that information, I deleted the first game mapped above, RUKPGT, and then installed a game larger than the 1712MiB it occupied. According to your misinformation, the game would have to be installed at the end of the partition, after the last game listed above, thus occupying blocks b668 and up. But guess what 'retard'? Here's the map for that game and would you look at that...YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT.
CODE
ÂÂÂÂname:ÂÂ Call of Duty Modern Warfare Reflex
ÂÂÂÂid6:ÂÂÂÂRJAP52
ÂÂÂÂregion: PAL [PAL ]
ÂÂÂÂsize:ÂÂ 3888 MiB
ÂÂÂÂWii disc memory mapping:
ÂÂÂÂÂÂwii disc blocks :ÂÂwbfs blocks :ÂÂÂÂÂÂdisc offset range :ÂÂÂÂ size
ÂÂÂÂ --------------------------------------------------------------------
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 0 ..ÂÂ 200 :ÂÂÂÂ a401ÂÂÂÂ :ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 0 ..ÂÂ 1000000 :ÂÂ1000000
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ1e00 ..ÂÂf200 : a402 .. a46b :ÂÂ f000000 ..ÂÂ79000000 : 6a000000
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂf200 .. 20200 : b668 .. b6ef :ÂÂ79000000 .. 101000000 : 88000000