WBFS vs. sparse ISO

Discussion in 'Wii - Hacking' started by Kudu, Sep 23, 2011.

  1. Kudu
    OP

    Kudu Newbie

    Newcomer
    4
    0
    Sep 23, 2011
    United States
    What's more convenient/efficient/etc., a WBFS file or a sparse ISO? (On NTFS.)
     
  2. zizer

    zizer GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    2,035
    4
    Aug 23, 2010
    NTFS ..... i think better FAT32

    you can save space on the hdd with wbfs
     
  3. qwertymodo

    qwertymodo GBAtemp Advanced Fan

    Member
    827
    123
    Feb 1, 2010
    United States
    You apparently don't understand the concept of sparse ISO's...


    Personally I use .wbfs files on FAT32. Only real advantage I can think of for sparse ISO is single file, but having at most 3 files is no issue for me (I use subdirectories to keep the games separate). .wbfs can be used on FAT32 or NTFS (as long as it's split
     
  4. bazamuffin

    bazamuffin RESIDENT DILF

    Member
    2,036
    63
    Feb 1, 2009
    Shmashmortion Clinic
    Isn't a sparse ISO just like a scrubbed Wii game, but it retains ISO/burnable format?
     
  5. caaraa

    caaraa Banned

    Banned
    47
    0
    Apr 8, 2011
    United States
    you can save space on the hdd with wbfs.
    [​IMG]
     
  6. PsyBlade

    PsyBlade Snake Charmer

    Member
    2,204
    256
    Jul 30, 2009
    Gambia, The
    Sol III
    contrary to the other posters I do not think it will make much difference space wise
    both only contain the used data portions and do not employ additional compression
    there is simply no reason why it should differ

    both need to be created with special tools too

    iso can be burned directly
    but wbfs files can be converted back easily if the need ever arises

    wbfs files can be put on fat32, sparse isos can't
    fat32 is the only fs supported by sneek and hbc



    sparse files are a feature of modern fs where long continuous runs of zeros are not store
    and thus take only minimal space
    for programs reading writing them they feel like normal files
    the os simply adds the missing zeros back if they are ever read

    you can use this feature with wii isos by scrubbing the data with zeros and telling windows to make the target file sparse

    what you get is a scrubbed iso thats still 4.7G big but uses much less space of your hdd
     
  7. Wiimm

    Wiimm Developer

    Member
    2,170
    379
    Aug 11, 2009
    Gambia, The
    Germany
  8. Kudu
    OP

    Kudu Newbie

    Newcomer
    4
    0
    Sep 23, 2011
    United States
    I am not a simplicity freak - I can handle a "--sparse=all" argument.
     
  9. smf

    smf GBAtemp Maniac

    Member
    1,147
    237
    Feb 23, 2009
    wbfs on fat32 is the most convenient, any size differences are minor and largely irrelevant.
    The only reason for using sparse iso's on ntfs is if you want to save space and be able to burn dvd's without converting images.
    I can't imagine ever needing to burn a dvd, so to me it's irrelevant.

    I can't think of any good reasons for using anything other than fat32 on the wii.
     
  10. Wiimm

    Wiimm Developer

    Member
    2,170
    379
    Aug 11, 2009
    Gambia, The
    Germany
    Sparse files needs less disk space than wbfs files, but the difference is very small.
    Before burning you can always convert a wbfs back to an iso, e.g. "wit cp my.wbfs my.iso"
     
  11. DarkStriker

    DarkStriker GBAtemp's Kpop lover!

    Member
    1,959
    311
    Mar 15, 2009
    Norway
    NIKU!
    Running .wbfs format games on my NTFS disk on my wii.
    Since im using HDD, .wbfs formats would be what i want i guess for easy convert back and forth in case i want it back in .iso format. And i sometimes change my HDD to newer ones with more storage. But wouldnt sparse ISO/wbfs be best depending on how you intend to use them?