WBFS vs. sparse ISO

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

Sep 23, 2011

WBFS vs. sparse ISO by Kudu at 2:07 AM (3,373 Views / 0 Likes) 10 replies

  1. Kudu
    OP

    Newcomer Kudu Newbie

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

    Member zizer GBAtemp Addict

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,035
    Country:
    NTFS ..... i think better FAT32

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

    Member qwertymodo GBAtemp Advanced Fan

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    777
    Country:
    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

    Member bazamuffin RESIDENT DILF

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    Messages:
    2,036
    Location:
    Shmashmortion Clinic
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Isn't a sparse ISO just like a scrubbed Wii game, but it retains ISO/burnable format?
     
  5. caaraa

    Banned caaraa Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    47
    Country:
    United States
    you can save space on the hdd with wbfs.
    [​IMG]
     
  6. PsyBlade

    Member PsyBlade Snake Charmer

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,204
    Location:
    Sol III
    Country:
    Germany
    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

    Member Wiimm Developer

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,052
    Location:
    Germany
    Country:
    Germany
  8. Kudu
    OP

    Newcomer Kudu Newbie

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

    Member smf GBAtemp Advanced Fan

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    838
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    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

    Member Wiimm Developer

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,052
    Location:
    Germany
    Country:
    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

    Member DarkStriker GBAtemp's Kpop lover!

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,957
    Location:
    NIKU!
    Country:
    Norway
    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?
     

Share This Page