Hacking WBFS vs. sparse ISO

[Kudu]

What's more convenient/efficient/etc., a WBFS file or a sparse ISO? (On NTFS.)

 

[zizer]

NTFS ..... i think better FAT32

you can save space on the hdd with wbfs

 

[qwertymodo]

you can save space on the hdd with wbfs

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

 

[bazamuffin]

Isn't a sparse ISO just like a scrubbed Wii game, but it retains ISO/burnable format?

 

[caaraa]

you can save space on the hdd with wbfs.

 

[PsyBlade]

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

Isn't a sparse ISO just like a scrubbed Wii game, but it retains ISO/burnable format?

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

 

[Wiimm]

But sparse files are unhandy. If copying the sparse effect is most lost. Here is my short note about wit & scrubbing & sparse files: http://wit.wiimm.de/info/scrubbing.html

 

[Kudu]

But sparse files are unhandy. If copying the sparse effect is most lost. Here is my short note about wit & scrubbing & sparse files: http://wit.wiimm.de/info/scrubbing.html

I am not a simplicity freak - I can handle a "--sparse=all" argument.

 

[smf]

What's more convenient/efficient/etc., a WBFS file or a sparse ISO? (On NTFS.)

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.

 

[Wiimm]

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"

 

[DarkStriker]

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?