Hacking wbfsGUI v13, support SDHC with 2 or more partitions

[calimero100582]

Hi everybody

New version of wbfsGUI that is available

Added support for reading and writing to all partitions on SD card and USB flash drive without the need of driver or anything else

Other features:
Add, Extract and Remove games
Rename games
Automatic download of images
WBFS to WBFS


wbfsGUI v13

See website for more info

 

[pcfree]

calimero,

After init the FREE@Physical, it won't auto update the partition info as WBFS@Physical and must exist and reload.

 

[calimero100582]

calimero,

After init the FREE@Physical, it won't auto update the partition info as WBFS@Physical and must exist and reload.

I don't think people are interested in that release anyway, it's the first feedback I receive since friday, so I don't think I'll do any more modification to it.

The source code is available, so interesting feature I implemented will soon appear in other wbfs apps

 

[nubecoder]

calimero100582 I sent you an email..

Thank you for the source it is very useful.

 

[zektor]

This looks pretty good! I have been on a quest for a clean WBFS manager that does not rely on .Net. This one does not, correct? I'll be testing this when I get home!

 

[nubecoder]

It does in fact rely on .Net.

But why is everyone so afraid of (opposed to) .Net?

If you have Vista or Windows 7 you already have .Net.
If you have XP, I recommend you get and install the silent installer found here (only 55.63 MB).
Simply extract and run the "DotNetFX3in1.exe" found inside the SVCPACK folder.
Note that it is a silent installer (no progress window), so to know when it is finished you can use the windows task manager.

I really don't see why everyone is so opposed to .Net. It's packaged in Vista and Windows 7, and it's very easy to use from a developer standpoint.
The only real draw back I see is the official installer's file size (200MB+), and I've given you a solution to that above.

Is there something I'm missing? Would someone mind telling me what the problem is? Is it because Microsoft hasn't made it a required update for XP?
I'm sure if they had no one would care, right?

 

[rem300wm]

Hello

calimero that is a really nice app!!
Will test later today.


Thanks

 

[zektor]

It does in fact rely on .Net.

But why is everyone so afraid of (opposed to) .Net?

If you have Vista or Windows 7 you already have .Net.
If you have XP, I recommend you get and install the silent installer found here (only 55.63 MB).
Simply extract and run the "DotNetFX3in1.exe" found inside the SVCPACK folder.
Note that it is a silent installer (no progress window), so to know when it is finished you can use the windows task manager.

I really don't see why everyone is so opposed to .Net. It's packaged in Vista and Windows 7, and it's very easy to use from a developer standpoint.
The only real draw back I see is the official installer's file size (200MB+), and I've given you a solution to that above.

Is there something I'm missing? Would someone mind telling me what the problem is? Is it because Microsoft hasn't made it a required update for XP?
I'm sure if they had no one would care, right?

I have personally had .Net fail (required running setup and repair) twice. I would attempt to load WBFS Mananger and would get a nasty little Windows error. What is causing it? Not sure...I have yet to track it down. I would assume it is an application installed, but maybe not. Either way, just that alone makes me weary of the stability of .Net in the future. Better to have a well written WBFS manager that does not completely rely on .Net at all...like WBFS Intelligent GUI.

 

[calimero100582]

It does in fact rely on .Net.

But why is everyone so afraid of (opposed to) .Net?

If you have Vista or Windows 7 you already have .Net.
If you have XP, I recommend you get and install the silent installer found here (only 55.63 MB).
Simply extract and run the "DotNetFX3in1.exe" found inside the SVCPACK folder.
Note that it is a silent installer (no progress window), so to know when it is finished you can use the windows task manager.

I really don't see why everyone is so opposed to .Net. It's packaged in Vista and Windows 7, and it's very easy to use from a developer standpoint.
The only real draw back I see is the official installer's file size (200MB+), and I've given you a solution to that above.

Is there something I'm missing? Would someone mind telling me what the problem is? Is it because Microsoft hasn't made it a required update for XP?
I'm sure if they had no one would care, right?

I have personally had .Net fail (required running setup and repair) twice. I would attempt to load WBFS Mananger and would get a nasty little Windows error. What is causing it? Not sure...I have yet to track it down. I would assume it is an application installed, but maybe not. Either way, just that alone makes me weary of the stability of .Net in the future. Better to have a well written WBFS manager that does not completely rely on .Net at all...like WBFS Intelligent GUI.

Only the GUI rely on .Net, and the DLL in background is pure C++ that is compatible on most compiler under windows

 

[nubecoder]

It does in fact rely on .Net.
[snipped]

I have personally had .Net fail (required running setup and repair) twice. I would attempt to load WBFS Mananger and would get a nasty little Windows error. What is causing it? Not sure...I have yet to track it down. I would assume it is an application installed, but maybe not. Either way, just that alone makes me weary of the stability of .Net in the future. Better to have a well written WBFS manager that does not completely rely on .Net at all...like WBFS Intelligent GUI.

There are service packs that are needed to be "up to date" for .Net and some people's code does rely on "up to date" .Net.
Would you mind running the silent installer I mentioned above and see if your problems with .Net go away?
I'm just curious if it is an install problem or some kind of conflict, that silent installer shouldn't have any trouble installing the files where they need to be.