Am I understanding this properly.... that an .ISO moved to a WBFS drive/partition performs the same function as a .WBFS file on a FAT32 partition?
If this is the case it is really just apples and oranges as far as the final function. If this is correct then it will lead to my next question....
OK then. That being the case I'm guessing that it makes no difference if you take an ISO and move it to a WBFS partition or you take a WBFS file and move it to a FAT32 partition - the end result should be in both cases 2 files of similarly reduced size, therefore no advantage to either one with respect to size of the final file.
So really it's all a matter of personal preference which method you would want to use.
they should pretty much be the same size (if not the same).
yes, it's really preference. With fat32, you can store other files on there besides wii games unlike wbfs...
That essentially was the purpose for the original question...looking for size advantage.
I gave this some thought last night. Defragging a PC drive has advantages as we all know - to a point. I'm not so sure that it would really be required on any kind of "maintenance schedule" for a Wii drive though. The reason you need to defrag a drive in the first place is because files that are added to you system change in size or get deleted, leaving unclaimed "holes". Unless you delete games all the time the only thing your doing to a FAT32 drive on a Wii is accessing stored information in the form of a disk image ( which originally was a optical disk - something you didn't write to). Since really you're only reading, changes that would cause your drive to get fragmented as it would under Windoze wouldn't be occurring.FAT has it's advantages in that it is recognized by the PC so you can do things like defrag it
Of course that opinion becomes "all bets off" if you are constantly deleting and adding things to the FAt32/Wii drive. Then it might become necessary.
Also as previously stated there are no WBFS recovery tools. If your WBFS drive fails all data is lost.
One of the reasons FAT doesn't write data in sequential sector locations is to improve access times - simplified, this means that (as a "for example") pieces of files are written on opposite sides of the the drive surface, reducing latency by (as an example) a factor of 50% . This is done to reduce thermal issues with drive R/W heads causing them to perform thermal recalibration on the fly. Users might see this as their video stuttering or pausing.
By defragging this by design layout of data, it's possible that drive performance and life are reduced. Possible, not guaranteed.