Curse

Lex · Sep 28, 2006, 08:40 PM // 20:40

I. Quote from System Requirements for Guild Wars:
- Minimum System Specs: Windows® XP/2000/ME/98, (...), 2 GB Available HDD Space, (...)
- Recommended System Specs: Windows XP/2000, (...), 2 GB Available HDD Space, (...)

II. According to pages: Microsoft's Choosing between NTFS, FAT, and FAT32 and NTFS.com's NTFS vs FAT systems like ME/98 (supported by Guild Wars) have no access to NTFS volumes.

III. According to NTFS.com page NTFS vs FAT Max File Size on FAT32 volume is 4GB minus 2 Bytes

IV. According to Gaile:

Quote:

The full Gw.dat file size is currently about 2.7 GB.

Post is dated 9-15-2006 - so before last PvE event update.

V. According to this thread some ppl already have GW.dat file > 4GB but this is caused by bug...

------

So, my question is: Does ANet plan to divide large gw.dat file into several smaller ones? For example: one expansion = one file, or separate files for music data, graphics data, engine data and so on..

I'm using FAT32 partition for a very long time (it has faster access to files and I dont need NTFS' security). My gw.dat file was 2.7GB before Nightfall's event (as Gaile said) and now it's 3.3GB after downloading all data for event.

I'm worrying that soon (maybe during Nightfall or with next expansion) gw.dat file will exceed 4GB size, and game will give me critical error

FAT32 should be still supported by game (according to system requirements for Guild Wars) - so please ANet - do something with large gw.dat file before it is too late...

Ghozer · Sep 28, 2006, 10:02 PM // 22:02

FAT32 is faster access time for you?? Your PC/HDD is Weird then.. VERY Weird... NTFS's file structure and mapping, and caching etc is far superior to that of FAT32.... I have been building and repairing systems since 1998, and have never come across FAT32 being better/faster than NTFS.. hehe.. strange..

B Ephekt · Sep 28, 2006, 10:17 PM // 22:17

People don't use NTFS due to its speed... FAT32 is actually faster on small partitions (<30GB), but NTFS is more stable.

kvndoom · Sep 28, 2006, 10:18 PM // 22:18

On a clean install, FAT32 is faster, because of NTFS' overhead (there was a comparison done on a hardware site years ago), but NTFS quality doesn't deteriorate at the pace of FAT32, so over time (and usually not much time) the balance swings. Honestly, FAT32 shouldn't even be an install option anymore. Very little use for it in this day and age.

But to OP, if you're using XP or 2000, I believe you're allowed to change a volume from FAT32 to NTFS (just no reverting), so it might be a good time to back up and do so.

B Ephekt · Sep 28, 2006, 10:20 PM // 22:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by kvndoom

But to OP, if you're using XP or 2000, I believe you're allowed to change a volume from FAT32 to NTFS (just no reverting), so it might be a good time to back up and do so.

Yep.

Code:

convert c: /fs:ntfs

Lex · Sep 28, 2006, 10:42 PM // 22:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghozer

FAT32 is faster access time for you?? Your PC/HDD is Weird then.. VERY Weird... NTFS's file structure and mapping, and caching etc is far superior to that of FAT32.... I have been building and repairing systems since 1998, and have never come across FAT32 being better/faster than NTFS.. hehe.. strange..

Its not strange, because:

Quote:

Originally Posted by B Ephekt

People don't use NTFS due to its speed... FAT32 is actually faster on small partitions (<30GB), but NTFS is more stable.

My PC has two HDDs: 3GB and 20GB - I dont need more space due to proper archiving of my work. GW is the only game I play. Even with all projects on HDD I still have 4-5GB free HDD space.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kvndoom

But to OP, if you're using XP or 2000, I believe you're allowed to change a volume from FAT32 to NTFS (just no reverting), so it might be a good time to back up and do so.

Yes, I have XP, but why should I change? I would like to use still FAT32 and it is still supported (as long as 98/ME systems are supported). I never had any problems with it and never had to do something weird due to problems (like reinstaling Windows two times a year).

lord_shar · Sep 28, 2006, 11:34 PM // 23:34

I made the switch from FAT32 to NTFS a while ago due to the huge amounts of disk space DVD trasnscoding required. Haven't looked back since...

Omega X · Sep 29, 2006, 12:21 AM // 00:21

Wasn't there a patch for FAT32 systems and the 4GB thing?

Regardless, I feel sorry for anyone still using Win98/ME.

Infidelus · Sep 29, 2006, 09:54 AM // 09:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rafal

Yes, I have XP, but why should I change? I would like to use still FAT32 and it is still supported (as long as 98/ME systems are supported).

They're not supported anymore (not by Microsoft anyway). Game developers will soon drop support for them too I'd expect.

Further on, when games require DX10 support, you'll have to run Vista or be SoL (unless Microsoft change their mind and offer DX10 for 2000/XP)

That said, I see nothing wrong with the idea of splitting the dat files.

Lex · Sep 29, 2006, 09:58 AM // 09:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by lord_shar

I made the switch from FAT32 to NTFS a while ago due to the huge amounts of disk space DVD trasnscoding required. Haven't looked back since...

Well, beside this game I dont have a need to use such large files and my system is very stable - I installed my Windows a few years ago without any reinstallations on P2,4GHz, Geil 512MB RAM, ATI R9500Pro, ASUS P4P800dlx (this configuration works very good in my opinion).

My rule is: if something works great dont fix it

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omega X

Wasn't there a patch for FAT32 systems and the 4GB thing?

I didnt hear about any patch for this - so can you explain?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omega X

Regardless, I feel sorry for anyone still using Win98/ME.

Well, no need to be sorry for these ppl... I dont know about ME, but 98 is IMHO still quite a good system

But this talk is not important.

Important thing is that these both systems (both based on FAT32) are (or should be) supported according to official ANet statement!

Lex · Sep 29, 2006, 10:11 AM // 10:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infidelus

They're not supported anymore (not by Microsoft anyway). Game developers will soon drop support for them too I'd expect.

Yes, I know about M$, but my quote was from official game support FAQ.

Beside that, I, personally, dont know any other games which create such large files.

And even if ANet drops 98/ME from requirements, FAT32 is still supported by XP and I think i'm not the only one who uses it. Why create such large files? I think its even easier to manage data stored in separate files...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infidelus

Further on, when games require DX10 support, you'll have to run Vista or be SoL (unless Microsoft change their mind and offer DX10 for 2000/XP)

"games" - I dont mind about the other games (I dont play them) but look at this: Guild Wars works on DX9 now but it still supports DX8 - so why they will change this in future?

Infidelus · Sep 29, 2006, 10:34 AM // 10:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rafal

Why create such large files? I think its even easier to manage data stored in separate files...

As I said, I've no problem with them splitting the dat files. Why haven't they done it? Your guess is as good as mine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rafal

"games" - I dont mind about the other games (I dont play them) but look at this: Guild Wars works on DX9 now but it still supports DX8 - so why they will change this in future?

Probably if if they want to take advantage of features only available in DX10. I can't see them do so for the forseeable future, but there will come a time, as with all software, where old technologies will stop being supported.

Lex · Sep 29, 2006, 10:38 AM // 10:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infidelus

(...) I can't see them do so for the forseeable future, but there will come a time, as with all software, where old technologies will stop being supported.

Yes

And at this time I will have probably new, quite different PC too

Ghozer · Sep 29, 2006, 10:44 AM // 10:44

yes there weas a patch for Windows 98SE and windows ME, that allowed up to (80GB i believe?) on a Fat32 system, but since MS has stopped supporting Win98 and ME you will be hard pushed to find it...

I would have thought that WindowsXP would have had it in as standard, cause i SWEAR I have seen machines with more than 4GB running Fat32...

Lex · Sep 29, 2006, 11:00 AM // 11:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghozer

I would have thought that WindowsXP would have had it in as standard, cause i SWEAR I have seen machines with more than 4GB running Fat32...

Hmm.. that would be a great news for me if that's true - now I need to do Google search if XP really supports files larger than 4GB on FAT32 partitions...

Anyone else has seen such a PCs too to confirm this?

-----

EDIT: after googling -> Limitations of the FAT32 File System in Windows XP:

Quote:

- You cannot create a file larger than (2^32)-1 bytes (this is one byte less than 4 GB) on a FAT32 partition.

Omega X · Sep 29, 2006, 11:10 AM // 11:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rafal

Well, no need to be sorry for these ppl... I dont know about ME, but 98 is IMHO still quite a good system

But this talk is not important.

Important thing is that these both systems (both based on FAT32) are (or should be) supported according to official ANet statement!

Regardless of which talk is important or not. The 9x Windows is obsolete, unsupported by its creator, and can be dropped from ANET support at any time they choose.

I'm guessing that once the file officially hits past 4GB, they will drop support for the archaic OS. Hell, they can drop support tomorrow or next year when Vista comes through.

Infidelus · Sep 29, 2006, 11:19 AM // 11:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghozer

yes there weas a patch for Windows 98SE and windows ME, that allowed up to (80GB i believe?) on a Fat32 system, but since MS has stopped supporting Win98 and ME you will be hard pushed to find it...

I would have thought that WindowsXP would have had it in as standard, cause i SWEAR I have seen machines with more than 4GB running Fat32...

I think you'll find that the patch was for the physical size of the disk, not the maximum size a single file could be.

As Rafal has noted, you can't create (on XP) a FAT32 partition larger that 32 GB.

Lex · Sep 29, 2006, 11:29 AM // 11:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omega X

The 9x Windows is obsolete, unsupported by its creator, and can be dropped from ANET support at any time they choose.

Then why ANet bothered to put 98/ME in requirements if ...

Quote:

No-charge incident support and extended hotfix support for Windows Me ended on December 31, 2003, and for Windows 98 and Windows 98 Second Edition ended on June 30, 2003.

... if end of no-charge support in 2003 was already over a year old before Guild Wars game was released...

moriz · Sep 29, 2006, 03:31 PM // 15:31

win98 is also limited in how much processing speed it can handle. i believe a tech at my old highschool said that all the new computers had to be underclocked to 1.8ghz for win98 to run. just another reason why nobody use it anymore.

Loviatar · Sep 29, 2006, 03:41 PM // 15:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rafal

Then why ANet bothered to put 98/ME in requirements if ... ... if end of no-charge support in 2003 was already over a year old before Guild Wars game was released...

here you go from microsoft on large file spanning

http://search.microsoft.com/results....+file+spanning