Warning for ANet: NTFS vs FAT32 systems - problems will emerge soon! :(

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: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...

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..

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

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.

Yep.

Its not strange, because: 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.

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).

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...

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

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

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.

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

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

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!

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...

"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?

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.

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.

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

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...

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:

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.

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.

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...

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.

here you go from microsoft on large file spanning

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

I wholeheartedly agree with the OP on win98 support. Also, I complain to every gas station I go to that they don't carry food for the horse that pulls my carriage. WTF is this "gasoline"? My horse-drawn buggy has worked so far! I Demand recompense!

I kinda agree, but there's not even security patches released for win98 anymore. You're really going to keep using an out of cycle OS that was really buggy and insecure to begin with, without so much as vendor-supplied security updates? I reccomend upgrading someday. You're going to have to anyway.

to answer your question they put support for fat 32 in because you can run WIN XP with a fat 32 partition.

since win 98 is fat 32 they supported that so those holdovers would not be left out.

note if you go down to the RECOMMENDED SPECS win 98 /me are not included

Their minimal specs, like Loviatar noted, are what is the WORST system that could possible HOPE to even just load Guild Wars. No promises of it working right, or working good enough to even play.

The recommended specs are for good stable average play.

I also find irony in the fact that you say "If it works, don't fix it" while at the same time complaining that it is soon not going to work - where the obvious answer is to fix it and you are unwilling to do that.

You missed my point here

I have XP and I have FAT32 - like you said in your post.

IF ANet lists 98/Me systems as system requiremens for game AND 98/Me support only FAT32 partitions (not NTFS) THEN ANet still support FAT32 - am I right?

THEN my point is that ANet should split large gw.dat file to several smaller ones to allow users with FAT32 partitions (supported by developer) to still play this game OR make some statement.

My spec:
Windows XP
Intel Pentium IV 2.4GHz
512 MB RAM
DVD-ROM Drive
more than 5 GB Available HDD Space
ATI Radeon 9500 Pro
Sound Blaster Live!
Internet connection

My spec are over recomended, right? There is nothing about that NTFS file system is required or at least recomended... I can play other games without any problems - GW is just using file structure that could cause troubles and there is no warning about it.

[QUOTE]was my link to microsoft on spanning large files earlier any help?

what i assume will happen (my guess) when you run out of available empty space will simply be file swapping to download areas you go into which will then be deleted for the next zones files

since my dat is over 3 gigs and demands 2 minimum i assume file swapping would have to be the answer

on the other hand i will have to wait a few chapters as i have about half a terabyte of free space here

well, not really

Maybe for just swapping data it will work, but when i run out of available empty space for "real" data (next chapters) game will crash.

Gaile has already stated that current size of "real" data for GW is 2.7GB (and that was before downloading "real" data for Nightfall's event) - look at my 1st post.

sorry

i didnt have time to read them but it did mention spanning large files.

I'm curious... why is your system stuck with Fat32? Do you have 3rd party software that doesn't function under NTFS? Is it a performance issue? Or more of a personal preference? NTFS has been completely stable on all 3 of my PC's (2 desktop P4's running SIS-645 chipsets, 1 Dell XPS M1710 laptop).

I fought moving to NTFS until my requirements could no longer be met by FAT32. When I finally made the transition, it was completely painless.

at the end of the OP's point is valid. All the people in here sayin he should change to NTFS etc. why should he have to? theres an option to pick your file format system when u install xp i believe so theres no gaurantee that everyone is using NTFS, he doesnt have to change because you feel its a better choice, free will ftw. For whatever the reasons Fat32 is being used so anet basically has 3 choices

1. split the file
2. give support on changing the file system
3. change the minimum requirements for owning more then one chapter as needing NTFS

The problem with staying with FAT32 is that the PC industry is basically dropping support for it due to its storage limitations. Stable or not, FAT32 is slowly fossilizing into the land of the betamax. GW's current requirements are slowly outgrowing the OP's PC platform. I don't see an easy way out of this other than upgrading file systems.

Start > Run > cmd
convert.exe C: /fs:ntfs

Learn more...

Ok the thing is, regardless of wether FAT32 is stable and faster than NTFS is irellevent, at the end of the day it is an outdated file system, and there is no difference between the 2, so my question(s)

1, Why not convert to NTFS, it isnt hard to do so,

You have answered this as "why should you", my answer to that is "why should the tech mods at GW continue adding support for a redudant filing system when they could be fixing whatever bugs people on here moan about"

At the end of the day it is your choice to use FAT32, no other reason than you want to. The difference between the two filing systems is virtually noticable, so what will be your problem with converting to NTFS.

As mentioned before FAT32 is dying, M$ won't be supporting it for much longer, and as been said why should the bods at ANET.

With the expansions coming out the gw.dat file will get bigger, so if you want to continue playing then you'll have to convert, remember for every 1 person that stops playing another 10 or so will take their place.

All assumptions are that you are using the DEFAULT file system for XP which is NTFS. And all assumptions are that you will hopefully upgrade to the standard which is the Recommended specs.

The Specs in general are not permanent and can be changed or not supported at anytime. FOr all we know those specs can go from Minimum: Win98/ME Recommended: WinXP to Minimum: Xp Recommended: Win Vista

Staying with obsolete systems is only creating your own problems.

FAT32 vs. NTFS

Myth - "The FAT32 file system is faster/better than NTFS."

Reality - "NTFS is the better file system with many advantages over FAT32. NTFS features: Built-In Security, Recoverability, Alternate Streams, Custom File Attributes, Compression, Object Permissions, Economical Disk Space Usage using a more Efficient Cluster Size and Fault Tolerance. Windows 2000 and XP come with NTFS version 5 which includes even more advanced features such as: Encryption, Disk Quotas, Sparse Files, Reparse Points, Volume Mount Points. None of which is available with FAT32." - Comparison Chart

Performance
NTFS is built for speed with impressive disk I/O performance on large volumes (Over 400 MB). NTFS uses a binary tree structure for all disk directories, which reduces the number of times the system has to access the disk to locate files. This system is best for large directories, and NTFS easily outperforms FAT32 in these situations. In addition, NTFS automatically sorts files in a folder on the fly. NTFS gains an edge over FAT32 by using relatively small disk allocation units (cluster sizes) for NTFS volumes. Smaller clusters prevent wasted disk space on volumes, especially those with numerous small files. Because NTFS uses small clusters better and has a more efficient design, its performance doesn't degrade with large volumes, in contrast to FAT's. As the number of files and volume size increases NTFS performance is not effected but FAT32 continually gets worse. - Gaming Performance

Reliability
In addition to its extensive memory and application protection features, NTFS is a reliable file system. When storing data to disk, NTFS records file I/O events to a special transaction log. If the system crashes or encounters an interruption, NTFS can use this log to restore the volume and prevent corruption from an abnormal program termination or system shutdown. NTFS doesn't commit an action to disk until it verifies the successful completion of the action. This precaution helps prevent corruption of an NTFS volume. NTFS also supports hot-fixing disk sectors, where the OS automatically blocks out bad disk sectors and relocates data from these sectors. This housecleaning happens in the background. An application attempting to read or write data on a hot-fixed area will never know the disk had a problem. I only recommend and use NTFS with Windows 2000 and XP." - Source

Myself, I have used NTFS since 1996, and can't ever imagine going back to FAT.

In addition to larger file and partition limits, it is more efficient and in most cases faster then FAT. Then when you add in the benefit of being a lower fragmentation file system, the benefits are even greater.

FAT is an antiquated file system, that is showing it's age more and more every year. In reality, it is little changed from the original FAT12 that came out in 1977.

NTFS is based on the HPFS file system, developed in 1989. It came out in 1993, after IBM and MicroSoft parted ways with their O/S2 project. And the capabilities are much greater.

As opposed to a 4GB file size in Fat32, NTFS has a 16 TB file and partition size limit. And there are so many changes "under the hood", that it is impossible to list them all.

I agree with what most others in here seem to have said: upgrade to NTFS. It is simple and painless, and it really is a much better file system.

There's only two reasons you should need FAT32:

1) You run a UNIX-based OS and for whatever reason you don't want to use the Ext filesystem, in which case you shouldn't be running the OS. :P
2) You use an old version of Windows, in which case it's time to upgrade.

Providing you run a more recent version of Windows (that supports NTFS) but want to keep FAT32 for some reason, when(/if) the .dat file pushes the 4gb size limit, you can use a tool like PartitionMagic to create a small NTFS partition. It'll resize the FAT32 partition to whatever you tell it to, and it can create a small NTFS partition (e.g. 5gb) on which you can reinstall GW. That way you get to keep your precious FAT32 while also having support for the big .dat file.

On FAT32, as soon as the file size exceeds 4gb, you'll get a pleasant little error message saying the filesystem doesn't support files that big. I've goten it before.

Personally, I don't think Anet will change their perfectly working setup to accomodate technology that isn't even supported by the vendor. My money's on them changing the minimum requirements for Nightfall/the next expansion.

is there actually a reason not to use NTFS for a home machine... unless you dont know what it means...

anyways gaile also said some people have erroronous gw.dat files mine is approx 4.7GB... she says to redownload all of guild wars to fix it but since i don't want to waste my time with that so ill let it be.

There is no reason at all. The only reason I can see is if you need to dual boot to something like Windows 98, O/S2, or some other OS that does not support NTFS.

I think a lot of people are simply Luddite in their outlook on technology progress. Just today I had somebody come in with their 80486-66 MHz system, and wanted us to install a new hard drive in it, and reload it with Windows 3.1! We tried to explain to him that we did not even have DOS and Windows 3 in the store, and that we did not even have an MFM/RLL hard drive (or an IDE interface for VESA or ISA) to put into it in the first place.

Now I am all for getting the most life out of a computer as possible. But when the system is almost 15 years old, that is insane. FAT32 was obsolete when XP came out, and that is being replaced in January by Vista.

And here are the nimimum recommended requirements for Nightfall:

CD-ROM: Yes
CPU Speed: 2.0GHz Processor
Disk Space: 4.0GB
Display: ATI Radeon 9600 or NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700 Series Video Card
Memory (RAM): 1GB
Operating System Compatibility: Win 2000/XP, Not Mac Compatible

Luckily I meet all of that - but barely. I have the 1 Gig RAM, and a Radeon 9550. But the 9550 is simply a clocked-down version of the 9800, so my GPU is fine. Besides, I am planning on a new system at around the first of the year, when the new video cards come out.

It's actually not an issue. remember nightfall is the last of a trilogy. That means they can make a second .dat file for "Guild Wars Chapter Set 2" or whatever they wanna call the second set of chapters...

According to the way the game files are set up, I highly doubt that.