Actually it's slower to have thousands of small files with resources instead of a big one - so many API calls for opening those files are pretty expensive from performance standpoint, while with one file you can manage the content inside it any way you like. And it takes MUCH longer to install so many little files than a single big one.
FAT32 is long since dead - its limitation on file size doesn't even allow large movies to be stored on such a partition. NTFS is better in many other ways (faster search, meta-data storage etc), and it's the default file system for Windows 2000, XP, Vista and 7. Who in their right mind would even think about using FAT32 now on anything but thumb drives? And even there I tend to use exFAT or even NTFS because of the file size limit.
Sacrificing performance, installation speed and development convenience for a very-very small number of users would be really stupid.
FAT32 is long since dead - its limitation on file size doesn't even allow large movies to be stored on such a partition. NTFS is better in many other ways (faster search, meta-data storage etc), and it's the default file system for Windows 2000, XP, Vista and 7. Who in their right mind would even think about using FAT32 now on anything but thumb drives? And even there I tend to use exFAT or even NTFS because of the file size limit.
Sacrificing performance, installation speed and development convenience for a very-very small number of users would be really stupid.