.bin + .cue vs .iso

deadduck

i dunno if this is off limits but i dont think its a piaracy question. if the mods do i apologise. i was just wondering is there any reason i should use .bin + .cue files when .iso are smaller.

weichen

i heard some early virtual CD software didn't support .iso format,like deman tools 2.0

RE*AC*TOR

From:
http://psybb.link9.net/?action=docs&category=linuxfaq#whatbin

bin/cue

A .bin and .cue files are a "raw" CD-ROM format, with all the "extra" information between the sectors (without going into too much detail). The .bin file contains all the tracks (1 or more), and the .cue file tells how the .bin file is laid out. The .cue file is a text file, and you may need to edit the dos filenames contained in it. The .bin and .cue files can be generated with cdrdao for Linux, or cdrwin for windows. If you have a "copy protected" CD, A CD with more than 1 track, or a CD with audio tracks, then a bin/cue is probably the best image type.

.iso

.iso is short for ISO9660, which defines the layout of a "standard" cdrom. Most .iso images are really an extension to ISO9660, like Rock Ridge, Romeo, Joliet. (Romeo, and Joliet are microslop extension to ISO9660, Romeo is 128 character file names, all upper(or lower)case, and Joliet is 64 character "unicode" (double byte) filenames.) Rock Ridge is an extension to ISO9660 to make it more "unix friendly", which includes, permissions, ownership, and case sensitive "long" filenames.

Which is better, a bin/cue image or an .iso image?

In most cases an .iso is better because it is smaller, but if you have a copy-protected CD, or a CD with more than 1 track, then you'll most likely have to use a bin/cue format.

kaimera

the software you are using to create .bin, .iso etc automatically selects the appropriate file type for the media you are using.