Printable View
hi there,
i have realised that recently rips are becoming less for games and that people use .iso .cue .bin etc type of files .....
but they are like 700mb and 800mb....
why don't people just zip them iso files so that it is quicker to download???
does it cause any problems ???
please help me
thanks,
nik
1) BINs are the pure binary code of a CD image - Zipping them or ISOs would have no effect on the file size
2) Anyone can put anything dodgy (e.g. trojans, viruses) into a ZIP while it's being shared. Once a CD images is written, it can't be changed as easily.
3) ZIPs are used on ISOs - But only to group multiple CDs for a piece of software together (Most recent example I have is Arcanum, 2 CDs put in a 1.2GB ZIP.
Aswell as that, you don't always have to burn the ISOs onto a CD. WinRAR is compatible with ISO files, you can simply highlight all of the files and extract them to your system.
But I suppose just burning them onto a CD is a lot easier :D
because zips take a long @$$ time to zip and unzip.
And most people are just plain lazy. :P
BTW it does matter on size for example i did Gta VC bin into iso & t was about 780mb & now its 660mb so u wrong of cause its not goes to all cd images but to almost all,about viruses maybe u right but i dont dl iso's from kazaa anymore cause it always corrupted & speed fucked up so i using BT didnt tryed DC++ yet cause have a small HD & as much as i know u must have about 30gb sharing HD so didnt tryed yet in meen time BT rocks Kazaa sucks ,nothing personal but its reality..... :DQuote:
Originally posted by Illuminati@31 July 2003 - 14:10
1) BINs are the pure binary code of a CD image - Zipping them or ISOs would have no effect on the file size
2) Anyone can put anything dodgy (e.g. trojans, viruses) into a ZIP while it's being shared. Once a CD images is written, it can't be changed as easily.
3) ZIPs are used on ISOs - But only to group multiple CDs for a piece of software together (Most recent example I have is Arcanum, 2 CDs put in a 1.2GB ZIP.
I always make my ISO's into self-extracting RAR files, and yes it does make the file size considerably smaller. I have no idea why more people don't so that. Yes they take a while to extract, but it makes for quicker downloads, so it's a fair trade.
And as for viruses, If I wanted to I could just as easily hide one in a BIN or ISO file as I could in a ZIP or RAR file. I really don't see what difference that makes. Hopefully everyone here is smart enough to scan everything they download before opening it.
Several megabytes ber second even on a low-level PC. Much faster than downloading. Besides all you have to do is right click on the zipped file and hit "Extract here" and it's done. I use WINRARQuote:
Originally posted by Bob64@31 July 2003 - 16:09
because zips take a long @$$ time to zip and unzip.
Good point :) I knew that was a possibility, but it could be that about ISOs slightly harder to drop in a virus to an extent - How many people do you think have WinISO compared to the many that have say WinZip or WinRAR? On top of that - WinISO severly limits what you can do with ISOs unless you register.Quote:
Originally posted by Nightwolf@1 August 2003 - 04:58
And as for viruses, If I wanted to I could just as easily hide one in a BIN or ISO file as I could in a ZIP or RAR file. I really don't see what difference that makes. Hopefully everyone here is smart enough to scan everything they download before opening it.
So consider the number of people with WinZIP and/or WinRAR, and compare it with those who have a registered copy of WinISO. My guess is that the former is a hell of a larger number by far.
I'm not trying to make a stubborn (on my side) dispute about it - I was just putting down a point. Perceive it in what way you want :)
It doesnt take long at all compared to downloading what the zip file compressed.Quote:
Originally posted by Bob64@31 July 2003 - 18:09
because zips take a long @$$ time to zip and unzip.