Why Not Use .iso Instead Of .bin?

[phalkon30]

I really don't get it, why do people continue to use .bin files, they're larger (usually by 100+ meg for a full 700meg cd image), and require a .cue file to burn correct

Why don't people use .iso, no external files, much smaller size.....am I missing something?

My guess is .bin has some file corruption protection, but thats a wild guess, can somebody fill me in here?

(btw, if your ripping program only rips .bin files, use winiso and extract them to .iso, its that easy)

[itykii]

In my expieriance, there is no difference in file sizes between iso and bin files.

I'm not sure if bin files are more likely to corrupt, but I doubt it.

I don't think that it really matters.

[ScotchGuy]

Doesn't make sense to me either, ISO's are easier to deal with and finding cues is a hassle. I say boycott the .bins.

[itykii]

It's pretty simple to bypass the .cue files...I don't see what the big deal is.

[ahctlucabbuS]

A valid topic if you ask me. In my experience iso files is in fact smaller than bin files, and based only on this information it would make more sense downloading isos..
As for finding cues, I usually just create my own.

[emir]

i think it's easier with iso's but bin files arent so difficult

[phalkon30]

I'm not saying that .bin files are the worst things in the world, its not hard to convert to an .iso file, but every one I've downloaded is a bit larger than when extracted to .iso, I just thought I was missing something

[FireATM]

You guys are wrong that say theres no size difference. An ISO is like a compressed file of a BIN and CUE. I always prefer ISOs but then again im to lazy to convert BINs to ISOs.

[Sarkie_2002]

OR you are all wrong an .iso is just the image of the cd like a zip file a bin and cue contain more info about the actual disc, so can contain copy protections an iso cannot

[ahctlucabbuS]

Well wouldn`t that be another argument for using isos over bins then?