Is the ISO format safer to use for transfering programs and data to hard drive?

[hackmole]

I have sometimes noticed that when I copy over some programs or large number of files in the thousands, WindowsXP sometimes has a hard time copying them over. A program transferred this way may end up not even working at all.

But if I save them as an ISO and then copy them, there is no problem. Is there something that is lost in direct transfer of files that is not lost with an ISO transfer of files or does it have something to do with very large numbers of files that makes it easier to transfer as an image than a normal direct transfer of one single file at a time for like 100,000 individual files.

 

[Billb2]

That's kind of like asking "Do you drive to work or bring your lunch?"

Plain copying and image copying are two different things. An iso image contains information about where the file(s) in it are to be placed on the disk in the new location. Copying just places the files in the new location sequentially, starting at the first available location.

 

[corkyg]

And, there is another major difference. ISO files are not directly useable, whereas copied files are. In order to edit or read anything in a ISO file you need to run special software.

 

[lxskllr]

A image file is just an image. You can extract them, and they'll be placed randomly on the disc. It sounds like the way the OP is using them, is like a zip file without compression. I have no idea why doing that would be more reliable, or if it even is. It could just be a luck thing.

 

[corkyg]

Agree - but there are many kinds of image files, but only one ISO format. (International Standards Organization.) It is primarily used as an image file for the creation of DVDs and CDs, but, they can also be recorded onto flash media. Image files, on the other hand, can be proprietary to the software that created them, and they are not in ISO format.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: hackmole
I have sometimes noticed that when I copy over some programs or large number of files in the thousands, WindowsXP sometimes has a hard time copying them over. A program transferred this way may end up not even working at all.

But if I save them as an ISO and then copy them, there is no problem. Is there something that is lost in direct transfer of files that is not lost with an ISO transfer of files or does it have something to do with very large numbers of files that makes it easier to transfer as an image than a normal direct transfer of one single file at a time for like 100,000 individual files.

I prefer ISOs for large file transfers, yes. I use MagicISO. Copying one large ISO is much faster than copying hundreds or thousands of files in that ISO individually in a folder transfer, plus it's not as prone to errors (like a filename error somewhere in file 1,257 lol). Same idea as a ZIP file. I've had overall better luck with ISO files than ZIP files though, because sometimes my large ZIP files will get corrupted, whereas I don't think I've ever had a problem with an ISO file. So for me, it's more convenient, faster, and more reliable.

 

[13Gigatons]

I think what the OP is talking about is how that it's easier to transfer one large file rather then 100,000 small files.

In that case I would recommend using ISO or ZIP or RAR without compression (known as STORE).

I use WinRAR quite bit to move small files around and don't like waiting for it to compress them all so I choose STORE.