I have always made a back-up copy of all programs and important files to be on the safe side(and keep the orginal CD locked away). Well today the softbound case with my copies got sat on(by a very large friend)...so now I have to make several new back-ups. When I went to CompUSA to pick up a case of CD's,they were telling me that for programs,I should copy as an iso. What is that??...I've heard of it being a "mirror image",but what does that do for my copy? Thanks,SWAMP

I would just copy the cd to cd don't worry about doing an iso, just burn a straight copy. Marque

but what IS iso?

an ISO is a CD standard. Just like bun/cue, .nrg, .img....all virtual "images" of a CD.

I always have done just a standard burn,and they worked fine. I was just wondering what this iso stuff was about...as they said it was a "pure mirror image"of the files. SWAMP

err...bin/cue...lol

Sounds like you are saying that the CD is copied bit-by-bit rather than file-by-file (which would not necesarily produce the same layout on the CD). I've never noticed (or heard of) the option for an 'ISO' when copying a CD. Is it a standard option included in the software for most CD recorders these days? If not, how is it done?

I don't see any options with what came with WinXP(contracted from Roxie)to use iso. I'm not sure(as I don't have it installed right now),but I think my Nero program does have it.I know my Win/Ace programe I use to open rar files,does handle iso. I'm not trying to fix something that's not broken...just trying to find out what(if any)advantage makeing an iso copy of a programe has. Curious SWAMP

iso is a standard,it's like was said already an exact copy of the disc all in one big file..with everything in it's proper place...most standalone burner progs like nero will handle it fine. for most cd's copying either way will give you a useable back up..iso comes in handy for cd's that are a bit more complicated...for instance bootable cd's like winXP/win2k etc. a straight file copy of these cd's will work fine from within windows but it won't be much good if you have no OS or need to get into the repair console...you can't see everything that is on the disc to copy it,to get the boot sector you need a bit for bit copy,ISO gives you that. there are other advantages in certain situations as well,if you need to keep a copy of a cd on your hardrive for later burning then it's all in one big file...or if you need to burn multiple copies of the same cd you have a single "source file" and don't have to keep selecting/copying the original cd/files everytime you need to make a copy...it's also been known to get around some types of weaker copy protection and generate a useable disc where a straight file copy fails to get whatever is hidden on the disc. for most stuff a straight file copy is fine...but i always use an image file like an iso..if you're gonna make a copy..why not make an exact copy?it's usually just as easy and sometimes quicker

Thanks...now I understand. It was very nice of you to take the time to explain. Does sound like a better way to make important copies. Thank you very much,SWAMP

There is also a difference if you are burning CDs which can be used on both PCs and Macs. Almost everything I buy which has come on CD was burned on a PC using standard copying method... and that means the file names are 8.3 DOS formatted... not a problem if the files have obvious and separate names, or short ones. If the files are something like this: Vicky_blouse_1, vicky_blouse_sleeve_trans, vicky_blouse_2, vicky_trousers_with_spats... they will appear on the Mac as vicky_~1, vicky_~2, vicky_~3, vicky~4... and we get to second-guess some stupid Windows glitch. [Note, you can get a Joliet decoding thingy which will look at a standard-Windows-created CD and make all the names right again. Follow the links at the VistaInternetProducts site. This has affected CDs from them, PhilC, and Cal, but not Brycetech or DAZ.] Carolly