|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Disk image article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 To Brion
- 2 Is LZW special?
- 3 Requested move
- 4 Rewrite for easier comprehension
- 5 Comment
- 6 BIN format - I don't get it
- 7 help a newbie
- 8 Added section on the .DAA image format
- 9 Congratulations!
- 10 "exact digital copy" vs Forensic
- 11 Minor reworking of some parts
- 12 Removed section
- 13 Disk or Disc
- 14 MODE1 MODE2
- 15 Monster / Frankenstein / Golem
- 16 Additions to the summary
- 17 Bin/Cue
- 18 USB keydrives
- 19 Disk Image Reference Link Deletion
- 20 Forensics
- 21 Will remove external link "Using-PC-Inspector-Clonemaxx"
- 22 burn image to USB
- 23 better definition of terms
Looks pretty complete now isn'it Brion ? I wonder how quickly you add Exactly what I wanted to add but was afraid to write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericd (talk • contribs) 00:21, 13 September 2002
Is LZW special?
Is LZW somehow special when it comes to Image formats so that it needs to be mentioned explicitly in the article (ie. does any of the image formats have lzw 'build in')? Otherwise I would suggest to remove that reference, since a disk image is after all nothing more like a regular file and thus can of course be compressed by whatever compression programm one wants to use with it (rar, gzip, zip, bzip2, ace probally being the most common ones). -- Grumbel 00:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I moved disk image to optical disc image too hastily. I originally moved it because the article only talks about disk images w.r.t. optical discs, but I now decided it should be about disk images in general. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-15 12:43Z
- merge it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 21 January 2006
- I think the ISO image article is too long to be merged here. I propose to take its leading section of ISO image and merge a summarized version of it into disk image using summary style. In other words, in the disk image article I would add something like:
- ===ISO image===Main article: ISO image
An ISO image (.iso) is an informal term for a disk image of an ISO 9660 file system. More loosely, it refers to any optical disk image, even a UDF image. Most CD/DVD authoring utilities can deal with ISO images: Producing them either by copying the data from existing media or generating new ones from existing files, or using them to create a copy on physical media.
Most operating systems allow these images to be mounted as if they were physical discs, making them somewhat useful as a universal archive format. Console emulators, such as ePSXe, and many other emulators that read from CD/DVD, are able to run ISO/BIN (and other similar formats) instead of running directly from the CD drive, obtaining better performance.
Rewrite for easier comprehension
I've added in in two paragraphs at the start so that people who quickly want to find out what a CD/DVD-image is can see it plain and clear. It may be informal and whatnot, but I think many people would appreciate a quick explanation of the most popular image type. -plenk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plenk (talk • contribs) 02:28, 29 March 2006
This article is skewed towards CD disc images, which are popular now. Earlier disk imaging, from the age of floppy diskettes, was a way of archiving floppies to a hard disk such that you could either make backup disks, bypass copy protection, or install faster from the images when saved to a hard disk. It is likely that the CD image will go away in the next decade as we move to more massive storage devices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 26 April 2006
BIN format - I don't get it
If the BIN format stores everything from a cd, why does it need a separate cuesheet to describe its contents? I mean with real CDs you don't need to insert a separate disk that describes the contents of the CD to the optical drive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 23 June 2006
- It's because the .BIN/.CUE format is capable of storing multi-track data. The .CUE file is used to tell the burning program or virtual disk drive where exactly each track begins and ends. Have you ever opened up a cuesheet in notepad or a similar text editing program?. You'll understand why it's required for digital CD-images and not physical CD's, the key word there being physical. Combat Zombie 07:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- The correct answer is that the BIN format doesn't store everything, just the user data (i.e. 24 bytes per 33-byte frames). The table of contents which describes the tracks is stored in subcode (1 byte per frame), which isn't stored in the BIN format. If the subcode was stored, cue sheets wouldn't be needed because the same information could be decoded from the subcode. Totsugeki (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
help a newbie
I dont quite understand this subject. I used the alcohol virtual drive to open a .bin file (its a game disc) and pulled all the file out and simply copied them onto a physical disc (Alcohol doesn't burning the original image file, so I had to resort to this). But the game doesnt work, as in when I enter the game it says to insert disc 2 when its already in the drive. So bascially does the image file store some kind of a hidden simulator file that I didnt manage to copy? Please help me
P.S I also noticed the orginal file was bigger than the files I pulled out by 100mb. Maybe there is some hidden mechanics?
Added section on the .DAA image format
Under the format heading I added an extra section on the .DAA image format
Well done, my friends. Very useful! Great job. Thanks. --Rednblu 13:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
"exact digital copy" vs Forensic
Do we need to mention that most of the disk image formats mentioned in this article are not forensic disc images, and that there are tricky things with obtaining a forensic disk image form optical media that aren't present in magnetic media? Dan Beale 13:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Minor reworking of some parts
I've had a go at reworking the introduction to cover disk images and imaging in general -- its background and usage slightly more balanced and broadly.
I removed the section Shortcut for installing directly from an .IMG file, for three reasons:
- The information was not encyclopedic IMHO, it would perhaps be better to add the text to a relevant user manual or forum.
- The text was slightly unclear (for example, the information seemed to be very operating system-specific, while it didn't say which operating system it applied to)
- The given reference was bad (just a link to a google search)
Disk or Disc
Simple question: which is the correct english word standard for wikipedia? Because there are articles that uses Disc and Disk, and thou they are the same I'd be better rather than using both words in wikipedia there should be only one. Thankyou. Xangel 17:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ah yes. I did remember something like that. So whatever do we do with wikipedia? Actually I do have sort of a rule we can do with wikipedia from how people have used the two words. Disk sort of refers to the subject like disk storage or hard disk drive where you use an actual disc to keep data. Disk storage or data is the subject I am refering to. See how i used disc as well? Disc may then refer to the actual object called discs such as Optical discs, compact discs etc. I just want to make sure because I would like to mess around a lot of articles related to Optical disc media. Anyways, what do you think: disk to data & disc to object? Hope anyone understood what i just said lol. Xangel 15:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I'm gonna use disc and disk then appropriatley as i edit the many articles of optical disc media. Thanks again. Xangel 17:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
There's something i still dont get about .cue, why is it that some use MODE1 and MODE2? whats that all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 7 March 2008
Monster / Frankenstein / Golem
This article is becoming too unweildy to efficiently edit. I propose segregation into sub-articles. Specifically the section Formats should be discussed in Archive formats or possibly a new Disk image formats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon lynx (talk • contribs) 06:41, 30 March 2008
Additions to the summary
I did not like the recent additions to the summary. I removed them to their appropriate sub-sections. The summary is supposed to be a concise statement. information should not be duplicated between the summary and the sub-sections. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- I also have to question to statement that Bin/Cue is the only true binary imaging tool. Referring to this edit 1, no where in the articles does it state the definition of a "true binary image", yet the most common disk formats were removed because they don't meet this definition. AFAIK, ISO meets the requirements of a "binary" image, as it is the most common form used for disk imaging and duplication. Could someone elaborate on how this is before I revert the edit? Rurik (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Disk Image Reference Link Deletion
(I have copied this inquiry from my talk page in case others have an opinion on this.
I am just wondering why you deleted a reference link for the "Disk Image" page. It was used to back up the second paragraph of Part C under Data Recovery Imaging heading. The link I posted was direct to a technical whitepaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeShirobokov (talk • contribs) 13:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok... but if you are going to remove the whitepaper then you should also remove the whole second paragraph of Part C under Data Recovery Imaging. That info doesn't belong there if it isn't backed up by anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Use in forensics could be expanded. Disk imaging is used extensively in drive analysis to prevent alteration of the original drive and isn't limited to only hard drives- hard drives, flash drive, flash memory, etc, anything with read/write capabilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 5 February 2011
This edit inserted an external link, which proposes one specific software to be used. This seems to me like advertisement. I believe other tools like the GNU's dd should then be mentioned also, but this would end up in a Disk imaging software comparison page. This would be interesting, but on another wiki-page, I guess. If nobody objects, I'll remove the link soon. Zeptomoon (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- +1, Be bold, especially when removing spam coming from unreliable sources. -- intgr [talk] 18:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
burn image to USB
- Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing the article itself, not for asking help. Please use other forums or... https://www.google.com/search?q=write%20image%20to%20usb -- intgr [talk] 20:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
better definition of terms
I think a clearer distinction needs to be made between "imageing" and "cloning". A clone is an exact copy of a drive and can be used without further ado. An image is a highly modified version that needs further work to become a working drive. Even Macrium Reflect makes this distinction and says it cannot clone a drive. The comparison chart linked in the article is therefore deficient in its comparisons. As does Acronis unless you pay for the extra facility. Greggtr (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It seems that the freeware AOMEI Backupper Standard have both disk imageing and disk cloning features. This is for your reference only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doris2016003 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)