Do people really still use ISO files?

[FireStarter]

Personally - I like the use of an ISO.

 

But how it is in the real world? We have here many discussions.

If I want to create a 'disc' for downloading (software + updates, incl old-fashioned autorun.inf) then I prefer to use an ISO-Image.

With newer Windows versions users can double-click on it and create a CD for installing the software.

 

But:

 

I assume that in most computers there are built-in cd-burners - but the user has no blank CD available. So what they can do? (partly noobs)

Some prefer to use ZIP instead of an ISO.

After downloading I can directly open the folder and have access to the setup routines. There is also no need to waste a blank disc for a one time installation.

 

 

We have here heavy discussions ISO vs ZIP.

 

 

What do you think - are ISO files more or less obsolete today?

[nstgc]

Versus zip? ISO files contain an entire filing system, zip files do not.

[LIGHTNING UK!]

and virtual drives make it easy to work with ISO files. Mount them in such a thing and you have instant access to the files, no need to extract anywhere etc.

[FireStarter]

But this works only when you have virtual drives.

There are not many computer out there (I am not talking about home-computer and computers for Pros) who have such tools installed.

 

And by doubleclicking on an ISO-file (standard behaviour of users) Windows wants to burn a disc.

 

 

@LUK:

If imgburn would have a size of 300 MB.

What format would have then the setup - ISO, ZIP, 7Z or simply only the EXE?

 

Same question if your software would be a suite of 3-4 different tools.

[nstgc]

Linux actually lets you mount both archives (in general) as well as ISOs. Its just a command line thing.

 

Also, 7zip lets you open ISOs as if they were archives. They can't handle those with the UDF2.5 or higher filing system, but for DVDs or CDs, yeah, it can read them.