Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 16:15:01 -0500 From: ljboiler@gmail.com To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: (fwd) difference img \ iso Message-ID: <20130502211501.GA1432@jmobile.jimmy.local> In-Reply-To: <201305022045.r42KjWWW003094@jmobile.jimmy.local> References: <201305022045.r42KjWWW003094@jmobile.jimmy.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Hi there. > > I just want to try some freebsd and get stunned by choosing what release I > should to download\install. > > So I ask you: what difference between iso\img, I mean, If I download > dvd1.iso and mount it on USB drive => starting installation, what difference > between this method and by using *.img ? Why am I asking, 'cause dvd1's got > 3 times more weight, but I never faced with .img when installing windows > systems. > > Thanks. > You would use the ISO files for burning a CD or DVD to boot and install FreeBSD. The larger DVD1.ISO file has more pre-built software packages on it to install after you get the basic install completed; the other ISO files are smaller because they expect you to be able to connect to the internet to download the needed extra parts during the installation. DISC1.ISO has the basic FreeBSD system parts on it, but optional things must be downloaded from the internet; the BOOTONLY.ISO is very small because it contains just the minimum to boot a machine from a CD/DVD, and everthing else, including the base system, must be downloaded from the internet. The IMG file is basically the same as the DISC1.ISO, but is for loading on a USB memory stick and used in machines that allows you to boot from a USB memory stick. HTH, Jimmy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130502211501.GA1432>