>>895193Seriously dood, you're the one being weirdly hostile here. You've not given a single use case where your "just bung loads of files in a big-ol' folder" method is better, you've been shown many where it's worse, and every time you've been shown a scenario where your method is strictly worse, you've deflected with half a dozen variations on
>yeah that way makes X easier/possible as opposed to harder/impossible but maybe I might not want to do XAnyways hey let's go again:
>>894507>then lesss reason to copy it all in my opinion. Wasting time grabbing a borked file system means a borked os.As you have a complete partition image, you can easily (and with no risk) feed it into any recovery tool, including hypothetical ones that don't even exist yet. Because you can easily copy the image (it's just one file), you don't have to worry about a data recovery program working on your only copy (on the actual device) and trashing it.
>you're still copying all the junk you don't want which you'll have to dig through again laterThe whole point of the exercise is that:
- OP's time is valuable
- disk space is not valuable
- Therefore just copy the lot.
> after you wasted time copying it.Doing it file-by-file is wasting time. Making a disk image takes you a fraction of a second to press a button, and then the computer does all the work. My time is valuable, my computer's time is not. I don't care if something takes my computer longer if it makes it quicker, or easier (or both!) for me. This is what my computer is for. It is a machine, it does not have feelings, and it does not feel appreciation if you spend your time saving it effort.
Now, here's one for you: suggest one use case (make it your best use case) where it's easier to copy a bunch of files than it is to click on the disk and click on "create", and we can talk about it like grownups.
