Discussion:
new to 4nt
(too old to reply)
ray
2010-04-04 16:02:02 UTC
Permalink
Hi guys,

Just downloaded the trial version of 4NT (is this the place to talk
about it?)
Anyway, as with my beloved 4DOS, the first thing I want it to get the
thing into full screen text mode opperation. I can't stand working at
a CLI inside a tiny window. Can it be done?
If not, I won't be using this.
Charles Dye
2010-04-04 19:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Just downloaded the trial version of 4NT (is this the place to talk
about it?)
Anyway, as with my beloved 4DOS, the first thing I want it to get the
thing into full screen text mode opperation.  I can't stand working at
a CLI inside a tiny window. Can it be done?
If not, I won't be using this.
As I understand it, full-screen console windows are a function of the
operating system and the video drivers. Try Alt-Enter. If Alt-Enter
works in CMD.EXE, then it should work in 4NT (TCC) as well.
Bruce Morgen
2010-04-04 19:57:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Dye
Post by ray
Just downloaded the trial version of 4NT (is this the place to talk
about it?)
Anyway, as with my beloved 4DOS, the first thing I want it to get the
thing into full screen text mode opperation.  I can't stand working at
a CLI inside a tiny window. Can it be done?
If not, I won't be using this.
As I understand it, full-screen console windows are a function of the
operating system and the video drivers. Try Alt-Enter. If Alt-Enter
works in CMD.EXE, then it should work in 4NT (TCC) as well.
<Alt-Enter> works as expected
in 4NT v8.02.106 here under
Win2K Pro, as it does in
CMD.EXE -- just like Charles
predicted. Very cool, never
knew that about WinNT's
console!
ray
2010-04-05 05:03:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Morgen
Post by Charles Dye
Post by ray
Just downloaded the trial version of 4NT (is this the place to talk
about it?)
Anyway, as with my beloved 4DOS, the first thing I want it to get the
thing into full screen text mode opperation.  I can't stand working at
a CLI inside a tiny window. Can it be done?
If not, I won't be using this.
As I understand it, full-screen console windows are a function of the
operating system and the video drivers.  Try Alt-Enter. If Alt-Enter
works in CMD.EXE, then it should work in 4NT (TCC) as well.
<Alt-Enter> works as expected
in 4NT v8.02.106 here under
Win2K Pro, as it does in
CMD.EXE -- just like Charles
predicted.  Very cool, never
knew that about WinNT's
console!
No luck here with XP SP3. CMD does it, but the text is horrible, some
Gawd-awful CGA looking font. What I'm
wanting is the good old 80x25 text mode font from olden days. Oh
well. Thanks anyway guys.
Anyway, I can get full width out of TCC so that will have to do.

BTW does anyone know if there's some doc for people upgrading from
4DOS? Like, can I import my aliases and
.btm's and .ini file? And why don't I have an .ini file in this
version?
Ralf Brinkmann
2010-04-05 06:16:56 UTC
Permalink
Hi ray!
Post by ray
No luck here with XP SP3. CMD does it, but the text is horrible, some
Gawd-awful CGA looking font. What I'm
wanting is the good old 80x25 text mode font from olden days.
You can have everything you want. If you created a launch button in your
start menu, you can enter the profile of this button (or what is it
called in english). There you can change everything, from "fullscreen"
to "window size" and "window buffer size" and so on.

In your 4START.BTM you can direct to your 4DOS directory:

SET COMSPEC=D:\Progs\4NT\4NT.EXE
SET /R D:\Progs\4DOS\SET.DAT
ALIAS /R D:\Progs\4DOS\ALIAS.TXT
PROMPT $e[s$e[1;53H$e[36;1m $D, $t$e[u$e[0m$P$G
CLS

And in your 4NT.INI you can do something like

TreePath = D:\Progs\4DOS\DATA

for your directory trees (cdd /s...).

I hope the cracks in this group (like Klauss) will tell you the rest.
I'm only a normal user and not good in all the hidden tricks. ;-) So I
wish you luck with 4NT. I think it's worth it.

Cheers, Ralf
--
Windows XP Home SP3
Opera 10.52-3344
Klaus Meinhard
2010-04-05 08:26:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralf Brinkmann
I hope the cracks in this group (like Klauss) will tell you the rest.
You don't mean me. I hope! My days of intimately knowing 4DOS are over,
and anyway its 4NT / TCC now :-)


For ray:

You should be able to select a font (for console work a fixed-length
true-type one works best) in the properties of the console. You can also
select the fontsize, influencing the window size. I think fullsize
consoles are out with Vista / Win7.

In don't know what sort of monitor you have, but in the days of 24 inch
monitors I'd probably prefer several console windows at once over one
fullsize window, allowing e.g. to edit a btm in one and testing it in
the other console.

Or you select a tabbed interface for all your console work :-)
--
Best Regards,

* Klaus Meinhard *
<www.4dos.info>
Ralf Brinkmann
2010-04-05 09:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Hallo Klaus!
Post by Klaus Meinhard
Post by Ralf Brinkmann
I hope the cracks in this group (like Klauss) will tell you the rest.
You don't mean me.
Oh, sorry, my keyboard had a problem with the "s".
Post by Klaus Meinhard
I hope! My days of intimately knowing 4DOS are over,
and anyway its 4NT / TCC now :-)
Oh! Is there another group for 4NT and TCC? In german? I would like to
join that at once!
[...]

Thank you for your help.

Gruß, Ralf
--
Windows XP Home SP3
Opera 10.52-3344
Caesar Romano
2010-04-05 10:00:07 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 08:16:56 +0200, Ralf Brinkmann
Post by Ralf Brinkmann
Hi ray!
Post by ray
No luck here with XP SP3. CMD does it, but the text is horrible, some
Gawd-awful CGA looking font. What I'm
wanting is the good old 80x25 text mode font from olden days.
You can have everything you want. If you created a launch button in your
start menu, you can enter the profile of this button (or what is it
called in english). There you can change everything, from "fullscreen"
to "window size" and "window buffer size" and so on.
I think the "profile" word you are looking for is "properties". Right
click on the short-cut, select properties and select a large font,
etc.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.
Ralf Brinkmann
2010-04-05 10:13:08 UTC
Permalink
Hi Caesar!
Post by Caesar Romano
I think the "profile" word you are looking for is "properties". Right
click on the short-cut, select properties and select a large font,
etc.
Oh yes, you are right, thank you.

Cheers, Ralf
--
Windows XP Home SP3
Opera 10.52-3344
Richard Bonner
2010-04-05 11:44:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Just downloaded the trial version of 4NT (is this the place to talk
about it?)
*** I believe there is a dedicated 4NT group.
Post by ray
Anyway, as with my beloved 4DOS, the first thing I want it to get the
thing into full screen text mode opperation. I can't stand working at
a CLI inside a tiny window. Can it be done?
If not, I won't be using this.
*** Full-screen CLI seems to work in some systems and not others. I
have a Toshiba laptop that will not full-screen FreeDOS.

Within other systems such as Windoze, I hate looking at those minuscule
CLI boxes. Even requesting full screen only results in a small, vertical
rectangle running up & down the left side of the screen. It's especially
bad when the GUI resolution is set very high. Then one gets an even
smaller sliver along with very small text. )-:
--
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
Ralf Brinkmann
2010-04-05 11:53:51 UTC
Permalink
Hi Richard!
Post by Richard Bonner
*** I believe there is a dedicated 4NT group.
If you know the name please let me know. I did not find it here on
T-Online.

Cheers, Ralf
--
Windows XP Home SP3
Opera 10.52-3344
Klaus Meinhard
2010-04-06 06:26:58 UTC
Permalink
Hi Ralf Brinkmann,
Post by Richard Bonner
*** I believe there is a dedicated 4NT group.
I doubt it. AFAIK there is no such group. I don't remember a discussion
about creating one (and oh what a lot of discussions when amb.nt was
created!). And I never saw one on one of the several free newsservers
that I check.
--
Herzliche Grüße,

Klaus Meinhard
Richard Bonner
2010-04-08 16:24:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Meinhard
Post by Richard Bonner
*** I believe there is a dedicated 4NT group.
I doubt it. AFAIK there is no such group. I don't remember a discussion
about creating one (and oh what a lot of discussions when amb.nt was
created!). And I never saw one on one of the several free newsservers
that I check.
--
Klaus Meinhard
*** I stand corrected. Thanks, Klaus.
--
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
Steve Fabian
2010-04-05 13:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Richard Bonner wrote:
| ray (***@kicas.net) wrote:
|| Anyway, as with my beloved 4DOS, the first thing I want it to get
|| the thing into full screen text mode opperation. I can't stand
|| working at a CLI inside a tiny window. Can it be done?
|| If not, I won't be using this.
|
| *** Full-screen CLI seems to work in some systems and not others. I
| have a Toshiba laptop that will not full-screen FreeDOS.
|
| Within other systems such as Windoze, I hate looking at those
| minuscule CLI boxes. Even requesting full screen only results in a
| small, vertical rectangle running up & down the left side of the
| screen. It's especially bad when the GUI resolution is set very
| high. Then one gets an even smaller sliver along with very small
| text. )-:

Unlike 4DOS, the CLI-s designed for the WinNT platforms heavily utilize
various Windows API-s. Newer versions provide features (commands, internal
variables, environment functions, and initialization directives) that
utilize features supported in API-s which are available only in later
versions of WinNT. There are some features in more recent JP Software, Inc.
CLI-s which are valid only on when running on a later Microsoft platform
than the earliest one on which the CLI is usable.
4NT v6 requires Win98 or later. 4NT v7 and v8 both require Win2000 or
later. TCMD/TCC v9, v10 and v11 all require WinXP or later.
On to the "miniscule CLI boxes" issue. Since the OP noted the use of
4nt8, my remarks below refer only to WinNT-style platforms. As all my
platforms run WinXP, I cannot test whether or not they would work on a
Win98-style platform. When running ANY "console program" (Microsoft's
untechnical term for TUI=Textual User Interface) in windowed mode (not "full
screen"), either the alt-space hotkey, or a right click on the left top icon
in the window brings up its "system menu". Select "Properties" (pressing P
or by clicking) brings up a menu which allows selecting Font and Layout. The
FONT tab allows selecting fonts so large that even those with impaired
eyesight can read them. The Layout tab allows selecting both a "screen
buffer" size (which limits how far back you can scroll in the display
history) and a "window size" (the width and height of the window into the
screen buffer visible when you select "maximized" display). If the "window"
is narrower than the "screen buffer", a horizontal scroll bar allows you to
scroll it left or right within the screen buffer. Using this system menu you
can set up a "screen buffer" and a "window size" which are 80 columns wide,
and select a font size which will make the window cover the full width of
your screen, effectively achieving the near equivalent of "full screen"
operation without switching to FS mode. I personally utilize "full screen"
mode for a few of my old 16-bit PC-DOS tools, which are often more
convenient to use that way. Some of them, when used in windowed mode, on
exit limit the "screen buffer" size (and thus also the "window size") to 80
columns, which I personally find too narrow. To eliminate this after effect
I use the START command, running them in a separate window from TCC. In
4NT/TCC I use Vince Fatica's 4console.dll plug-in, which allows me to scroll
the screen horizontally in windowed mode (but not in "full screen" mode)
using alt-arrow keys, and his FSTOGGLE.EXE for switching between windowed
and full screen modes programmatically.
Unfortunately the Microsoft program NTVDM.EXE which emulates MS-DOS in
graphics mode, and is the actual interface between any text mode program and
the display, was designed only to support MS' COMMAND.COM, which only
operated in 40- and 80-column screen widths. As a consequence "full screen"
does not allow any of the other screen sizes supported on platforms other
than WinNT. I often operated my PC-DOS/MS-DOS machines, and even Win95 and
Win98 machines, with 132 column by 60 row modes, and never in 80x25 mode.
--
HTH, Steve



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
2010-04-05 20:51:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Fabian
Unfortunately the Microsoft program NTVDM.EXE which emulates MS-DOS in
graphics mode, and is the actual interface between any text mode
program and the display, was designed only to support MS' COMMAND.COM,
which only operated in 40- and 80-column screen widths. As a
consequence "full screen" does not allow any of the other screen sizes
supported on platforms other than WinNT.
The final statement about the limitation is the correct one, but the
earlier statements are false. NTVDM has nothing whatsoever to do with
the running of Win32 TUI programs, such as 4NT or TCC/LE for examples.
Nor is COMMAND the reason that NTVDM only provides 40-column and
80-column text modes to DOS applications. The "actual interface between
any text mode program and the display" is CSRSS, which is what displays
consoles as GUI windows or in full-screen text mode. And COMMAND knows
nothing, nor cares anything, about display modes.
Charles Dye
2010-04-06 02:23:31 UTC
Permalink
***   Full-screen CLI seems to work in some systems and not others. I
have a Toshiba laptop that will not full-screen FreeDOS.
You might have a look in the CMOS setup program (if you can figure out
how to get in; Toshibas often have rather obscure methods of invoking
setup.) Many laptops have an option to either expand sub-native
resolutions to fill the display, or else center them within a black
border. The centered view seems to annoy just about everyone.
   Within other systems such as Windoze, I hate looking at those minuscule
CLI boxes. Even requesting full screen only results in a small, vertical  
rectangle running up & down the left side of the screen. It's especially
bad when the GUI resolution is set very high. Then one gets an even
Try Alt-Enter. Personally I don't mind windowed consoles at all; they
allow you to fit more rows and columns within the window. 100x30 is
nice, and 120x50 is even better, if your eyes can handle it. I find
ClearType helps, though that's very much a matter of taste!
Richard Bonner
2010-04-08 16:23:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Dye
*** =A0 Full-screen CLI seems to work in some systems and not others.
I have a Toshiba laptop that will not full-screen FreeDOS.
You might have a look in the CMOS setup program (if you can figure out
how to get in; Toshibas often have rather obscure methods of invoking
setup.) Many laptops have an option to either expand sub-native
resolutions to fill the display, or else center them within a black
border. The centered view seems to annoy just about everyone.
*** Thanks for the tip, Charles, but this laptop seems to not have any
option to allow full-screen at the command line. )-: I will hunt
further though - it's been some time since I even had it turned on.
Post by Charles Dye
=A0 =A0Within other systems such as Windoze, I hate looking at those minu=
scule
CLI boxes. Even requesting full screen only results in a small, vertical =
=A0
rectangle running up & down the left side of the screen. It's especially
bad when the GUI resolution is set very high. Then one gets an even
Try Alt-Enter.
*** That works sometimes but not others. When it does, usually what
happens is that it gives me a full-height strip down the left side of the
screen.

It's possible that this may be blocked from users. This seem to only
annoy me at public terminals in libraries and hotels.
Post by Charles Dye
Personally I don't mind windowed consoles at all; they
allow you to fit more rows and columns within the window. 100x30 is
nice, and 120x50 is even better, if your eyes can handle it. I find
ClearType helps, though that's very much a matter of taste!
*** I find that the extra rows are too hard to read for me.
--
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
Klaus Meinhard
2010-04-06 06:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Bonner
Within other systems such as Windoze, I hate looking at those
minuscule CLI boxes. Even requesting full screen only results in a
small, vertical rectangle running up & down the left side of the
screen. It's especially bad when the GUI resolution is set very high.
Sorry, that's BS. Try to learn how to set the properties of your console
windows.

When I set the properties of my TCC window to e.g. font "Lucida Console"
36 points, I get a window much larger and with larger characters than
anything I ever had on a CRT monitor. There are many other fixed-width
fonts out there, if you don't like Lucida. Just because you don't know
about the possibilities of "Windoze" that doesn't mean they don't exist.
--
Best Regards,

* Klaus Meinhard *
<www.4dos.info>
Richard Bonner
2010-04-08 16:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Meinhard
Post by Richard Bonner
Within other systems such as Windoze, I hate looking at those
minuscule CLI boxes. Even requesting full screen only results in a
small, vertical rectangle running up & down the left side of the
screen. It's especially bad when the GUI resolution is set very high.
Sorry, that's BS. Try to learn how to set the properties of your console
windows.
*** I have no access to do so. These are public terminals where I see
these problems and mostly when I try to telnet into my Chebucto account.
Post by Klaus Meinhard
When I set the properties of my TCC window to e.g. font "Lucida Console"
36 points, I get a window much larger and with larger characters than
anything I ever had on a CRT monitor. There are many other fixed-width
fonts out there, if you don't like Lucida. Just because you don't know
about the possibilities of "Windoze" that doesn't mean they don't exist.
--
* Klaus Meinhard *
*** True. I should have known to ask here instead of from Windows users
at whose consoles I sit. Perhaps, too, the Windows versions are older and
don't have the capabilities of newer versions.

I apologise to anyone I have offended.
--
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
Klaus Meinhard
2010-04-08 17:19:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Bonner
Post by Klaus Meinhard
Sorry, that's BS. Try to learn how to set the properties of your
console windows.
*** I have no access to do so. These are public terminals where I
see these problems and mostly when I try to telnet into my Chebucto
account.
Sorry, I missed that part.
--
Herzliche Grüße,

Klaus Meinhard
Richard Bonner
2010-04-12 10:44:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Meinhard
Post by Richard Bonner
Post by Klaus Meinhard
Sorry, that's BS. Try to learn how to set the properties of your
console windows.
*** I have no access to do so. These are public terminals where I
see these problems and mostly when I try to telnet into my Chebucto
account.
Sorry, I missed that part.
Klaus Meinhard
*** No problem, Klaus. (-:

Of course, at public terminals in hotels and libraries, the user is
restricted as to what he can do. Some consoles allow the Alt-Enter
operation, while others don't. Even with those that do, the operation
sometimes will go full screen top to bottom, but not left to right. So one
gets 80 columns, but with a very small font squeezed into 640 pixels of
width at the left of the screen that might be set to 1600 or more. )-:
--
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
Klaus Meinhard
2010-04-13 07:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Bonner
Of course, at public terminals in hotels and libraries, the user is
restricted as to what he can do. Some consoles allow the Alt-Enter
operation, while others don't. Even with those that do, the operation
sometimes will go full screen top to bottom, but not left to right.
So one gets 80 columns, but with a very small font squeezed into 640
pixels of width at the left of the screen that might be set to 1600
This still leaves me wondering: if a public library allows you access to
a console, it might give you acess to its properties. Have you tried it?
--
Herzliche Grüße,

Klaus Meinhard
Richard Bonner
2010-04-22 19:18:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Meinhard
Post by Richard Bonner
Of course, at public terminals in hotels and libraries, the user is
restricted as to what he can do. Some consoles allow the Alt-Enter
operation, while others don't. Even with those that do, the operation
sometimes will go full screen top to bottom, but not left to right.
So one gets 80 columns, but with a very small font squeezed into 640
pixels of width at the left of the screen that might be set to 1600
This still leaves me wondering: if a public library allows you access to
a console, it might give you acess to its properties. Have you tried it?
--
Klaus Meinhard
*** Years ago when I first started to check my webpages on outside
systems, I tried a few times. As I recall, none allowed access.

I have not tried recently, but given the trend to higher and higher
security, I'd say that it's even less likely now. I wonder if one can even
access the command line now.
--
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
2010-04-05 20:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by ray
Just downloaded the trial version of 4NT (is this the place to talk
about it?) [...]
One has several choices.
01MDM
2010-04-17 13:51:00 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 6, 12:53 am, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-
Post by Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
Post by ray
Just downloaded the trial version of 4NT (is this the place to talk
about it?) [...]
One has several choices.
If it was free... What for to use this product when all can be solved
without it?
Kenny McCormack
2010-04-18 02:18:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by 01MDM
On Apr 6, 12:53 am, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-
Post by Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
Post by ray
Just downloaded the trial version of 4NT (is this the place to talk
about it?) [...]
One has several choices.
If it was free... What for to use this product when all can be solved
without it?
I suppose for the same reason that some people buy cars - given that
there are no problems that can be solved with a car that can't be solved
via walking - if one has sufficient time.
--
(This discussion group is about C, ...)

Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
off-topic Rorsharch revelations of the childhood
traumas of the participants...
Klaus Meinhard
2010-04-18 08:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by 01MDM
If it was free... What for to use this product when all can be solved
without it?
Who says?

It's just the point of 4DOS, 4OS2, 4NT, TCC, TCC/LE that you can write
batch files in their respective OS environments, with a consistent and
sane and mostly compatible syntax, a ready and consistent help, a batch
debugger that's worth it name, that you either simply cannot do in CMD
without a ton of external tools, all with their incompatible syntax,
distributed help etc. or, if you can, only by using "guru" tricks and
"time honored" quirks that even the author won't understand 3 month
later.

The heroic goal to write a batch by only using the very spartanic
COMMAND / CMD of MS has certain Zen-like (and sometimes masochistic)
qualities, and may be a fine hobby. But if you want to get things done,
need documentability, portability etc. one of the command processors
from JP Soft is the way to go.

And yes, most of the above are available free.
--
Best Regards,

* Klaus Meinhard *
<www.4dos.info>
Kenny McCormack
2010-04-18 17:07:51 UTC
Permalink
In article <hqfapu$nt3$00$***@news.t-online.com>,
Klaus Meinhard <***@gmx.de> wrote:
...
Post by Klaus Meinhard
The heroic goal to write a batch by only using the very spartanic
COMMAND / CMD of MS has certain Zen-like (and sometimes masochistic)
qualities, and may be a fine hobby.
This is very true, and very much in evidence if you read
comp.os.msdos.batch(.nt) (or whatever its called). The people there are
very, very proud of themselves for knowing all these little quirks and
stuff that you allude to. And very proud of themselves for being able
to do it (whatever "it" is) without having to resort to any "external"
tools. Hey, whatever gets you hard, right...?

Note, incidentally, that much the same can be said for basic, unadorned,
Unix (i.e., pre-Linux, e.g., Solaris). People there also go to great
lengths, and are quite proud of themselves, for being able to "do it"
using only the built-in tools. Note, incidentally, that one of the
amusing quirks of Solaris is the retention of both an old, antiquated,
and featureless shell (the default /bin/sh) and an old, antiquated, and
featureless version of AWK (the default /usr/bin/awk). These two quirks
making shell scripting under pure, unenhanced, Solaris an exercise in,
as you say, masochism.
--
(This discussion group is about C, ...)

Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
off-topic Rorsharch revelations of the childhood
traumas of the participants...
Stan Brown
2010-04-19 02:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:07:51 +0000 (UTC) from Kenny McCormack
Post by Kenny McCormack
Note, incidentally, that much the same can be said for basic, unadorned,
Unix (i.e., pre-Linux, e.g., Solaris). People there also go to great
lengths, and are quite proud of themselves, for being able to "do it"
using only the built-in tools.
Those built-in tools are more extensive that what you get in 4NT.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
2010-04-19 18:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Kenny McCormack
Post by Klaus Meinhard
The heroic goal to write a batch by only using the very spartanic
COMMAND / CMD of MS has certain Zen-like (and sometimes masochistic)
qualities, and may be a fine hobby.
This is very true, and very much in evidence if you read
comp.os.msdos.batch(.nt) (or whatever its called). The people there
are very, very proud of themselves for knowing all these little
quirks and stuff that you allude to. And very proud of themselves for
being able to do it (whatever "it" is) without having to resort to
any "external" tools. Hey, whatever gets you hard, right...?
Note, incidentally, that much the same can be said for basic,
unadorned, Unix (i.e., pre-Linux, e.g., Solaris). People there also
go to great lengths, and are quite proud of themselves, for being
able to "do it" using only the built-in tools. Note, incidentally,
that one of the amusing quirks of Solaris is the retention of both an
old, antiquated, and featureless shell (the default /bin/sh) and an
old, antiquated, and featureless version of AWK (the default
/usr/bin/awk). These two quirks making shell scripting under pure,
unenhanced, Solaris an exercise in, as you say, masochism.
Those built-in tools are more extensive that what you get in 4NT.
M. McCormack's point, nonetheless, was that on Solaris when one uses the
default sh and awk one has to pay especial attention to what one might
have become used to in Bourne Again, Korn, or other, shells and what is
actually provided as standard in a POSIX shell. (Solaris also comes with
classic vi, which similarly comes as something of a shock to people
whose only experience is of vim, nvi, or another "clone".)

I think that M. McCormack's point isn't a very good one, because the
scenarios as xe presents them don't match. When writing shell and awk
scripts on Solaris, one has to be aware of the fact that there are
multiple shells in the world with only a limited common guaranteed
syntax — something that one should be aware of anyway, even on bash
monoculture systems, given the possibility that someone may come along
one day and install and use ksh, dash, zsh, ash, or something else. One
is aware of the range of tools available, and aware that trying to do
everything with only one tool is hobbling onesself. Whereas the Windows
NT mindset that M. McCormack describes attempts to exclude the very
possibility that there might be a heterogeneous and diverse range of
tools available for the platform, and hold to the idea that there's only
one tool in the world.

And that latter is quite a sad state of affairs. Even putting
4DOS/4OS2/4NT/TCCLE/TCC and M. Meinhard's
http://www.4dos.info/4batfaq.htm aside, there is a wide range of TUI
tools available for Windows NT, not the least of which are all of the
TUI tools in the Windows NT Resource Kit(s), such as setx, now, list,
and robocopy. (The Windows NT 4.0 Resource Kit also had a whole load of
POSIX utilities, such as ln, ls, cat, chmod, chown, and — yes — vi. One
could create hard links with the 4.0 Resource Kit, for example. These
are now part of Windows Services for Unix.) This is, of course, simple
myopia on the parts of the people who espouse the mindset. However, in
truth, there aren't actually that many such people. The Resource Kit
tools, for one, are well known by a comparatively much larger number of
people. (For example: In the microsoft.public.windows.server.general
newsgroup, "Help! I cannot work out the options to RoboCopy to do task
X." is almost a FAQ.)

So Solaris and Windows NT are parallel in a different way to the one
suggested by M. McCormack. There's a system-supplied command interpreter
and toolset, which is largely unimproved for backwards compatibility
reasons. But more that one command interpreter exists, there is an
extensive range of vendor-supplied tools available outside of just the
vendor-supplied command interpreter, and also an even more extensive
range of add-on tools.
Klaus Meinhard
2010-04-19 07:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kenny McCormack
This is very true, and very much in evidence if you read
comp.os.msdos.batch(.nt) (or whatever its called). The people there
are very, very proud of themselves for knowing all these little
quirks and stuff that you allude to. And very proud of themselves
for being able to do it (whatever "it" is) without having to resort
to any "external" tools.
They are not so averse to using externals (otherwise no nontrivial batch
would ever be written. Some are peddling their own externals regularly
there.), but the rule is to use the external that's minimally needed to
get the batch functioning. Fine. :-)

But in real life you soon have a ton of utilities with different syntax,
different help styles (or often none at all), overlapping functionality,
amd the main reason to use COMMAND/CMD batch (its universally present on
Windows type target machines) is lost.

I've once written an answer to Timo Salmi's Batfaq
(http://garbo.uwasa.fi/pub/pc/link/tsbat.zip) found here
(http://www.4dos.info/4batfaq.htm), showing for the first 120 or 130
examples that and how most of the batfaq's solutions can be replaced
with a 4DOS (and of course 4NT, TCC etc.) one-liner.
--
Best Regards,

* Klaus Meinhard *
<www.4dos.info>
Richard Bonner
2010-04-22 19:31:14 UTC
Permalink
(Re: Pure Batch Solutions))
Post by Klaus Meinhard
Post by Kenny McCormack
This is very true, and very much in evidence if you read
comp.os.msdos.batch(.nt) (or whatever its called). The people there
are very, very proud of themselves for knowing all these little
quirks and stuff that you allude to. And very proud of themselves
for being able to do it (whatever "it" is) without having to resort
to any "external" tools.
They are not so averse to using externals (otherwise no nontrivial batch
would ever be written. Some are peddling their own externals regularly
there.), but the rule is to use the external that's minimally needed to
get the batch functioning. Fine. :-)
But in real life you soon have a ton of utilities with different syntax,
different help styles (or often none at all), overlapping functionality,
amd the main reason to use COMMAND/CMD batch (its universally present on
Windows type target machines) is lost.
(Snip)
Post by Klaus Meinhard
--
* Klaus Meinhard *
*** This is true. I have been using external utilities since the early
1990s and continue to use many today for a long list of reasons that I
won't plod through here.

My solution was to write the basic functions into their own batch files
and have tasking batch files call upon them as necessary. It eliminates
the inconsistencies because I am never interfacing with those utilities
directly.
--
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
Richard Bonner
2010-04-22 19:23:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Meinhard
Post by 01MDM
If it was free... What for to use this product when all can be solved
without it?
(Snip)
Post by Klaus Meinhard
The heroic goal to write a batch by only using the very spartanic
COMMAND / CMD of MS has certain Zen-like (and sometimes masochistic)
qualities, and may be a fine hobby. But if you want to get things done,
need documentability, portability etc. one of the command processors
from JP Soft is the way to go.
--
* Klaus Meinhard *
*** Nicely put, Klaus.

As much as I like to coax basic DOS and its batch language to jump
through hoops just to show it can be done, there is nothing like a good
utility that can do it for me - and even better, an all-in-one command
interpreter that can roll most of it into one package.
--
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
Charles Dye
2010-04-19 01:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by 01MDM
If it was free... What for to use this product when all can be solved
without it?
Why get a screwdriver, when it's so easy to drive screws in with a
hammer?

--
Charles Dye
Loading...