Trick to check for one key press without wait?

[JJ]

Is there a trick (without external program) to check if a key is/was pressed
without pausing the batch?

Like SET/P, but for one character only, and doesn't pause the batch if
there's no character(s) in the keyboard buffer.

[foxidrive]

On 27/09/2013 13:28, JJ wrote: > Is there a trick (without external program) to check if a key is/was pressed > without pausing the batch? > Like SET/P, but for one character only, and doesn't pause the batch if > there's no character(s) in the keyboard buffer. I posted a similar batch file elsewhere - this checks for the control key and echoes text @echo off >tmp.tmp echo -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE----- >>tmp.tmp echo uEAAjtigFwC0TM0h >>tmp.tmp echo -----END CERTIFICATE----- certutil -decode -f tmp.tmp kbflag.com >nul for /L %%a in (1,1,10000) do ( echo Press the CTRL key - %%a kbflag.com if errorlevel 4 if not errorlevel 5 echo control was pressed ) del kbflag.com del tmp.tmp echo Finished. pause Here is the document for KBFLAG.COM KBFLAG -- by Nico Mark -- from PC Magazine, December 23, 1986 KBFLAG can be used to cause branching in batch files, so that execution of different parts of the file can be dependent on the state of toggle and shift keys. You can, for example, abort execution of AUTOEXEC.BAT if the CapsLock key has been toggled while CONFIG.SYS in running. KBFLAG tests for a keystroke in the buffer, and sets errorlevel to the value of the key's KBFLAG in the ROM BIOS. Thus, if the Ins key has been toggled, it will return an errorlevel of 128. Other values are: 1 = Right Shift 2 = Left Shift 4 = Ctrl key 8 = Alt key 16 = ScrollLock 32 = NumLock 64 = CapsLock 128 = Ins (You can use sums of these values to correspond to combinations of keys, so 96 = CapsLock and NumLock together.) If you put these lines at the start of autoexec.bat-- KBFLAG IF ERRORLEVEL 64 GOTO :END --and put the label :END at the end of the file, autoexec.bat will then check to see if CapsLock has been pressed, and will jump the end of the batch if it has. To prevent autoexec.bat from executing on bootup, simply hit CapsLock while config.sys is running. You can use variations of this technique to cause different sets of programs to run during autoexec.bat (or any batch file). For example, Caps Lock could cause only a few programs to run; Alt + CapsLock could cause others; etc.

[Herbert Kleebauer]

choice.exe is still part of 64 bit Windows. Type: choice /?

[foxidrive]

Thats-a-gunna pause the batch file though...

[Herbert Kleebauer]

On 27.09.2013 09:29, foxidrive wrote:
>>> Is there a trick (without external program) to check if a key is/was pressed
>>> without pausing the batch?

>> choice.exe is still part of 64 bit Windows. Type: choice /?

> Thats-a-gunna pause the batch file though...

What is a pause of 1 second in a batch file? And if
it is called within a tight loop, use a counter to
call choice not in every iteration. com programs
were nice, but Microsoft killed them. They don't
work anymore, or is here somebody who still uses
a 32 bit Windows?

An other way would be to use a file as a pause flag:

@echo off
if exist pause.txt del pause.txt
start cmd /c pause^&echo.^>pause.txt

set n=0
set m=1

:loop
if not exist pause.txt goto :skip
pause
del pause.txt
start cmd /c pause^&echo.^>pause.txt
:skip
for /l %%i in (0,1,%n%) do set /p =.<nul
echo o
set /a n=n+m
if %n%==60 set m=-1
if %n%==0 set m=1

goto :loop

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 17:29:09 +1000, "foxidrive"
<foxi...@server.invalid> wrote in article <524533c7$0$18921$c3e8da3
$cc4f...@news.astraweb.com>...

It also doesn't do what the OP asked - that is:

"check if a key is/was pressed" - note the "was"
"character(s) in the keyboard buffer" - OP appears to want to be able
to press a key any time during execution and have a utility check to
see if there is a key in the keyboard buffer and act on it if there is,
not pause and wait for a keypress at a specific point in the batch.

--
Zaphod

The secret of flying is to hurl yourself to the ground, and miss.

[JJ]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:21:07 +1000, foxidrive wrote:
> I posted a similar batch file elsewhere - this checks for the control key and echoes text

That'll do, I think. I forgot about DOS solution.
Time to hunt the CERTUTIL... or a b64 decoder. :)

[Stanley Daniel de Liver]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:33:30 +0100, Herbert Kleebauer <kl...@unibwm.de>
wrote:

[snip]

> call choice not in every iteration. com programs
> were nice, but Microsoft killed them. They don't
> work anymore, or is here somebody who still uses
> a 32 bit Windows?

Sure. What's so great about 64bit? - it breaks legacy code.


[snip]


--
It's a money /life balance.

[JJ]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:08:42 +0200, Herbert Kleebauer wrote:
> choice.exe is still part of 64 bit Windows. Type: choice /?

I can't find it in my Windows XP Pro 32-bit.
I think that's a Windows version of the old MS-DOS v6 CHOICE.COM.
It also exists in Windows 9x/ME, but absent in all 32-bit Windows XP
editions (no CHOICE.COM or CHOICE.EXE).
Then it appears again as Windws EXE starting from Windows XP 64-bit.
I copied mine, from my Windows XP x64 CD.

But it clears the keyboard buffer before checking the key press.
So this won't work.

@echo off
setlocal
for /L %%a in (1,1,9999) do (
::just a substitute to simulate busy program
::original: mytool.exe /s data.tmp
ping -n 1 -w 500 192.168.0.234

choice /c yn /d n /t 0 >nul
if errorlevel 1 if not errorlevel 2 goto good
)
echo fail
::do some data processing
goto :eof
:good
echo success
::do some other data processing

[foxidrive]

(changed thread title)

On 27/09/2013 22:42, Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:33:30 +0100, Herbert Kleebauer <kl...@unibwm.de>
> wrote:

>> com programs were nice, but Microsoft killed them. They don't
>> work anymore, or is here somebody who still uses
>> a 32 bit Windows?
>
> Sure. What's so great about 64bit? - it breaks legacy code.

I have to say that I opted for 32 bit Windows 8 because I wanted to be able to use all the .com files in
my library and also be able to use Qbasic, which is another thing that is broken in 64 bit Windows.

I'm a bit 'old' fashioned in this way - but there doesn't seem to be any reason that 64 bit windows would
be better for me.

foxi

[Herbert Kleebauer]

On 27.09.2013 14:42, Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote:

> What's so great about 64bit?

That's the wrong question. If you buy a PC or laptop
with a preinstalled Windows, then it is a 64 bit version.
That makes sense because any PC now has 4 or more GByte
of RAM, which you can't use with 32 bit Windows. Which
sense does it make to write new batch code which can't
be executed on most systems. Even if you still use a
32 bit system, the next PC replacement will have a 64
bit one (or will you pay for 8 GByte RAM and use only
3 GByte), so better also make your code ready for the
future. Maybe there even isn't a 32 bit version of
the next Windows version.

[Herbert Kleebauer]

On 27.09.2013 18:23, foxidrive wrote:

> I have to say that I opted for 32 bit Windows 8 because I wanted to be able to use all the .com files in

I also miss all my .com utilities, but time goes on. Some of them
I have ported to 32 bit code, for some others I use DOSbox.
But most I missed the Norton Commander, but Midnight Commander
is good replacement.

> my library and also be able to use Qbasic,

Did you try Microsoft Small Basic ( http://smallbasic.com/ )

[Auric__]

Herbert Kleebauer wrote:

> On 27.09.2013 18:23, foxidrive wrote:
>
>> I have to say that I opted for 32 bit Windows 8 because I wanted to be
>> able to use all the .com files in
>
> I also miss all my .com utilities, but time goes on. Some of them
> I have ported to 32 bit code, for some others I use DOSbox.
> But most I missed the Norton Commander, but Midnight Commander
> is good replacement.

MC tends to be overall better than NC outside of real mode DOS.

>> my library and also be able to use Qbasic,
>
> Did you try Microsoft Small Basic ( http://smallbasic.com/ )

I have. Don't particularly like it. The only thing I wrote with it was a
thing that automagically sets the wallpaper to a random Flickr image, a 1-
liner in MSSB:

Desktop.SetWallPaper (Flickr.GetRandomPicture(Program.GetArgument(1)))

I have no idea how many lines that would be in, say, FreeBASIC. (Certainly
more than 1.) If graphical toys involving Flickr were my thing, I'd be all
over MSSB.

--
But I'm digressing. Back to Yale.

[Philip Robyn]

Hi, Herbert,

I have 64-bit Win7 Professional and I am using Windows Virtual PC (free from Microsoft) to run (a free copy from Microsoft of) WinXP, so I can still run my old software. I tried DOSBox also, but having spent the last 15 years or so making my favorite old software run in conjunction with CMD.EXE, I found it very disconcerting to have to fall back to the primitive capabilities of MS-DOS and give up all of the features that we had come to know and love through using CMD.EXE in NT 3.5, 4.0, Win2000, and WinXP. My old software runs like gangbusters in DOS Box, but it can't interact very effectively with the rest of the system. What is your strategy for integrating old software running in DOS Box with the rest of the system outside of DOS Box? I thought about creating a 'server' running on Win7 that would just sit there and wait for requests to come out of apps running in DOS Box, but that would be abysmally slow. Any suggestions based on your experience with DOS Box? (I only played with it for a day or so.)

I have also tried VMWare (the free player thingie), but maybe because of the way I have my accounts set up (admin vs.my ordinary user, etc.), I was never able to get the VMWare installation to run for me as an ordinary user (I don't want to run it as the admin). I mention this because if you first install the free Win VPC and WinXP from Microsoft, then VMWare will offer to 'take over' the WinXP installed in WinVPC.

--
Phil Robyn

[Auric__]

foxidrive wrote:

> On 27/09/2013 22:42, Stanley Daniel de Liver wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:33:30 +0100, Herbert Kleebauer <kl...@unibwm.de>
>> wrote:
>
>>> com programs were nice, but Microsoft killed them. They don't
>>> work anymore, or is here somebody who still uses
>>> a 32 bit Windows?
>>
>> Sure. What's so great about 64bit? - it breaks legacy code.
>
>
> I have to say that I opted for 32 bit Windows 8 because I wanted to be
> able to use all the .com files in my library and also be able to use
> Qbasic, which is another thing that is broken in 64 bit Windows.

If you just want something language-compatible, FreeBASIC has been working
very well for me. QB64 also works... but it rubs me wrong. Both are supposed
to be able to take almost any QBasic program unchanged... in theory.

OTOH, if you want a scriptable interpreter, you could try Chipmunk Basic:

http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/basic/

It's not really compatible with QBasic, but it's similar, and easily
scriptable:

basic filename.bas

All you need to do is make the last statement "EXIT" (otherwise it'll end at
the BASIC prompt. rather than returning to cmd or whatever).

> I'm a bit 'old' fashioned in this way - but there doesn't seem to be any
> reason that 64 bit windows would be better for me.

In my case I'm using Win7x64 simply because I have 16gb ram, but I usually
have a 32-bit XP vm running.

--
Bavaria, where mountains stick out of the ground!

[Auric__]

Philip Robyn wrote:

> I have also tried VMWare (the free player thingie), but maybe because of
> the way I have my accounts set up (admin vs.my ordinary user, etc.), I
> was never able to get the VMWare installation to run for me as an
> ordinary user (I don't want to run it as the admin).

VMware installs a driver that allows the virtual machines to access the
network in various ways. No admin, no install.

--
All suspects are guilty -- Period!
Otherwise, they wouldn't be suspects, would they?

[foxidrive]

On 28/09/2013 04:54, Herbert Kleebauer wrote:> On 27.09.2013 18:23, foxidrive wrote:
>
> I also miss all my .com utilities, but time goes on. Some of them
> I have ported to 32 bit code, for some others I use DOSbox.
> But most I missed the Norton Commander, but Midnight Commander
> is good replacement.

Total Commander is my favourite now. Once off payment and all updates free and is actively supported.
The shareware version is not crippled at all - with only a starting prompt.

Norton Commander and other clones have been in my life since MSdos 3.3 and have been marvellous tools.

>> my library and also be able to use Qbasic,

> Did you try Microsoft Small Basic ( http://smallbasic.com/ )

Thanks for the pointer Herbert. I hadn't found any good alternatives when I last searched.

> If you just want something language-compatible, FreeBASIC has been working
> very well for me. QB64 also works... but it rubs me wrong. Both are supposed
> to be able to take almost any QBasic program unchanged... in theory.

Thanks for those pointers too, Auric.

> OTOH, if you want a scriptable interpreter, you could try Chipmunk Basic:
>
> http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/basic/
>
> It's not really compatible with QBasic, but it's similar, and easily
> scriptable:

Ta.

I do play with the free version of PureBasic and compile the odd tool - it's not a bad setup and was
fairly easy to get something running. I support friends who have 64 bit systems so need to work around
.com files anyway.

Regarding my choice of 32 bit - one major sticking point was being unable to upgrade from 32 bit to 64
bit. I did a clean install of Win 7 and didn't want to do another clean install of Win 8 in 64 bit.

Microsoft are a bit slack in not supporting those upgrade paths... :)

foxi

[CRNG]

On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 18:42:22 -0700 (PDT), Philip Robyn
<phil.r...@gmail.com> wrote in
<db04da76-a947-4f5d...@googlegroups.com> Re Re: 64 bit
and .com files:

>I have 64-bit Win7 Professional and I am using Windows Virtual PC (free from Microsoft) to run (a free copy from Microsoft of) WinXP, so I can still run my old software.

Where do you get "(a free copy from Microsoft of) WinXP"? Does it
come with Windows Virtual PC?
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

[Frank Westlake]

2013-09-27 11:54, Herbert Kleebauer:

> Did you try Microsoft Small Basic ( http://smallbasic.com/ )

Thanks Herbert -- I'll take a look at this and see if it will be useful to me as a long-term GUI scripting solution.

Frank

[Frank Westlake]

2013-09-28 07:14, Frank Westlake:

> 2013-09-27 11:54, Herbert Kleebauer:
> > Did you try Microsoft Small Basic ( http://smallbasic.com/ )
>
> Thanks Herbert -- I'll take a look at this and see if it will be useful to me as a long-term GUI scripting solution.

I didn't get past the EULA.

Frank

[Herbert Kleebauer]

On 28.09.2013 03:42, Philip Robyn wrote:

> I have 64-bit Win7 Professional and I am using Windows Virtual PC (free from
> Microsoft) to run (a free copy from Microsoft of) WinXP, so I can still run
> my old software. I tried DOSBox also, but having spent the last 15 years or

When I setup a new desktop PC three years ago, I also wanted backward
compatibility. So I installed a dual boot system with 32 bit XP and
64 bit Win7 (with XP in a VPC). But I exclusively used 32 bit XP and
only booted to Win7 sometimes to install the OS updates.

Now I mostly use a Laptop which had 64 bit Win7 preinstalled. I also
thought, I need backward compatibility so I installed a VPC with Win98
(to be able to boot to DOS7) and DOSBox. But to have a collection of
helper utilities only makes sense, if you can use them on any standard
PC, which means you have to ignore old 16 bit code. After somebody
posted here a way to include binary files within a batch file using
certutil, I converted some of my com-programs to 32 bit.

> What is your strategy for integrating old software running in DOS Box with the
> rest of the system outside of DOS Box?

I think the only successful strategy is, to forget about the
old software and do a restart with 32 bit code. I very rarely
use DOSBox to use some old utilities. And the more cumbersome
it is, the more is the pressure to find a 32 bit replacement.

[Herbert Kleebauer]

On 28.09.2013 06:58, foxidrive wrote:

> Total Commander is my favourite now.

I have tried some of such programs but but all of them were
Windows GUI programs which only open a CMD window when you
start a command line program. I prefer the other way: you
start a cmd shell and the commander is executed within
the cmd window like the good old Norton Commander.

[Herbert Kleebauer]

On 28.09.2013 13:06, CRNG wrote:

>> I have 64-bit Win7 Professional and I am using Windows Virtual PC
>> (free from Microsoft) to run (a free copy from Microsoft of) WinXP,
>> so I can still run my old software.

> Where do you get "(a free copy from Microsoft of) WinXP"? Does it
> come with Windows Virtual PC?

I think you need at least Win7 professional to be allowed to use
the preconfigured XP image. But you always can install XP from a CD.

[Herbert Kleebauer]

On 28.09.2013 16:19, Frank Westlake wrote:

> > > Did you try Microsoft Small Basic ( http://smallbasic.com/ )

> I didn't get past the EULA.

Can't find the EULA in the smallbasic directory. What's wrong
with the EULA?

[Philip Robyn]

On Friday, September 27, 2013 6:59:57 PM UTC-7, Auric__ wrote:
> Philip Robyn wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have also tried VMWare (the free player thingie), but maybe because of
>
> > the way I have my accounts set up (admin vs.my ordinary user, etc.), I
>
> > was never able to get the VMWare installation to run for me as an
>
> > ordinary user (I don't want to run it as the admin).
>
>
>
> VMware installs a driver that allows the virtual machines to access the
>
> network in various ways. No admin, no install.
>

But now I'm just a home user, not on a network. So too bad, no VMWare for me.
I was perfectly willing to buy it, but this limitation makes it non-viable for
me. They probably don't care too much about the home market anyway.

Phil Robyn
Univ. of California, Berkeley (retired)

[Philip Robyn]

On Saturday, September 28, 2013 4:06:54 AM UTC-7, CRNG wrote:

>
> Where do you get "(a free copy from Microsoft of) WinXP"? Does it
>
> come with Windows Virtual PC?
>

If you have Win7 Pro on up, you can download and install Microsoft's free
Windows VPC; along with Win VPC you also receive a 'free copy' of WinXP.
But if you like, you can also install other guest operating systems in
Win VPC (I have not tried this; YMMV).

[Philip Robyn]

On Saturday, September 28, 2013 10:32:35 AM UTC-7, Herbert Kleebauer wrote:

> . . . to ignore old 16 bit code. After somebody

>
> posted here a way to include binary files within a batch file using
>
> certutil, I converted some of my com-programs to 32 bit.
>

I want to thank you (and Frank Westlake) for your previous posts re CertUtil.
You guys have got me playing with it now. It's the best thing to come along
in years!

>
> > What is your strategy for integrating old software running in DOS Box with the
>
> > rest of the system outside of DOS Box?
>
>
>
> I think the only successful strategy is, to forget about the
>
> old software and do a restart with 32 bit code. I very rarely
>
> use DOSBox to use some old utilities. And the more cumbersome
>
> it is, the more is the pressure to find a 32 bit replacement.

When I installed DOSBox I wasn't using it inside a VPC, so maybe my
experience was a bit different from yours. But you have pretty much
convinced me of the hopelessness of trying to drag my old 16-bit
code any farther into the future.

As always, thanks for your insightful comments!

--

[CRNG]

On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 10:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Philip Robyn
<phil.r...@gmail.com> wrote in
<6f31a0d7-a5dc-4313...@googlegroups.com> Re Re: 64 bit
and .com files:

Very interesting. I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

[Auric__]

foxidrive wrote:

> On 28/09/2013 04:54, Herbert Kleebauer wrote:> On 27.09.2013 18:23,
> foxidrive wrote:
>>
>> I also miss all my .com utilities, but time goes on. Some of them
>> I have ported to 32 bit code, for some others I use DOSbox.
>> But most I missed the Norton Commander, but Midnight Commander
>> is good replacement.
>
> Total Commander is my favourite now. Once off payment and all updates
> free and is actively supported. The shareware version is not crippled at
> all - with only a starting prompt.

I use the free (older) version of Servant Salamander. Most of my work
happens in the GUI so it makes sense to use a GUI file manager.

> Norton Commander and other clones have been in my life since MSdos 3.3
> and have been marvellous tools.

Until maybe 5 years ago I was using XTree Gold and Unixtree. Tried MC under
Linux, and that's all it took.

>> If you just want something language-compatible, FreeBASIC has been
>> working very well for me. QB64 also works... but it rubs me wrong. Both
>> are supposed to be able to take almost any QBasic program unchanged...
>> in theory.
>
> Thanks for those pointers too, Auric.

Re: QB64, see my rants elsewhere. (Search Google Groups for qb64 in the
title, written by me.) I am definitely not a fan.

>> OTOH, if you want a scriptable interpreter, you could try Chipmunk
>> Basic:
>>
>> http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/basic/
>>
>> It's not really compatible with QBasic, but it's similar, and easily
>> scriptable:
>
> Ta.

Np.

> I do play with the free version of PureBasic and compile the odd tool -
> it's not a bad setup and was fairly easy to get something running. I
> support friends who have 64 bit systems so need to work around .com
> files anyway.

By "free version" I assume you mean the demo, yes? PureBasic is useful for
me in that it has 64-bit support, but beyond that I don't really like its
variety of BASIC.

--
That's very tempting except for the fact you're a pathological liar.

[foxidrive]

On 29/09/2013 08:19, Auric__ wrote:

> foxidrive wrote:
>
> I use the free (older) version of Servant Salamander. Most of my work
> happens in the GUI so it makes sense to use a GUI file manager.

Total Commander, rah rah rah! :) I've been using it since the 16 bit version, maybe more than 18 years
now. That's pretty good value for one registration - and there is an active forum for it, so many
plugins, completely customisable.

I'm also in the gui a lot - email/usenet, browser/forums, skype, teamviewer, virtual-machines, and in cmd
windows and text editors and TC.

>>> If you just want something language-compatible, FreeBASIC has been
>>> working very well for me. QB64 also works... but it rubs me wrong.

>> Thanks for those pointers too, Auric.
>
> Re: QB64, see my rants elsewhere. (Search Google Groups for qb64 in the
> title, written by me.) I am definitely not a fan.

My rant for today is with google groups: and there is no advanced search dialog.

I searched for qb64 auric and amongst many others I got only one hit with qb64 in the subject - and it
was discussing *google groups* mainly. There's probably a search syntax to search by subject but there
is no explanation on the google groups page.

>> I do play with the free version of PureBasic and compile the odd tool -
>> it's not a bad setup and was fairly easy to get something running.
>

> By "free version" I assume you mean the demo, yes? PureBasic is useful for
> me in that it has 64-bit support, but beyond that I don't really like its
> variety of BASIC.

Yeah, the demo. It's not crippled when creating command line tools but I've only fiddled with a few
simple ones, so the different syntax wasn't too much trouble.

Cheers.

foxi

[frank.w...@gmail.com]

From Herbert Kleebauer :

The EULA is presented during installation. I didn't read
it beyond seeing that SmallBasic would be connecting my
computer to other computers while scripts are being run
so that it could transfer usage information to those
other computers. The only way I will approve such a
thing is if the software shows me the actual data that
will be sent so that I can read it and then either
approve or disapprove the transmission.

Frank

[Auric__]

foxidrive wrote:

> On 29/09/2013 08:19, Auric__ wrote:
>> foxidrive wrote:
>>
>> I use the free (older) version of Servant Salamander. Most of my work
>> happens in the GUI so it makes sense to use a GUI file manager.
>
> Total Commander, rah rah rah! :) I've been using it since the 16 bit
> version, maybe more than 18 years now. That's pretty good value for one
> registration - and there is an active forum for it, so many plugins,
> completely customisable.
>
> I'm also in the gui a lot - email/usenet, browser/forums, skype,
> teamviewer, virtual-machines, and in cmd windows and text editors and
> TC.

I tried TC at some point, and it didn't really leave an impression with me,
good or bad. For me, that generally translates into "no reason to change".
I've tried various commander clones, and none of them really do it for me.
Servant Salamander is very simple, and I generally don't need much from a
file manager.

>>>> If you just want something language-compatible, FreeBASIC has been
>>>> working very well for me. QB64 also works... but it rubs me wrong.
>>> Thanks for those pointers too, Auric.
>>
>> Re: QB64, see my rants elsewhere. (Search Google Groups for qb64 in the
>> title, written by me.) I am definitely not a fan.
>
> My rant for today is with google groups: and there is no advanced search
> dialog.

See here:

http://groups.google.com/advanced_search

> I searched for qb64 auric and amongst many others I got only one hit
> with qb64 in the subject - and it was discussing *google groups* mainly.
> There's probably a search syntax to search by subject but there is no
> explanation on the google groups page.

Here's a link to my rant^H^H^H^H post about QB64:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.lang.basic/OLglQcqPi8A

(Note that I wrote that before I knew about PureBasic's 64-bit support.)

>>> I do play with the free version of PureBasic and compile the odd tool
>>> - it's not a bad setup and was fairly easy to get something running.
>>
>> By "free version" I assume you mean the demo, yes? PureBasic is useful
>> for me in that it has 64-bit support, but beyond that I don't really
>> like its variety of BASIC.
>
> Yeah, the demo. It's not crippled when creating command line tools but
> I've only fiddled with a few simple ones, so the different syntax wasn't
> too much trouble.

Interesting. I'll have to take another look.

--
Backpedal faster, bitch.

[Auric__]

Philip Robyn wrote:

> On Friday, September 27, 2013 6:59:57 PM UTC-7, Auric__ wrote:
>> Philip Robyn wrote:
>>
>> > I have also tried VMWare (the free player thingie), but maybe because of
>> > the way I have my accounts set up (admin vs.my ordinary user, etc.), I
>> > was never able to get the VMWare installation to run for me as an
>> > ordinary user (I don't want to run it as the admin).
>>
>> VMware installs a driver that allows the virtual machines to access the
>> network in various ways. No admin, no install.
>
> But now I'm just a home user, not on a network. So too bad, no VMWare
> for me. I was perfectly willing to buy it, but this limitation makes it
> non-viable for me.

They do it because they have no way of knowing beforehand whether or not
you'll be using a network. Also, the driver lets you set up a virtual network
so your VMs can talk to each other.

> They probably don't care too much about the home
> market anyway.

I'm sure they care about anyone willing to give them money.

--
- So, anyway, what do you want to go do later?
- Oh, you know. The usual. Dig a hole in the ground.
Crawl into it. Stay there. Fucking HIDE.

[foxidrive]

On 30/09/2013 03:10, Auric__ wrote:

>>> I use the free (older) version of Servant Salamander. Most of my work
>>> happens in the GUI so it makes sense to use a GUI file manager.
>>
>> Total Commander, rah rah rah! :)
>

> I tried TC at some point, and it didn't really leave an impression with me,
> good or bad. For me, that generally translates into "no reason to change".

Understood. TBH I don't like the default GUI look of TC. It's very customisable though and my screen
has no icons, is dark, has coloured filetypes setup, icons switched off, hidden files showing, files
search via plain Alt.

Some valuable features in TC is the multi-rename tool which will let you rename files in all sorts of
ways, using regexp too if that's your toy, and copying files has many options when for example you are
merging two folders/trees with the same filenames. You have an option to auto-rename the source or
target files, which is something I find very useful so I don't have to manually rename files, or create a
batch file to do it for me.

Anyway this is how it looks here, if anyone is curious: http://astronomy.comoj.com/TC-screenshot.png

> I've tried various commander clones, and none of them really do it for me.
> Servant Salamander is very simple, and I generally don't need much from a
> file manager.

I think we get very set on using our favourite file manager - like our favourite text editor, and don't
really think of changing. :)

>>> Re: QB64, see my rants elsewhere. (Search Google Groups for qb64 in the
>>> title, written by me.) I am definitely not a fan.

> http://groups.google.com/advanced_search

How did you find that? There's no link to it from the google groups page that I could see! :)
Thanks.

> Here's a link to my rant^H^H^H^H post about QB64:
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.lang.basic/OLglQcqPi8A
> (Note that I wrote that before I knew about PureBasic's 64-bit support.)

Ahh, what a bloat-filled piece of crap that looks to be! I certainly think that compiling a tool is much
more useful when it doesn't have a bunch of dependancy files in tow - and size of binary is important if
you want to encode it.

OTOH Chipmunk basic looks useful - as you mention it's available in Linux also.

Cheers
foxi

[Auric__]

foxidrive wrote:

> On 30/09/2013 03:10, Auric__ wrote:
>
>>>> I use the free (older) version of Servant Salamander. Most of my work
>>>> happens in the GUI so it makes sense to use a GUI file manager.
>>>
>>> Total Commander, rah rah rah! :)
>>
>> I tried TC at some point, and it didn't really leave an impression with
>> me, good or bad. For me, that generally translates into "no reason to
>> change".
>
> Understood. TBH I don't like the default GUI look of TC. It's very
> customisable though and my screen has no icons, is dark, has coloured
> filetypes setup, icons switched off, hidden files showing, files search
> via plain Alt.
>
> Some valuable features in TC is the multi-rename tool which will let you
> rename files in all sorts of ways, using regexp too if that's your toy,
> and copying files has many options when for example you are merging two
> folders/trees with the same filenames. You have an option to
> auto-rename the source or target files, which is something I find very
> useful so I don't have to manually rename files, or create a batch file
> to do it for me.

That's an interesting feature, but I wrote my own program to handle renaming
for me some years back, along with tools to do many file management tasks.
(Enough so that I've considered building my own commander clone by simply
merging the various projects together with a main window... but I'm too
unmotivated to see that project through to completion.)

>> I've tried various commander clones, and none of them really do it for
>> me. Servant Salamander is very simple, and I generally don't need much
>> from a file manager.
>
> I think we get very set on using our favourite file manager - like our
> favourite text editor, and don't really think of changing. :)

Perhaps. I wouldve said that we get so used to doing things in a particular
way that we don't want to learn a different way, even if it's only trivially
different. That's my case; I tried Q-Dir, another commander clone...

http://www.softwareok.com/?seite=Freeware/Q-Dir

...but it does many things just a *bit* different than SS does, and that
drives me batty. Servant Salamander, now called Altap Salamander, is here:

http://www.altap.cz/

...in case you want to see it. (I use v1.52, the free version.)

>> http://groups.google.com/advanced_search
>
> How did you find that? There's no link to it from the google groups
> page that I could see! :) Thanks.

I've had it bookmarked practically since Google bought Deja, but the obvious
route would've been to ask Google where it was hidden:

https://www.google.com/#q=google+groups+advanced+search

;-)

>> Here's a link to my rant^H^H^H^H post about QB64:
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.lang.basic/OLglQcqPi8A
>> (Note that I wrote that before I knew about PureBasic's 64-bit
>> support.)
>
> Ahh, what a bloat-filled piece of crap that looks to be! I certainly
> think that compiling a tool is much more useful when it doesn't have a
> bunch of dependancy files in tow - and size of binary is important if
> you want to encode it.

That's what attracted me to PowerBASIC in the first place. FreeBASIC does
pretty good, too, and has the added advantage of being mostly compatible
with QuickBASIC (and *completely* compatible with QBasic).. but if PB ever
releases the Linux version they promised a decade ago, I'd buy it.

> OTOH Chipmunk basic looks useful - as you mention it's available in
> Linux also.

I didn't, actually :-) but Linux is where I use it the most. I also would've
mentioned Michael Haardt's bas, if there was a Windows version:

http://www.moria.de/~michael/bas/

(For all I know, it might be compilable with Windows builds of GCC, or maybe
even other C-ish compilers, but I've never tried.)

--
There seems to have been a lot of PhDs given out recently
from the University of B.S.

[Ammammata]

Il giorno Fri 27 Sep 2013 08:54:30p, *Herbert Kleebauer* inviava su
alt.msdos.batch.nt il messaggio news:l24kda$rh5$1...@speranza.aioe.org.
Vediamo cosa scrisse:

> But most I missed the Norton Commander, but Midnight Commander
> is good replacement.
>

don't forget Volkov Commander

--
/-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=-
>>>>> http://www.bb2002.it :) <<<<<
........... [ al lavoro ] ...........