help with renaming.
Steffen Ringsing
I'm not certain, that it can be solved with a batch solution.
The problem is, that I want to rename all files in a folder. I want to add
an "i" as the last char. in the filename.
Somehow I need to retrive all filenames in a certain folder and then
renaming them.
Can this be done????
Steffen Ringsing
Herbert Kleebauer
>
> Hi, is there an expert out there that could help with a renaming problem??
> I'm not certain, that it can be solved with a batch solution.
>
> The problem is, that I want to rename all files in a folder. I want to add
> an "i" as the last char. in the filename.
>
> Somehow I need to retrive all filenames in a certain folder and then
> renaming them.
If all files have the same extention (e.g. .txt), you can use:
if exist *.!!! goto ende
ren *. *.!!!
ren *.txt *.
for %%i in (*.) do ren %%i %%ii.txt
ren *.!!! *.
:ende
Drago 9034
ren *.* *i.*
Bob Watson
There are several ways this can be done and the best choice depends on
whether the files all have the same extensions (see Herbert Kleebauer's
reply), whether the files are all the same length, and so on.
I have described four scenarios at
http://www3.sympatico.ca/rhwatson/dos7/z-ren1.html that explain why this
operation is a bit more complicated than it should be (but can always be
done).
All the best,
Bob Watson
Dr John Stockton
news:alt.msdos.batch, Steffen Ringsing <steffen....@pol.dk> wrote
at Thu, 20 Sep 2001 12:09:41 :-
>Hi, is there an expert out there that could help with a renaming problem??
>I'm not certain, that it can be solved with a batch solution.
>
>The problem is, that I want to rename all files in a folder. I want to add
>an "i" as the last char. in the filename.
>
>Somehow I need to retrive all filenames in a certain folder and then
>renaming them.
A general approach is to use DIR *.xyz /b to list the filenames, to
run that through a stream editor such as SED or MiniTrue, and to execute
the result as a batch. One advantage is that you can read the batch
before risking making any changes.
In one of my directories,
dir *.bak /b | mtr -x+ -o - ^(.*)\.(.*)\r$ = "ren \1\.\2 \1i\.\2\r"
generates on standard output :
ren GRAVITY.BAK GRAVITYi.BAK
ren JS-OTHER.BAK JS-OTHERi.BAK
ren TRIMENDS.BAK TRIMENDSi.BAK
ren JS-MATHS.BAK JS-MATHSi.BAK
ren JS-DATES.BAK JS-DATESi.BAK
> ...
In this demo, the restriction to BAK is of no significance (it shortens
the list).
Redirect with > ADDANI.BAT , read ADDANI.BAT, and run ADDANI.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL: http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
I find MiniTrue useful for viewing/searching/altering files, at a DOS prompt;
free, DOS/UNIX, from <URL: http://www.pagesz.net/~minitrue/> & Garbo fileutil
Dr John Stockton
news:alt.msdos.batch, Drago 9034 <drag...@aol.com> wrote at Thu, 20
Sep 2001 19:00:18 :-
>i bet you could do:
>
>ren *.* *i.*
Undoubtedly one can do that; but did you test to see if it does what is
needed? In my Win98 1st Edn DOS box, it renames each file with its
original name.
Please pay the sum that you were wagering to Mr G. Brown, UK; he always
seems in need of money.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL: http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
laura fairhead
this requires 'sed'. sed for MSDOS can be downloaded from;
FTP SITE: ftp.simtel.net
PATH : /pub/simtelnet/msdos/txtutl/sed15x.zip
unzip it and place it in your PATH
good documentation is included but better is on my
site here;
do not run the script while it is in the current directory
(because it will try to rename itself)
change %ADD% for what you want adding and %MASK% for the files
to change.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@ECHO OFF
IF !%1==!. %2
:: ------------------------------------------------------------------
SET ADD=i
SET MASK=*.*
%COMSPEC% /E:2048 /C %0 . GOTO:SEDSCR >%TEMP%.\TEMP.SED
DIR /B /A-D %MASK% |SED -f %TEMP%.\TEMP.SED >%TEMP%.\TEMP.BAT
CALL %TEMP%.\TEMP.BAT
SET ADD=
SET MASK=
FOR %%_ IN (TEMP.BAT TEMP.SED) DO DEL %TEMP%.\%%_
GOTO OUT
:: ------------------------------------------------------------------
:SEDSCR
ECHO s/%%/&&/g
ECHO h
ECHO /\./!s/$/./
ECHO s/.[^.]*$/%ADD%&/
ECHO s/\.$//
ECHO G
SET X=s/\(.*\)\n\(.*\)/
SET X=%X%IF EXIST \"\1\"
SET X=%X% ECHO CANNOT RENAME \"\2\" TO \"\1\" (DESTINATION FILENAME EXISTS)
ECHO %X%\nIF NOT EXIST \"\1\" REN \"\2\" \"\1\"\n/
:: ------------------------------------------------------------------
:OUT
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
cu,from
--
: ${L:-aura} # http://lf.8k.com:80
Clay Calvert
<steffen....@pol.dk> wrote:
You can use the free Win95CMD.exe that was written by Microsoft.
It is available here:
http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygutils/unversioned/consize/index.html
for %%A in (*.*) do ren "%%A" "%%~nAi%%~xA"
The above syntax will work on Microsoft's new operating system that is
geared for home use, XP, without any additional utilities.
FYI: The %%~nA simply extracts the filename without the drive, path,
or extension. The %%~xA extracts just the extension.
Cheers,
Clay Calvert
CCal...@Wanguru.com
Replace "W" with "L"
William Allen
> Hi, is there an expert out there that could help with a renaming problem??
> I'm not certain, that it can be solved with a batch solution.
>
> The problem is, that I want to rename all files in a folder. I want to add
> an "i" as the last char. in the filename.
>
> Somehow I need to retrive all filenames in a certain folder and then
> renaming them.
Slightly to my suprise, I must admit, this turns out to be
trivial in Windows 95/95/ME. The following amusing routine
works here. Place the following Batch script in the folder
concerned and run it.
One small proviso, before you run the script, use:
attrib WhatEverNameYouUse.BAT +H
to mask the script itself from the rename process. You
could use the normal Win9x START technique to grab the
full path+name of the script and exclude it that way, but it
hardly seems worth it. Handles long file names with spaces.
====Begin cut-and-paste (omit this line)
@ECHO OFF
IF (GOTO:)==(%1) %1%2 (Subroutine handler)
:: Suffixes all base filenames in current folder with SFX character
:: Set the character to be suffixed here, this example uses I
SET SFX=I
REM>%TEMP%.\R.BAT
LFNFOR ON
FOR %%F IN (*.*) DO ECHO.CALL %0 GOTO: _RENAME "%%F">>%TEMP%.\R.BAT
LFNFOR OFF
FOR %%C IN (CALL DEL) DO %%C %TEMP%\R.BAT
SET SFX=
GOTO EOF (=Subroutine code follows=)
:_RENAME (Usage: CALL %0 GOTO: _RENAME Filespec)
REN %3 ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????%SFX%.*
:EOF (End-of-file)
====End cut-and-paste (omit this line)
To use the code above, cut-and-paste the text between the ==== lines
into a file with extension .BAT and base name of your choice. Lines
that don't begin with two spaces have wrapped in transmission. The
code was created and tested in Win9x GUI.
If you think some filenames may be longer than 64 characters,
use more question marks, just as long as the number exceeds
the maximum base filename length.
--
William Allen
For the normal START method to obtain the full path+name
of the currently running Batch file see my post:
From: "William Allen"
Newsgroups: alt.msdos.batch
Subject: Re: Get a batch file's path and drive
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 19:13:40 +0100
Message-ID: <9ejj2v$3cn7d$1...@ID-55970.news.dfncis.de>
You can read old Usenet posts at:
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
Note: Google search by Message-ID is usually the quickest.
Message-ID search works with or without <angle> brackets.
Simply cut-and-paste the Message-ID into Google page above.
William Allen
...snip
> Slightly to my suprise, I must admit, this turns out to be
> trivial in Windows 95/95/ME. The following amusing routine
> works here. Place the following Batch script in the folder
> concerned and run it.
It turns out that this suprisingly simple Windows 95/98/ME
Base Name Suffixing Mask technique has lots of applications
here. This version generalises it and removes the need for
manual hiding/unhiding of the working script.
====Begin cut-and-paste (omit this line)
@ECHO OFF
IF (GOTO:)==(%1) %1%2 (Subroutine handler)
:: Suffixes base filenames in current with %1 character(s) passed
IF ()==(%1) GOTO USAGE
:: Hide ourselves from Rename scan
%COMSPEC% NUL /c %0 GOTO: _ATTRIB +H
REM>%TEMP%.\R.BAT
LFNFOR ON
FOR %%F IN (*.*) DO ECHO.CALL %0 GOTO: _RENAME "%%F" %1>>%TEMP%.\R.BAT
LFNFOR OFF
FOR %%C IN (CALL DEL) DO %%C %TEMP%\R.BAT
:: UnHide ourselves again
%COMSPEC% NUL /c %0 GOTO: _ATTRIB -H
GOTO EOF
:USAGE
ECHO. Usage: %0 SuffixCharacter(s)
ECHO. Renames all non-hidden files in current folder to
ECHO. append SuffixCharacter(s) to basename. Assumes that
ECHO. SuffixCharacter(s) are valid filename characters.
ECHO. "Quote" SuffixCharacter(s) with embedded [Space]s
ECHO. Version for name lengths initially under 64 characters
ECHO.
GOTO EOF (=Subroutine code follows=)
:_RENAME (Usage: CALL %0 GOTO: _RENAME Filespec)
REN %3 ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????%4.*
GOTO EOF (=Subroutine code follows=)
:_ATTRIB (Usage: %COMSPEC% NUL /c %0 GOTO: _ATTRIB +-attribute)
attrib %0.bat %3
IF ERRORLEVEL 1 attrib %0 %3
:EOF (End-of-file)
====End cut-and-paste (omit this line)
To use the code above, cut-and-paste the text between the ==== lines
into a file with extension .BAT and base name of your choice. Lines
that don't begin with two spaces have wrapped in transmission. The
code was created and tested in Win9x GUI.
If the suffixing token contains spaces, enclose it in "quotes" as
below where the above demo is saved as SUFFIX.BAT
============Screen capture in Win9x GUI
C:\WORK>dir /o /b
A.EXE
BA.COM
CAB.TXT
DABC.BMP
EABCD.JPG
FABCDE.DLL
GABCDEF.EXT
HABCDEF with spaces.SYS
SUFFIX.BAT
C:\WORK>suffix -ADD
C:\WORK>dir /o /b
A-ADD.EXE
BA-ADD.COM
CAB-ADD.TXT
DABC-ADD.BMP
EABCD-ADD.JPG
FABCDE-ADD.DLL
GABCDEF-ADD.EXT
HABCDEF with spaces-ADD.SYS
SUFFIX.BAT
C:\WORK>suffix " a suffix with spaces"
C:\WORK>dir /o /b
A-ADD a suffix with spaces.EXE
BA-ADD a suffix with spaces.COM
CAB-ADD a suffix with spaces.TXT
DABC-ADD a suffix with spaces.BMP
EABCD-ADD a suffix with spaces.JPG
FABCDE-ADD a suffix with spaces.DLL
GABCDEF-ADD a suffix with spaces.EXT
HABCDEF with spaces-ADD a suffix with spaces.SYS
SUFFIX.BAT
C:\WORK>
============End screen capture
--
William Allen
William Allen
> William Allen wrote in message
> ...snip
> > Slightly to my suprise, I must admit, this turns out to be
> > trivial in Windows 95/95/ME. The following amusing routine
> > works here. Place the following Batch script in the folder
> > concerned and run it.
>
> It turns out that this suprisingly simple Windows 95/98/ME
> Base Name Suffixing Mask technique has lots of applications
> here.
This idea also demonstrates the value of working within the standard
Subroutine Template. Adding a standard date subroutine to the
previous demo immediately produces a script to suffix all the base
names in the current folder with the current system date, with
no extra scripting work.
This demo script has uses, for example, in "date versioning" all
project files in the current folder.
====Begin cut-and-paste (omit this line)
@ECHO OFF
IF (GOTO:)==(%1) %1%2 (Subroutine handler)
:: Suffixes base filenames in current folder with current date
:: Get current date
CALL %0 GOTO: _DTODAY
:: Hide ourselves from Rename scan
%COMSPEC% NUL /c %0 GOTO: _ATTRIB +H
REM>%TEMP%.\R.BAT
LFNFOR ON
FOR %%F IN (*.*) DO ECHO.CALL %0 GOTO: _RENAME "%%F" %D%>>%TEMP%.\R.BAT
LFNFOR OFF
FOR %%C IN (CALL DEL) DO %%C %TEMP%\R.BAT
:: UnHide ourselves again
%COMSPEC% NUL /c %0 GOTO: _ATTRIB -H
:: Tidy up
SET D=
GOTO EOF
:USAGE
ECHO. Usage: %0
ECHO. Appends current date in system order to names of all
ECHO. non-hidden files in current folder (this version for
ECHO. name lengths initially under 64 characters)
ECHO.
GOTO EOF (=Subroutine code follows=)
:_RENAME (Usage: CALL %0 GOTO: _RENAME Filespec)
REN %3 ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????%4.*
GOTO EOF (=Subroutine code follows=)
:_ATTRIB (Usage: %COMSPEC% NUL /c %0 GOTO: _ATTRIB +-attribute)
attrib %0.bat %3
IF ERRORLEVEL 1 attrib %0 %3
GOTO EOF (=Subroutine code follows=)
:_DTODAY (Usage: CALL %0 GOTO: _DTODAY)
ECHO.SET D= %0 GOTO: _DTODAY1>%TEMP%.\CALL%%D%%.BAT
DIR /-w %TEMP%.\CALL%%D%%.BAT | find "%%">>%TEMP%.\CALL%%D%%.BAT
FOR %%C IN (CALL DEL) DO %%C %TEMP%.\CALL%%D%%.BAT
GOTO EOF
:_DTODAY1 (recall point within _DTODAY routine)
ECHO.@PROMPT e0'SET D=%5'd a 1a$_e8 2d$_eb 2d$_w0$_q>%TEMP%.\D.BAT
%COMSPEC% /e:992 /c %TEMP%.\D.BAT | debug %TEMP%.\D.BAT>NUL
FOR %%C IN (CALL DEL) DO %%C %TEMP%.\D.BAT
:EOF (End-of-file)
====End cut-and-paste (omit this line)
To use the code above, cut-and-paste the text between the ==== lines
into a file with extension .BAT and base name of your choice. Lines
that don't begin with two spaces have wrapped in transmission. The
code was created and tested in Win9x GUI.
In this screen capture the above demo is saved as ADDATE.BAT
============Screen capture in Win9x GUI
C:\WORK>dir /o /b
ADDATE.BAT
B.EXE
BA.COM
CAB.TXT
DABC.BMP
EABCD.JPG
FABCDE.DLL
GABCDEF.EXT
HABCDEF with spaces.SYS
C:\WORK>addate
C:\WORK>dir /o /b
ADDATE.BAT
B23-09-01.EXE
BA23-09-01.COM
CAB23-09-01.TXT
DABC23-09-01.BMP
EABCD23-09-01.JPG
FABCDE23-09-01.DLL
GABCDEF23-09-01.EXT
HABCDEF with spaces23-09-01.SYS
William Allen
...snip
And since I put in a USAGE section, it should be invoked
by, for example, adding /? to the command line.
This version fixes that:
====Begin cut-and-paste (omit this line)
@ECHO OFF
IF (GOTO:)==(%1) %1%2 (Subroutine handler)
:: Suffixes base filenames in current folder with current date
IF (/?)==(%1) GOTO USAGE
:: Tidy up
SET D=
REN %3 ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????%4.*
:EOF (End-of-file)
--
William Allen
Outsider
>
>
> You can use the free Win95CMD.exe that was written by Microsoft.
> It is available here:
>
> http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygutils/unversioned/consize/index.html
>
This is bad advice. There are several bugs in this MS 3rd party
command interpretor, and besides it is off topic. This is an NT
emulator and should be discussed in news:alt.msdos.batch.nt .
--
<!-Outsider//->
MS-DOS 6.22, Windows for Workgroups 3.11, Netscape Communicator 4.08
There are three kinds of law in the US: State Law, Federal Law,
and Microsoft Law.
Todd Vargo
"Outsider" <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3BADB580...@yahoo.com...
> Clay Calvert wrote:
> >
> >
> > You can use the free Win95CMD.exe that was written by Microsoft.
> > It is available here:
> >
> >
http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygutils/unversioned/consize/index
.html
> >
>
> This is bad advice. There are several bugs in this MS 3rd party
> command interpretor, and besides it is off topic. This is an NT
> emulator and should be discussed in news:alt.msdos.batch.nt .
Been there, done that.
I'm sure (hope) Clay will refrain from reacting this time.
--
Todd Vargo (body of message must contain my name to reply by email)
Clay Calvert
<nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Clay Calvert wrote:
>>
>>
>> You can use the free Win95CMD.exe that was written by Microsoft.
>> It is available here:
>>
>> http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygutils/unversioned/consize/index.html
>>
>
>This is bad advice.
The batch file was tested and it worked properly in Win98 SE.
Did you try it?
> There are several bugs in this MS 3rd party command interpretor,
There are bugs is nearly all software, and as this is written by
Microsoft it is not 3rd party.
> and besides it is off topic. This is an NT
>emulator and should be discussed in news:alt.msdos.batch.nt .
It's topicality here is a matter of opinion. Others recommended using
a true third-party tool, but that was 'allowed'.
It isn't an NT emulator. There is a whole lot more to that OS than
just one of its two command interpreters.
William Allen
...snip
> >> You can use the free Win95CMD.exe that was written by Microsoft.
> >> It is available here:
> >>
> >> http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygutils/unversioned/consize/index.html
> It's topicality here is a matter of opinion. Others recommended using
> a true third-party tool, but that was 'allowed'.
WIN95CMD is fully on-Topic for alt.msdos.batch. Discussion
of it is welcome in alt.msdos.batch and questions about it will
be answered by me whenever a reply seems suitable.
For newcomers unaware of this useful educational utility and who
wish to know more, this is a repost of some information I have
collected about it.
======
For Windows 95/98/ME users interested in studying Win95cmd
which is a program that runs in the Windows 95/98/ME GUI:
Win95cmd.exe is an extension for Windows 95/98/ME users interested
in using some (not all) enhanced batch language features from
Win2000. It appears to be a demo included with the Win2000 SDK
(Software Development Kit), probably used in simple presentations,
but it's downloadable free from the URLs below.
Probably better to look here:
Win95cmd.exe file is available as a single small ZIP from:
http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygutils/unversioned/consize/
But it's also here (last time I looked) as part of the MS CAB package:
psdk-x86.49.cab:
ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/developr/platformsdk/oct2000/psdk-x86.49.cab
(Note: this is a large CAB file and this site is subject to reorganisation)
======
I am not aware of the recommended method of installation
and it may well need a Kernel patch to work fully, but the
following simple kludge install gets many of the features
working, and is useful for educational purposes.
1)
To work with it, create a custom DVM consisting of a
shortcut to COMMAND.COM, and point the initialising
batch file field to a Batch script consisting of:
====
@ECHO OFF
C:\WINDOWS\WIN95CMD.EXE /k CLS
====
(alter the line to the location you use for WIN95CMD.EXE
This gets round the problem that a direct shortcut to it
doesn't preserve FONT settings in the DVM properties.
This gives you a DVM running the WIN95CMD shell.
2)
In this shortcut Properties, Miscellaneous Tab, Other section,
make sure "Fast pasting" is unchecked. This allows normal pasting
to the WIN95CMD DVM, which is obviously necessary for quick
learning. This eliminates the so-called "freeze" on cut-and-paste.
3)
The internal WIN95CMD TYPE command is Unicode compliant,
following the Win2000 standard, and doesn't work correctly with
non-Unicode files. Simply shell to:
COMMAND.COM /C TYPE
to type non-unicode files.
General points:
1)
The above method allows quite a number of features, particularly
many of the FOR IN DO extensions, to be used.
Type FOR /? for the huge list of extra FOR IN DO features
Type SET /? for the extensions to the SET command
and in general most of the InternalCommand /? help is worth reading.
2)
Some _internal_ commands generate ERRORLEVELs and the
current ERRORLEVEL can be echoed from the same-name
system variable:
ECHO. %ERRORLEVEL%
3)
You can shell to Win95cmd for a single command from a
Win95/98/ME batch file, so assuming you have Win95cmd in
your path, this can be used to, for example capture the
system DATE variable from Win95cmd:
============Screen capture in Windows 95 DOS box
C:\WORK>ver
Windows 95. [Version 4.00.1111]
C:\WORK>win95cmd /c ECHO.%%DATE%%>D.TXT
C:\WORK>type d.txt
Sun 09/09/2001
C:\WORK>
============End screen capture
Note the doubled %% in the /c shell command, since
the code needs to pass through two stages of parsing.
======
Some known problems with the above installation:
a) CapsLock works as a general ShiftLock so non-alpha keys
are out-shifted too.
b) The pipe character doesn't appear to be translated properly
so piping isn't handled
c) FOR IN DO parsing of files isn't handled, but text strings can
be parsed.
d) DOSKEY starts in overtype mode regardless of system setting.
In general, you should regard Win95cmd set up this way as a
useful educational tool.
--
William Allen
William Allen
...snip
> of it is welcome in alt.msdos.batch and questions about it will
> be answered by me whenever a reply seems suitable.
>
> For newcomers unaware of this useful educational utility
This is a fully worked-out solution to the Original Posters'
question implemented in Win9x with the WIN95CMD first-party
utility installed in the path:
====Begin cut-and-paste (omit this line)
@ECHO OFF
IF (GOTO:)==(%1) %1%2 (Subroutine handler)
IF (%1)==() GOTO USAGE
:: Hide ourselves from Rename scan
%COMSPEC% NUL /c %0 GOTO: _ATTRIB +H
REM>%TEMP%.\R.BAT
:: Use Win95cmd extended FOR IN DO to create renaming script
win95cmd /c FOR %%: IN (*.*) DO ECHO.REN "%%:" "%%~n:%1%%~x:">>%TEMP%.\R.BAT
TYPE %TEMP%.\R.BAT | find /v "\">%TEMP%.\R.BAT
:: Execute the renaming script
FOR %%C IN (CALL DEL) DO %%C %TEMP%.\R.BAT
:: UnHide ourselves again
%COMSPEC% NUL /c %0 GOTO: _ATTRIB -H
GOTO EOF
:USAGE
ECHO. Usage %0 SuffixCharacter(s)
ECHO. Renames all files in current folder appending
ECHO. SuffixCharacters(s) to the base name. Requires
ECHO. the first-party Win95cmd.exe utility in the path.
ECHO.
GOTO EOF (=Subroutine code follows=)
:_ATTRIB (Usage: %COMSPEC% NUL /c %0 GOTO: _ATTRIB +-attribute)
attrib %0.bat %3
IF ERRORLEVEL 1 attrib %0 %3
:EOF (End-of-file)
====End cut-and-paste (omit this line)
To use the code above, cut-and-paste the text between the ==== lines
into a file with extension .BAT and base name of your choice. Lines
that don't begin with two spaces have wrapped in transmission. The
code was created and tested in Win9x GUI with WIN95CMD.EXE in the path.
============Screen capture in Windows 95 GUI
C:\WORK>dir /o /b
A.EXE
BA.COM
CAB.TXT
DABC.BMP
EABCD.JPG
FABCDE.DLL
GABCDEF.EXT
HABCDEF with spaces.SYS
RENDEMO.BAT
C:\WORK>rendemo AddSuffix
C:\WORK>dir /o /b
AAddSuffix.EXE
BAAddSuffix.COM
CABAddSuffix.TXT
DABCAddSuffix.BMP
EABCDAddSuffix.JPG
FABCDEAddSuffix.DLL
GABCDEFAddSuffix.EXT
HABCDEF with spacesAddSuffix.SYS
RENDEMO.BAT
C:\WORK>
============End screen capture
Notes:
Note 1) In the key operating line, it's important to avoid conflict with
the metavariable used and the first letter of the suffixing token
passed in %1. For this reason the metavariable used is : (colon)
win95cmd /c FOR %%: IN (*.*) DO ECHO.REN "%%:" "%%~n:%1%%~x:">>%TEMP%.\R.BAT
For detailed help with the syntax of this line, type
FOR /?
in a win95cmd shell installed as detailed in my post:
From: "William Allen"
Newsgroups: alt.msdos.batch
Subject: Re: help with renaming.
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 16:36:23 +0100
Message-ID: <9okvkd$di468$2...@ID-55970.news.dfncis.de>
The /? help in Win95cmd is particularly useful and educational.
You can read old Usenet posts at:
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
Note: Google search by Message-ID is usually the quickest.
Message-ID search works with or without <angle> brackets.
Simply cut-and-paste the Message-ID into Google page above.
Note 2) The filter line:
TYPE %TEMP%.\R.BAT | find /v "\">%TEMP%.\R.BAT
is used to filter out the repeated prompt echo generated in
the parsing scan.
On balance this seems an effective solution to the Original Poster's
question. My thanks to Mr Calvert for pointing out that Win95cmd.exe
can be used so easily to solve in this problem in Windows 95/98/ME.
--
William Allen
William Allen
> ...snip
> > WIN95CMD is fully on-Topic for alt.msdos.batch. Discussion
> > of it is welcome in alt.msdos.batch and questions about it will
> > be answered by me whenever a reply seems suitable.
> Note 2) The filter line:
> TYPE %TEMP%.\R.BAT | find /v "\">%TEMP%.\R.BAT
> is used to filter out the repeated prompt echo generated in
> the parsing scan.
A little tinkering shows that the PROMPT echoing can be more
reliably suppressed without the filter line by using @ in the line:
win95cmd /c FOR %%: IN (*.*) DO ECHO.REN "%%:" "%%~n:%1%%~x:">>%TEMP%.\R.BAT
making the new version of the line:
win95cmd /c FOR %%: IN (*.*) DO @ECHO.REN "%%:" "%%~n:%1%%~x:">>%TEMP%.\R.BAT
The improved WIN95CMD solution becomes:
====Begin cut-and-paste (omit this line)
@ECHO OFF
IF (GOTO:)==(%1) %1%2 (Subroutine handler)
IF (%1)==() GOTO USAGE
:: Hide ourselves from Rename scan
%COMSPEC% NUL /c %0 GOTO: _ATTRIB +H
REM>%TEMP%.\R.BAT
:: Use Win95cmd extended FOR IN DO to create renaming script
win95cmd /c FOR %%: IN (*.*) DO @ECHO.REN "%%:" "%%~n:%1%%~x:">>%TEMP%.\R.BAT
:: Execute the renaming script
FOR %%C IN (CALL DEL) DO %%C %TEMP%.\R.BAT
:: UnHide ourselves again
%COMSPEC% NUL /c %0 GOTO: _ATTRIB -H
GOTO EOF
:USAGE
ECHO. Usage %0 SuffixCharacter(s)
ECHO. Renames all files in current folder appending
ECHO. SuffixCharacters(s) to the base name. Requires
ECHO. the first-party Win95cmd.exe utility in the path.
ECHO.
GOTO EOF (=Subroutine code follows=)
:_ATTRIB (Usage: %COMSPEC% NUL /c %0 GOTO: _ATTRIB +-attribute)
attrib %0.bat %3
IF ERRORLEVEL 1 attrib %0 %3
:EOF (End-of-file)
====End cut-and-paste (omit this line)
To use the code above, cut-and-paste the text between the ==== lines
into a file with extension .BAT and base name of your choice. Lines
that don't begin with two spaces have wrapped in transmission. The
code was created and tested in Win9x GUI with WIN95CMD.EXE in the path.
============Screen capture in Windows 95
C:\WORK>dir /o /b
A.EXE
BA.COM
CAB.TXT
DABC.BMP
EABCD.JPG
FABCDE.DLL
GABCDEF.EXT
HABCDEF with spaces.SYS
C:\WORK>rendemo AddToBaseName
C:\WORK>dir /o /b
AAddToBaseName.EXE
BAAddToBaseName.COM
CABAddToBaseName.TXT
DABCAddToBaseName.BMP
EABCDAddToBaseName.JPG
FABCDEAddToBaseName.DLL
GABCDEFAddToBaseName.EXT
HABCDEF with spacesAddToBaseName.SYS
RENDEMO.BAT
C:\WORK>
============End screen capture
Details of WIN95CMD installation in my post:
From: "William Allen"
Newsgroups: alt.msdos.batch
Subject: Re: help with renaming.
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 16:36:23 +0100
Message-ID: <9okvkd$di468$2...@ID-55970.news.dfncis.de>
You can read old Usenet posts at:
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
Note: Google search by Message-ID is usually the quickest.
Message-ID search works with or without <angle> brackets.
Simply cut-and-paste the Message-ID into Google page above.
--
William Allen
Outsider
>
> Clay Calvert wrote in message
> ...snip
> > >> You can use the free Win95CMD.exe that was written by Microsoft.
> > >> It is available here:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.neuro.gatech.edu/users/cwilson/cygutils/unversioned/consize/index.html
> ...snip
> > It's topicality here is a matter of opinion. Others recommended using
> > a true third-party tool, but that was 'allowed'.
>
> WIN95CMD is fully on-Topic for alt.msdos.batch. Discussion
> of it is welcome in alt.msdos.batch and questions about it will
> be answered by me whenever a reply seems suitable.
I most strongly disagree with Mr. Allen.
> For newcomers unaware of this useful educational utility and who
> wish to know more, this is a repost of some information I have
> collected about it.
This is absolute nonsense. You can post information about anything
and say it is for educational purposes.
> ======
>
> In general, you should regard Win95cmd set up this way as a
> useful educational tool.
>
Mr. Allen has admitted several times that this aftermarket utility is
useful for "educational" purposes. However, that certainly does NOT
make it on topic for alt.msdos.batch.
This has previously been discussed _at length_ in this group.
The conclusion was that it should be discussed in alt.msdos.batch.nt .
Mr. Calvert is trying once again to turn this into yet another NT group.
Mr. Allen no doubt has other motives, but he is still wrong.
--
<!-Outsider//->
MS-DOS 6.22, Windows for Workgroups 3.11, Netscape Communicator 4.08
It is better to weep with wise men than laugh with fools.
Outsider
>
> This is a fully worked-out solution to the Original Posters'
> question implemented in Win9x with the WIN95CMD first-party
> utility installed in the path:
It doesn't matter if you call it first, second or third party,
it is still an extra aftermarket utility which emulates NT's
command interpreter and it is therefore on topic in alt.msdos.batch.nt,
and that is where it should be discussed. All you are going to do
(if you succeed) is turn this into another NT group.
As I said before, this was already discussed at length.
--
<!-Outsider//->
MS-DOS 6.22, Windows for Workgroups 3.11, Netscape Communicator 4.08
Clay Calvert
<nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>William Allen wrote:
>>
>
>> This is a fully worked-out solution to the Original Posters'
>> question implemented in Win9x with the WIN95CMD first-party
>> utility installed in the path:
>
>
>It doesn't matter if you call it first, second or third party,
>it is still an extra aftermarket utility which emulates NT's
>command interpreter and it is therefore on topic in alt.msdos.batch.nt,
Well then, should utilities that emulate Unix functionality be
discussed here?
Outsider
Naturally to a certain degree. Unix commands ported to DOS are
DOS programs.
This issue has also been discussed at length. I am not a policeman;
I am a concerned member of alt.msdos.batch. I haven't the power to
stop you or anyone else from posting anything they choose.
NT emulators should be discussed in an NT group and Unix emulators
should be discussed in a Unix group. Win95cmd.exe is a NT cmd
emulator, and that does not make it a DOS program.
We (including you) have all agreed to relegate NT discussions to
alt.msdos.batch.nt, which is precisely why the group was created.
This naturally extends to NT emulators. Do you not wish to keep
your agreement?
There is basically no difference in discussing NT or an NT emulation,
therefore both belong in ambnt.
Your strategy is clear: Once NT emulation is allowed, real NT will
soon follow and the batch sister group hierarchy will be destroyed
and this group will be overrun by NT users.
Timo Salmi
> Well then, should utilities that emulate Unix functionality be
> discussed here?
Let's assume that the question has been asked seriously and not as
yet another round in the discords that occasionally afflict
alt.msdos.batch. Plain as can be. Auxiliary utilities that can be
run on vanilla MS-DOS and are used solve MS-DOS batch programming
problems are on on-topic, in their MS-DOS batch connection.
All the best, Timo
--
Prof. Timo Salmi ftp & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5
Department of Accounting and Business Finance ; University of Vaasa
mailto:t...@uwasa.fi <http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/> ; FIN-65101, Finland
Timo's FAQ materials at http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html
William Allen
...snip
> Plain as can be. Auxiliary utilities that can be
> run on vanilla MS-DOS and are used solve MS-DOS batch programming
> problems are on on-topic, in their MS-DOS batch connection.
That is certainly _not_ "plain as can be". "Vanilla MS-DOS" is imprecise
and unclear. If you mean real-mode, say so. If you mean MS-DOS 6.22
and earlier, say so. I would immediately dismiss either of those restrictions.
A better term is "hardware MS-DOS" since this covers real-mode
and the Dos Virtual Machine V86 mode DOS run in the Windows
95/98/ME GUI. A DVM (DOS box) relies on the hardware mode
(V86) of 386 and higher processors, which is part of the reason
why DOS in a DVM so closely follows real-mode DOS.
"Hardware MS-DOS" distinguishes more precisely from the
software-emulated DOS in NT and related OSes. Virtually all
the machines currently configured to run hardware MS-DOS
are running Windows 95/98/ME and this is the main route
that any newcomer to Batch files will arrive at present (and
probably for the next year or two as well).
For these newcomers, who will often already be as knowledgeable in
other programming languages as amb regulars, the Batch techniques
that run in Windows 95/98/ME are the most relevant consideration.
And Win95cmd is on topic in alt.msdos.batch for those reasons.
Since Mr Calvert helpfully drew attention to Win95cmd, much useful
information about it has emerged in discussions in alt.msdos.batch
and I have published several useful techniques that it facilitates.
For example, today I published and documented a new compact
Batch input technique that runs on a Windows 95/98/ME machine
with the Microsoft Win95cmd.exe utility in the system path.
From: "William Allen"
Newsgroups: alt.msdos.batch
Subject: Re: batching
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 10:57:34 +0100
Message-ID: <9on04q$e63l5$1...@ID-55970.news.dfncis.de>
You can read old Usenet posts at:
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
Note: Google search by Message-ID is usually the quickest.
Message-ID search works with or without <angle> brackets.
Simply cut-and-paste the Message-ID into Google page above.
The Batch language is amazingly powerful, but simple, and
available to all Windows 95/98/ME users (who comprise the
overwhelming majority of PC users). The language needs to be
taken forward, and not suffocated in a RealMode622 box. And
by continuing to publish new ideas, techniques, and documentation
in alt.msdos.batch, I don't intend to let that suffocation happen.
--
William Allen
Klaus Meinhard
> That is certainly _not_ "plain as can be". "Vanilla MS-DOS" is
imprecise
> and unclear.
Correct.
> If you mean real-mode, say so. If you mean MS-DOS 6.22
> and earlier, say so. >
I think the good professor has mixed his metaphors: vanilla DOS is one
thing (interpretable as "any DOS reasonably close to the market leader
DOS", MS-DOS is another thing, a very well defined OS in several
available versions. Perhaps he means "MS-DOS, any version"? Ambiguous
at least.
> A better term is "hardware MS-DOS" since this covers real-mode
> and the Dos Virtual Machine V86 mode DOS run in the Windows
> 95/98/ME GUI.
Sorry, but I think you make it even worse. Hardware MS-DOS is a very
misleading term to anybody not conversant with your definition,
reminding one of eprom-based DOS-versions.
Please let me remind you: DOS is the operating system, not the command
interpreter. There´s a difference.
As I have pointed out before, COMMAND.COM is responsible for execution
of batch files, and is only a (not even indispensable) part of the
operating system.
To be unequivocable, people here should come clear and say "we want
only MS-DOS command.com based batching here" and be done with it.
There are other, very similar versions of command.com by DR, IBM,
LIneo, PTS and the interesting Freedos, to name a few, but some people
don´t want that here (based on the last round of messages on this
topic), and they don´t want any different and be they superior command
processor talk here even if it leads to better batching.
> "Hardware MS-DOS" distinguishes more precisely from the
> software-emulated DOS in NT and related OSes.
A DOS emulation needs to emulate all the interrupts and handles etc.
of DOS. If it´s done well enough, you could run any DOS prog including
the command.com of your choice in it and never know the difference.
> Virtually all
> the machines currently configured to run hardware MS-DOS
> are running Windows 95/98/ME and this is the main route
> that any newcomer to Batch files will arrive at present (and
> probably for the next year or two as well).
I don´t know where you get your infos, but it seems to me that WinXP
is ante portas, and that is NT. Win ME was definitely the last
DOS-based Windows version. So, for some years to come, there will be a
majority of DOS-based OSses around, but the main route for beginners
will be NT come next year.
> And Win95cmd is on topic in alt.msdos.batch for those reasons.
I second that, though for different reasons.
Note that I have written a long message without mentioning 4DOS once!
;-))
--
Viele Grüße, best regards,
*Klaus Meinhard*
07°36´57" East 53°07´52" North
Author of the 4XBTM batch collection at http://www.4xbtm.de
Klaus Meinhard
> alt.msdos.batch. Plain as can be. Auxiliary utilities that can be
> run on vanilla MS-DOS and are used solve MS-DOS batch programming
> problems are on on-topic, in their MS-DOS batch connection.
Finally! I knew it all along: 4DOS is on-topic here. Thanks for that
definition.
<gd&r>
William Allen
> William Allen wrote
...snip
> > Virtually all
> > the machines currently configured to run hardware MS-DOS
> > are running Windows 95/98/ME and this is the main route
> > that any newcomer to Batch files will arrive at present (and
> > probably for the next year or two as well).
>
> I don´t know where you get your infos, but it seems to me that WinXP
> is ante portas, and that is NT. Win ME was definitely the last
> DOS-based Windows version. So, for some years to come, there will be a
> majority of DOS-based OSses around, but the main route for beginners
> will be NT come next year.
No. In the current state of the IT economy, most firms and individuals
are seeking extend PC life-cycles as never before. Windows 98 happened
to arrive when the PC-replacement-cycle-length was at an all-time low.
As a result, it rapidly became the nearest thing there's been to a world-wide
OS. Even Windows 95 was not so rapidly taken up, and certainly not
Windows ME, which was a stop gap.
The main strategy now is: make the equipment last and return
something on the enormous investment of buying and learning to
use it. Too many firms have discovered that most IT investment
along the 1990s style of rapid-turnover-cycle has extremely low
returns. Most serious studies suggest that the older-style of
"buy the latest version quick" IT investment actually has _negative_
returns to productivity. See, for example:
T K Landauer "The Trouble with Computers" ISBN 0-262-12186-7 and
P A Straussman "The Squandered Computer" ISBN 0-9620413-1-9
I strongly suspect that few individuals or educational establishments
will be rushing to XP in the way they rushed to Windows 98, say.
They will be staying with existing equipment and getting the most
out of it. Many educational institutions will be more interested in
acquiring the old Win9xME machines XP-buyers may throw out.
For individuals, adding Batch skills is one way of getting
more productivity out of existing equipment. For students, they'll
learn on the OS that the institutions they attend are using, and for
the reasons I've outlined, these probably won't be rushing to spend
on XP immediately, nor to retrain their staff on the new OS, nor to
invest in (almost certainly) the new hardware it will involve.
Huge numbers of Windows 95/98/ME users (maybe the majority)
don't even realise that the Batch language is available and installed
now on their machines. And that it can be used to extend the PC
life-cycle by getting more done with existing equipment and software.
For newcomers thinking of learning Batch, the sensible tactics are:
1) Learn the _basic_ range of Batch skills WELL. These will be usable on
both Windows 95/98/ME machines (that are likely to be around in
huge numbers for years), and usable too on the (relatively few) new
XP machines they run in to. The basic batch skills _hugely_ add to
user productivity on any Windows machine, don't take long to learn,
and don't require expensive additional software.
2) Newcomers should _avoid_ the older MS-DOS 6.22-specific
techniques and treat Windows 95 as the OS-point from which Batch
effectively starts, for them. Few newcomers will ever encounter
6.22 (or earlier DOSes) except in history books. Virtually all the
text books covering 6.22 and earlier are out-of-print, anyway. We
happen to have a good library of them here, but few (if any) client
enquiries are made of it now.
3) Newcomers should welcome the chance that Win95cmd gives to get
free experience of Win2000 techniques on a Win95/98/ME machine,
and welcome the fact that it's on-topic here in alt.msdos.batch.
4) Newcomers should welcome the use of CSCRIPT techniques, since
the WSH scripting language they learn will apply to NT-2000-XP
machines, too, so it's an investment in skills for the unknown future.
And, what's more, they'll find the WSH scripting skills highly
interchangeable with the related skills of writing Javascript and
programming VBA (both useful skills in any potential employee).
--
William Allen
Timo Salmi
> Finally! I knew it all along: 4DOS is on-topic here. Thanks for that
> definition.
Dear Klaus,
Don't jump the gun. 4DOS has a fine newsgroup of its own.
Timo Salmi
> > run on vanilla MS-DOS and are used solve MS-DOS batch programming
> > problems are on on-topic, in their MS-DOS batch connection.
>
> and earlier, say so. I would immediately dismiss either of those restrictions.
Dear William,
You wrote a very good piece. You liberally make however one, but
crucial misinterpretation. I ventured what at least is on topic with
Unix ports, not what is off-topic.
I'd rather avoid yet another round with the unending metadiscussion
which definitely is the most single source of aggravation in this
newsgroup. Let's just do batches with what common sense each and
everyone happens to possess (or lack, for that matter). Or discuss
the aspects of the platforms at least constructively (as you mostly
do).
Clay Calvert
>William Allen <ma...@mayfly13.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Timo Salmi wrote in message
>> ...snip
>> > Plain as can be. Auxiliary utilities that can be
>> > run on vanilla MS-DOS and are used solve MS-DOS batch programming
>> > problems are on on-topic, in their MS-DOS batch connection.
>>
>> That is certainly _not_ "plain as can be". "Vanilla MS-DOS" is imprecise
>> and unclear. If you mean real-mode, say so. If you mean MS-DOS 6.22
>> and earlier, say so. I would immediately dismiss either of those restrictions.
>
>Dear William,
>
>You wrote a very good piece. You liberally make however one, but
>crucial misinterpretation. I ventured what at least is on topic with
>Unix ports, not what is off-topic.
>
>I'd rather avoid yet another round with the unending metadiscussion
>which definitely is the most single source of aggravation in this
>newsgroup.
Oh no! The biggest source of aggravation in this newsgroup is people
telling others what they can't do. There is a vast minority here that
try to enforce 'rules', yet won't clarify what they are... and will
only enforce what fits one's micro-cosmic criteria.
>Let's just do batches with what common sense each and
>everyone happens to possess (or lack, for that matter). Or discuss
>the aspects of the platforms at least constructively (as you mostly
>do).
Common sense. LOL. That is a cop out. If the 'rules' in this group
can't be quantifiable then how can they be enforced?
Certain people only have opinions as to what is NOT allowed. From
your reply it seems that 16-bit third-party DOS tools are allowed, but
32-bit command-line tools are not, even if written by the original
manufacturer? So is this one of the rules?
Will anyone will clarify what is allowed here?
You truly think that my only goal is create 'discord'. That is
completely and utterly wrong. I do not enjoy these discussions, but
there are certain replies that I 'enjoy' hearing even less.
Hopefully, this group can be a place where people can share
information without being virtually knocked on the knuckles.
Timo Salmi
> On 24 Sep 2001 23:32:07 +0300, t...@UWasa.Fi (Timo Salmi) wrote:
> Oh no! The biggest source of aggravation in this newsgroup is people
> telling others what they can't do. There is a vast minority here that
Or, looked from another angle, the people who wish to impose
off-topic subjects here when there are perfectly valid other
newsgroups for the subjects. There is a very good reason for having
more than one newsgroup making up the Usenet news.
> Certain people only have opinions as to what is NOT allowed. From
> Will anyone will clarify what is allowed here?
As you well know as a regular, no one is in such a position since
this is un unmoderated newsgroup. One only has the official one line
definition of the newsgroup ("MS-DOS batch programming") and the
original charter or corresponding (if still available anywhere), and
posters with views ranging from the nagging purists all the way to
the belligerent disregard.
> You truly think that my only goal is create 'discord'. That is
> completely and utterly wrong. I do not enjoy these discussions, but
Kindly allow me to say myself what I think in my own words
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=9f1vtu%24ojb%40poiju.uwasa.fi&num=20&as_scoring=d
Klaus Meinhard
> Oh no! The biggest source of aggravation in this newsgroup is
> people telling others what they can't do. There is a vast minority
> here that try to enforce 'rules', yet won't clarify what they are...
> and will only enforce what fits one's micro-cosmic criteria.
... and ignore these rules as soon as they see fit.
> Certain people only have opinions as to what is NOT allowed. From
> your reply it seems that 16-bit third-party DOS tools are allowed,
> but 32-bit command-line tools are not, even if written by the
> original manufacturer? So is this one of the rules?
I second that. Of course, in this unmoderated group no rule can be
enforced. Moreover, what rule? This group has up to now been unable to
come up with a definition that holds water of what´s allowed here,
though it would be easy if the correct terminology was used. So
everyone here makes up his own rules in his mind.
I am concerned that these imaginary rules as voiced by some regulars
here tend to exclude even batching environments very similar to the
"standard" one. I am concerned that solutions using enhanced command
processors are shunned. All this is (for me) the indication of a very
closed mindset bent on imposing the same restrictions on others. Why
can´t these people simply ignore or at least refrain from answering
postings they don´t like?
Klaus Meinhard
> Don't jump the gun. 4DOS has a fine newsgroup of its own.
I know that, because I am one of the few that keep it alive (there is
a very active moderated 4DOS support group now, reachable from the JP
Software Homepage). I really don´t intend to make this a 4DOS group.
It is just that your definition as stated definitely _includes_ 4DOS,
while I had some animated discussion here recently with people trying
to find definitions that _exclude_ 4DOS, COMMAND.COMs of other than
MS flavour and NT, of course.
In my opinion 4DOS is covered by the name of this group, and it must
be allowed to point out a possibly easier solution of a problem with
4DOS, just as you point to several TP solutions in your faq (Turbo
Pascal wasn´t free in it´s heydays, IIRC). A detailed discussion of
4DOS questions I would direct to comp.os.msdos.4dos myself.
It all burns down to this: people in this group (you included) will
never get a good definition of what´s allowed here if they (you) keep
on using "DOS" where they (you) mean "Command Interpreter".
Klaus Meinhard
> I strongly suspect that few individuals or educational
> establishments will be rushing to XP in the way they
> rushed to Windows 98, say.They will be staying with
> existing equipment and getting the most out of it.
> Many educational institutions will be more interested in
> acquiring the old Win9xME machines XP-buyers may throw out.
I disagree with the analysis of future consumer behaviour. I suspect
XP will be installed on most new computers come next year, and most
people will never know the difference as long as they can play their
games with them. In a Business environment turnover cycles may be
slowed down, but the better stability and the better security of XP in
a network will be strong arguments.
Anyway, this is only opinion and guesswork, and we won´t have to wait
to long to see that future arrive.
> For individuals, adding Batch skills is one way of getting
> more productivity out of existing equipment. ...
I concur with all that follows here. Batch writing skills are a good
way to get more productivity out of your system, and that goes without
reservation for NT/XP too.
Timo Salmi
> closed mindset bent on imposing the same restrictions on others. Why
> can´t these people simply ignore or at least refrain from answering
> postings they don´t like?
Dear Klaus,
How many newsgroups have you observed over the years? Many I hope.
What you say sounds superficially very reasonable, but it's been
seen many times over that if a newsgroup slides too far off-topic it
gradually is rendered useless. This alt.msdos.batch newsgroup is on
average a very useful and informative newsgroup for MS-DOS batch
programming. Too little tolerance will stifle it, too much selfish
stretching will inundate it and any signal will eventually be lost.
If there is already is a good, dedicated newsgroup for a purpose,
e.g. 4DOS or NT, why is it so necessary to stubbornly want to force
one's way into here?
Too strict a set of rules is not good, but neither is wanton
anarchy.
Timo Salmi
> closed mindset bent on imposing the same restrictions on others. Why
> can´t these people simply ignore or at least refrain from answering
> postings they don´t like?
Dear Klaus,
What you say sounds superficially very reasonable, but it's been
seen many times over that if a newsgroup slides too far off-topic it
gradually is rendered useless. This alt.msdos.batch newsgroup is on
average a very useful and informative newsgroup for MS-DOS batch
programming. Too little tolerance will stifle it, too much selfish
stretching will inundate it and any signal will eventually be lost.
If there is already is a good, dedicated newsgroup for a purpose,
e.g. NT, why is it so necessary to stubbornly want to force one's
way into here?
Too strict a set of rules is not good, but neither is wanton
anarchy as the other extreme.
Outsider
>
> Timo,
>
> > alt.msdos.batch. Plain as can be. Auxiliary utilities that can be
> > run on vanilla MS-DOS and are used solve MS-DOS batch programming
> > problems are on on-topic, in their MS-DOS batch connection.
>
> Finally! I knew it all along: 4DOS is on-topic here. Thanks for that
> definition.
>
> <gd&r>
>
Not at all humerous.
Outsider
>
>
> 3) Newcomers should welcome the chance that Win95cmd gives to get
> free experience of Win2000 techniques on a Win95/98/ME machine,
> and welcome the fact that it's on-topic here in alt.msdos.batch.
This is your opinion only. Not fact.
Todd Vargo
"Klaus Meinhard" <K_Mei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9opav6$s51$05$3...@news.t-online.com...
>
> It all burns down to this: people in this group (you included) will
> never get a good definition of what´s allowed here if they (you) keep
> on using "DOS" where they (you) mean "Command Interpreter".
Hmm, the group should have been named alt.command.com.batch then.
Todd Vargo
"Outsider" <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3BB05AAD...@yahoo.com...
> William Allen wrote:
> >
> >
> > 3) Newcomers should welcome the chance that Win95cmd gives to get
> > free experience of Win2000 techniques on a Win95/98/ME machine,
> > and welcome the fact that it's on-topic here in alt.msdos.batch.
>
> This is your opinion only. Not fact.
I only had brief access to an NT machine, so I welcomed the chance to
experiment with this CP. From my experimentations I decided it's easier to
continue using qbasic than learn to use Win95cmd (qbasic can be used in DOS
mode, Win95cmd can not). This is just my opinion though. People are free to
use/recommend whatever flashy tools they choose (if you get my drift).
Klaus Meinhard
> Hmm, the group should have been named alt.command.com.batch then.
You nearly got it in one try: you forgot only the MS part.
alt.ms-command.com.batch
is what is wanted by an unquiet minority here, with a subgroup
alt.ms-command.com.batch.what-outsider-understands
for the needs of a certain specialist :-)
I would be totally happy with the name as it is, if the constant
paranoid exclusion attempts would stop. The (rare) NT question could
be answered if possible with an addendum that there is a specialist
group (without mentioning that posting here is "inconsiderate" if a
newby dares to impose on this group thinking his NT is DOS).
I haven´t seen a DR/IBM/etc. specific command.com batch question here
for ages, so they´d be still more rare.
And I only flaunt 4DOS here on occasion because it runs under MS-DOS
and processes batches (even command.com compatible ones), so it should
be on topic, as long as it doesn´t get so lengthy or specialized that
using the comp.os.msdos.4dos (see the msdos in there?) is preferable.
Nonetheless it provokes a negative reaction every time.
In other words: I advocate tolerance and politeness against the
occasional and rare poster with non ms-command.com batch questions.
Klaus Meinhard
> What you say sounds superficially very reasonable, but it's been
> seen many times over that if a newsgroup slides too far off-topic it
> gradually is rendered useless.
Nice debating technique. I have to agree in principle, of course. It
would, however, be a long way until this newsgroup reaches that sorry
state. As it now is, the diverse exclusion attempts with the resulting
comments and the uninformed, emotional outbreaks by you-know-who take
up much more bandwidth that off-topic batch questions ever would.
> If there is already is a good, dedicated newsgroup for a purpose,
> e.g. NT, why is it so necessary to stubbornly want to force one's
> way into here?
No one wants to force his way in here. I only advocate tolerance and
politeness against the occasional errant newby.
By the way, you have completely avoided to comment on the ambiguous
use of dos vs. command interpreter I pointed out to you. As author of
the FAQ and longstanding authority figure in this group I think you
have a duty to be more precise in your terminology.
Outsider
>
> Todd,
>
> > Hmm, the group should have been named alt.command.com.batch then.
>
> You nearly got it in one try: you forgot only the MS part.
>
> alt.ms-command.com.batch
>
> is what is wanted by an unquiet minority here, with a subgroup
>
> alt.ms-command.com.batch.what-outsider-understands
>
> for the needs of a certain specialist :-)
>
> I would be totally happy with the name as it is, if the constant
> paranoid exclusion attempts would stop. The (rare) NT question could
> be answered if possible with an addendum that there is a specialist
> group (without mentioning that posting here is "inconsiderate" if a
> newby dares to impose on this group thinking his NT is DOS).
That sounds neither tolerant nor polite to me.
[snipped]
> In other words: I advocate tolerance and politeness against the
> occasional and rare poster with non ms-command.com batch questions.
--
Outsider
>
> Dear Timo
>
> > What you say sounds superficially very reasonable, but it's been
> > seen many times over that if a newsgroup slides too far off-topic it
> > gradually is rendered useless.
>
> Nice debating technique.
Nice debating technique?!?
> I have to agree in principle, of course. It
> would, however, be a long way until this newsgroup reaches that sorry
> state.
This group is on it's way to chaos and disarray because Mr. Allen
(for one) insists on posting anything he chooses while claiming it
is on topic.
> As it now is, the diverse exclusion attempts with the resulting
> comments and the uninformed, emotional outbreaks by you-know-who take
> up much more bandwidth that off-topic batch questions ever would.
If you are going to ridicule someone, at least use the persons name
so we may know to whom you refer.
> > If there is already is a good, dedicated newsgroup for a purpose,
> > e.g. NT, why is it so necessary to stubbornly want to force one's
> > way into here?
>
> No one wants to force his way in here. I only advocate tolerance and
> politeness against the occasional errant newby.
Yes, they do! William Allen is claiming NT emulators are on topic here,
and Clay Calvert besides supporting this keeps claiming NT belongs here
too.
Dr John Stockton
news:alt.msdos.batch, Clay Calvert <ccal...@wanguru.com> wrote at Mon,
24 Sep 2001 22:53:02 :-
>
>Will anyone will clarify what is allowed here?
>
A short, regular mini_FAQ for the newsgroup itself, as distinct from for
the topic of the group, would help. It could say something like :
Please post only in relevant Newsgroups (the lists may need
correction) :
alt.msdos.batch : intended to deal with DOS/MSDOS 1.0 - 6.22 ;
IBM-DOS, PC-DOS ; Caldera DOS ; "DOS" in WINDOWS 1, 2, 3, 95, 98, ME.
alt.msdos.batch.nt : Windows NT, 2000, XP?
comp.os.msdos.4dos (etc.) : 4-DOS
Use other newsgroups for UNIX, LINUX, BeOS, SunOS, and non-PC OSs.
It could also provide links to respected Batch FAQs; there are some in
my batfiles.htm.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL: http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links.
PAS, EXE in <URL: http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.txt.
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SoRFC1036)
Dr John Stockton
news:alt.msdos.batch, Klaus Meinhard <K_Mei...@hotmail.com> wrote at
Tue, 25 Sep 2001 09:01:52 :-
>
>I disagree with the analysis of future consumer behaviour. I suspect
>XP will be installed on most new computers come next year, and most
>people will never know the difference as long as they can play their
>games with them. In a Business environment turnover cycles may be
>slowed down, but the better stability and the better security of XP in
>a network will be strong arguments.
I believe that you are right, but in a manner that is only partly
relevant.
Most new computers will have XP; but the users of most of them will have
no interest in Batch, or indeed programming.
The sort of people who want or need newsgroups like this are the sort of
people who keep elderly-but-functional computers, even if they sometimes
also have new ones. Any job that could be done on a new PC in 1996 can
nowadays be done on a five-year-old one.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL: http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
Clay Calvert
<nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > If there is already is a good, dedicated newsgroup for a purpose,
>> > e.g. NT, why is it so necessary to stubbornly want to force one's
>> > way into here?
>
>Yes, they do! William Allen is claiming NT emulators are on topic here,
>and Clay Calvert besides supporting this keeps claiming NT belongs here
>too.
Are you sure about that last statement -- "keeps claiming NT belongs
here too."? No, I don't think so.
Clay Calvert
>Clay Calvert <ccal...@wanguru.com> wrote:
>> On 24 Sep 2001 23:32:07 +0300, t...@UWasa.Fi (Timo Salmi) wrote:
>> Oh no! The biggest source of aggravation in this newsgroup is people
>> telling others what they can't do. There is a vast minority here that
>
>Or, looked from another angle, the people who wish to impose
>off-topic subjects here when there are perfectly valid other
>newsgroups for the subjects.
I agree. This isn't an ethernet group, nor a forum for politics. It
is a group about MS-DOS batch files. There are different viewpoints
on what is contained in that concept.
It isn't just "people who wish to impose off-topic subjects". It is
also those posts that tell us that we replied wrong, or that we didn't
use the right words. I'd bet if web-cams were involved we'd be told
to sit up straight too.
> There is a very good reason for having
>more than one newsgroup making up the Usenet news.
Also agreed.
>> Certain people only have opinions as to what is NOT allowed. From
>
>> Will anyone will clarify what is allowed here?
>
>As you well know as a regular, no one is in such a position since
>this is un unmoderated newsgroup. One only has the official one line
>definition of the newsgroup ("MS-DOS batch programming") and the
>original charter or corresponding (if still available anywhere), and
>posters with views ranging from the nagging purists all the way to
>the belligerent disregard.
>
>> You truly think that my only goal is create 'discord'. That is
>> completely and utterly wrong. I do not enjoy these discussions, but
>
>Kindly allow me to say myself what I think in my own words
>http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=9f1vtu%24ojb%40poiju.uwasa.fi&num=20&as_scoring=d
Another cop out. Why don't you answer the questions I have asked? Is
it because these questions annoy you? You don't like hearing those
words, right? Well that is exactly my point. As you just said, this
is an unmoderated group, but there are too many people trying to
moderate it.
Charles Dye
> Well then, should utilities that emulate Unix functionality be
> discussed here?
I personally would vote "yes." I'd like to see discussion by
knowledgeable users of tools like sed, awk, and so forth. Such
utilities can extend the rather limited COMMAND.COM scripting
abilities enormously, and I'd be interested in learning more
about them. And if the newsgroup can't be a place for learning
new things, then what the hell is the point?
--
Charles Dye ras...@highfiber.com
"You saw our sea. Did you notice the waves there? What
would you say to someone who told you that you saw not waves,
but only water?"
"That I've learned not to argue with fools. One smiles
and walks away."
Timo Salmi
> Dear Timo
> > If there is already is a good, dedicated newsgroup for a purpose,
> > e.g. NT, why is it so necessary to stubbornly want to force one's
> > way into here?
> No one wants to force his way in here. I only advocate tolerance and
> politeness against the occasional errant newby.
I am very pleased to hear the latter part of that statement, Klaus,
even if the former part is not quite true as one should be able to
see if one "Google's" old postings from some of the more invasive
earlier phases. But in the latter part we do not diverge. I
especially liked your comment (in another posting) about pointing to
the right directions both about the solution and where to ask
further.
> By the way, you have completely avoided to comment on the ambiguous
> use of dos vs. command interpreter I pointed out to you. As author of
> the FAQ and longstanding authority figure in this group I think you
> have a duty to be more precise in your terminology.
Two things. First, while I truly appreciate your generous definition
of my material (and me), it is not quite _the_ FAQ. A FAQ rather.
More accurately, it is no more or less than what it states:
184193 Mar 8 2001 ftp://garbo.uwasa.fi/pc/ts/tsbat67.zip
tsbat67.zip A collection of useful [MS-DOS] batch files and tricks, T.Salmi
Second, my avoidance of the issue you point to was, and is
deliberate. I am not going to be mired into the endless platform
intricacies. It would sidetrack me more deeply into the maze of
opinions and counter-opinions which I do not wish, nor even
necessarily have the capability, to fully tackle. I write about
MS-DOS batches. If that is inaccurate or insufficient, so be it.
Anyway, I am glad that we found the common ground. Thus, unless
really new aspects come up in this, I do not think that I personally
have novel views to come up with to complement what I have already
written.
Timo Salmi
> news:alt.msdos.batch, Clay Calvert <ccal...@wanguru.com> wrote:
> >Will anyone will clarify what is allowed here?
> A short, regular mini_FAQ for the newsgroup itself, as distinct from for
> the topic of the group, would help. It could say something like :
John speaks out of good experience. In news:comp.lang.pascal.borland
we have or rather have had a situation remotely like this (but less
rancorous). E.g. there now is the Mini-FAQ regularly posted by Pedt
Scragg, and my own weekly information posting, which serve that
purpose.
> Please post only in relevant Newsgroups (the lists may need
(snip)
Yes. Unfortunately (or rather fortunately :-) the comparison
situation in the comp.lang.pascal.* newsgroups is much more
clearcut. Partly because they are comp-hierarchy newsgroups there
are undisputable definitions and locatable charters of those
newsgroups. One of the difficulty here in alt.msdos.batch is that
there clearly are (to say this constructively) distinctly differing
ambitions here what is wanted where and what belongs where.
> It could also provide links to respected Batch FAQs; there are some in
> my batfiles.htm.
Yes again. Just like I have tried to gather at
http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/http2.html#batch
Clay Calvert
wrote:
>Clay Calvert <ccal...@wanguru.com> wrote in message news:<cpmsqt4if0ol3hk2u...@4ax.com>...
>
>> Well then, should utilities that emulate Unix functionality be
>> discussed here?
>
>I personally would vote "yes." I'd like to see discussion by
>knowledgeable users of tools like sed, awk, and so forth. Such
>utilities can extend the rather limited COMMAND.COM scripting
>abilities enormously, and I'd be interested in learning more
>about them. And if the newsgroup can't be a place for learning
>new things, then what the hell is the point?
Absolutely!
Timo Salmi
>Timo Salmi wrote:
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=9f1vtu%24ojb%40poiju.uwasa.fi&num=20&as_scoring=d
>
> Another cop out. Why don't you answer the questions I have asked? Is
Asked and answered.
Outsider
legitimacy of relegating NT to the NT group, even though this has
been discussed ad nauseam.
Outsider
>
> On 25 Sep 2001 07:41:34 +0300, t...@UWasa.Fi (Timo Salmi) wrote:
>
> >Clay Calvert <ccal...@wanguru.com> wrote:
> >> On 24 Sep 2001 23:32:07 +0300, t...@UWasa.Fi (Timo Salmi) wrote:
> >> Oh no! The biggest source of aggravation in this newsgroup is people
> >> telling others what they can't do. There is a vast minority here that
> >
> >> You truly think that my only goal is create 'discord'. That is
> >> completely and utterly wrong. I do not enjoy these discussions, but
<LOL> Of course you do! You get off on manipulation and creating intrigues.
Probably, you don't fool anyone anymore.
> >Kindly allow me to say myself what I think in my own words
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=9f1vtu%24ojb%40poiju.uwasa.fi&num=20&as_scoring=d
>
> Another cop out. Why don't you answer the questions I have asked?
Errr... perhaps Timo sees through your con artist routines?
> Is
> it because these questions annoy you? You don't like hearing those
> words, right? Well that is exactly my point. As you just said, this
> is an unmoderated group, but there are too many people trying to
> moderate it.
Klaus Meinhard
> so we may know to whom you refer.
I will gladly, as soon as that "Scourge of the Command Line", "Avenger
of the Forgotten Edlin", "Master of Belfries" or however he styles
himself today, will use his name himself :-)
> Yes, they do! William Allen is claiming NT emulators are on topic
here,
> and Clay Calvert besides supporting this keeps claiming NT belongs
here
> too.
Your "NT emulator" is really a CMD.COM emulator, a command interpreter
written for the MS-DOS operating system and able to execute batch
commands very similar to the syntax COMMAND.COM understands. Moreover it
can be used to solve problems unsolvable by the use of COMMAND.COM
alone. In what way is that different from the use of Qbasic, Turbo
Pascal, or Linux tools like GREP, SED, AWK, by which nobody seems to be
bothered?
Stop whining. This is an unmoderated group, and even by your constant
stream of uninformed emotional drivel you cannot impose your
claustrophobically narrow views on all of us. If you find yourself
unable to stop reacting to certain themes, people or postings, use your
kill filter.
Klaus Meinhard
> Most new computers will have XP; but the users of most of them will
have
> no interest in Batch, or indeed programming.
Exactly. That´s what I meant when I wrote
| and most people will never know the difference as long
| as they can play their games with them. "
> The sort of people who want or need newsgroups like this are the sort
of
> people who keep elderly-but-functional computers, even if they
sometimes
> also have new ones. Any job that could be done on a new PC in 1996
can
> nowadays be done on a five-year-old one.
Agreed. But many of these people have their system up and running and
won´t constantly need or write new batches. E.G. there are a few people
I know who run a BBS with the help of a score of batches, but running a
BBS is a dying art: no new work is being done there.
My prediction is: the trend that this newsgroup will dwindle in relation
to alt.msdos.batch.nt will increase sharply next year. In this group
will remain 2 different types of people: a closed group of absolute
gurus, who use batch as some form of zen mind training to achieve
improbable goals, and the occasional newbies, with questions like "what
is batch, how can I write one, and why should I?"
My intent is to open up the horizon of some regulars here. The input of
<sigh> NT could lead to batches that run under both operating systems,
making the transition (face it, it will come probably earlier than
later) much easier.
Klaus Meinhard
news:9ordn9$4...@poiju.uwasa.fi...
> even if the former part is not quite true as one should be able to
> see if one "Google's" old postings from some of the more invasive
> earlier phases.
I take it you mean that I advocated that this newsgroup´s topic includes
4DOS? I still think so, and I still believe people here should
occasionally be made aware of the existence and power of 4DOS, when
answers to questions are given. That was my intent when writing my
answer to your FAQ at
http://home.t-online.de/home/K_meinhard/4batfaq.htm
There _is_ a difference between the OS and the CP (command proc). The
only guideline in this group in the absence of rules is the name of the
group, which says msdos and batch. This includes in my understanding
different CPs under MSDOS, and should tolerantly include very similar
DOS versions (vanilla?) from DR, IBM etc.
This does not mean I am against pointing a questioner (politely!) to a
more specialized group if one exists, if a short answer isn´t possible
here.
> Two things. First, while I truly appreciate your generous definition
> of my material (and me), it is not quite _the_ FAQ. A FAQ rather.
Sorry, _your_ FAQ. But since it is the only one to which a reminder is
regularly posted in this group, I think my lapse may be excused.
> Second, my avoidance of the issue you point to was, and is
> deliberate. I am not going to be mired into the endless platform
> intricacies.
I don´t think the difference between an OS and a CP is hairsplitting. As
a person with an academic background you know the importance of correct
definitions.
Timo Salmi
> > see if one "Google's" old postings from some of the more invasive
> > earlier phases.
> I take it you mean that I advocated that this newsgroup´s topic includes
> 4DOS?
No, Klaus, I don't. Further back. That's why I referred to Google.
The history raw data is there. The interpretations are anyone's own.
> > Second, my avoidance of the issue you point to was, and is
> > deliberate. I am not going to be mired into the endless platform
> > intricacies.
> I don´t think the difference between an OS and a CP is hairsplitting. As
> a person with an academic background you know the importance of correct
> definitions.
This one is a loop. "I am not going to be mired into the endless
platform intricacies."
All the best, Timo
Outsider
Your intent here has been amply demonstrated:
You advocate a very expensive commercial aftermarket proprietary
command interpreter. And you like to ridicule people.
> The input of
> <sigh> NT could lead to batches that run under both operating systems,
> making the transition (face it, it will come probably earlier than
> later) much easier.
All it will lead to is a anything goes group that has little to to
with DOS. You can sigh all you want.
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 17:08:04 +0200
From: "Klaus Meinhard" <K_Mei...@hotmail.com>
"I only advocate tolerance and politeness..."
-----------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 17:14:43 +0200
From: "Klaus Meinhard" <K_Mei...@hotmail.com>
"I advocate tolerance and politeness..."
-----------------------------------------------
Since you show neither tolerance nor politeness, how can
anyone take you seriously about anything?
Klaus Meinhard
> > > even if the former part is not quite true as one should be able to
> > > see if one "Google's" old postings from some of the more invasive
> > > earlier phases.
> > I take it you mean that I advocated that this newsgroup´s topic
includes
> > 4DOS?
>
> No, Klaus, I don't. Further back. That's why I referred to Google.
> The history raw data is there. The interpretations are anyone's own.
Sorry, you´ll have to be more specific. Invasive phase? I looked through
my old postings as far back as Google allows, but nothing rings a bell.
I´d be grateful if you could precisely point out what you mean. I have
written nothing I cannot stand to.
> This one is a loop. "I am not going to be mired into the endless
> platform intricacies."
Since you don´t intend to discuss what really is at the heart of much of
the misunderstandings here, further exchanges in this respect are really
moot.
Todd Vargo
"Dr John Stockton" <sp...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:NUf$pBHmNM...@merlyn.demon.co.uk...
> The sort of people who want or need newsgroups like this are the sort of
> people who keep elderly-but-functional computers, even if they sometimes
> also have new ones. Any job that could be done on a new PC in 1996 can
> nowadays be done on a five-year-old one.
Help me out here. What's the difference between "a new PC in 1996" and "a
five-year-old one"?
Todd Vargo
> I'd bet if web-cams were involved we'd be told to sit up straight too.
I just had a vision of someone, picking their nose, asking one of the taboo
date FAQs for the zillionth time. <g>
Timo Salmi
> my old postings as far back as Google allows, but nothing rings a bell.
Dear Klaus,
This seems come as a a bit of a surprise to you, but not everything
here revolves around you, nor around me for that matter. I was not
referring to your postings.
> Since you don´t intend to discuss what really is at the heart of much of
> the misunderstandings here, further exchanges in this respect are really
> moot.
Yes. Thank you. I appreaciate your decision to finally let go and
not keep insisting from me an exchange which I have stated that I do
not wish to be deeply mired into. And just in case. Please note that
this is not sarcasm! It is genuine.
Ted Davis
<K_Mei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>My prediction is: the trend that this newsgroup will dwindle in relation
>to alt.msdos.batch.nt will increase sharply next year. In this group
>will remain 2 different types of people: a closed group of absolute
>gurus, who use batch as some form of zen mind training to achieve
>improbable goals, and the occasional newbies, with questions like "what
>is batch, how can I write one, and why should I?"
>
>My intent is to open up the horizon of some regulars here. The input of
><sigh> NT could lead to batches that run under both operating systems,
>making the transition (face it, it will come probably earlier than
>later) much easier.
>
Real mode 16 bit DOS is moribund: new batch files in that environment
are mostly involved with installing Win32 operating systems using
Ghost or some other scheme that bootstraps itself from a DOS boot
disk, and a few other applications involving boot floppies on machines
using or intended for Win32. The environments for which we see batch
questions now are almost all some form of Win32, either DOS boxes, or
much less often, for special cases of Win9x real mode.
The Win9x line of development is essentially dead: future MS OS
versions will be based on the NT line of development. There is even
an upgrade to Win9x to give it much of the capability of NT batch
language.
Most users are not aware enough to understand that if MS says
something, they are probably lying, and so take the MSDOS icon
associated with many non-windows programs to mean that some sort of
real MSDOS is actually present and involved with their program. This
will not go away any time soon, so when someone has a question they
think has something to do with batch programs, they will continue to
seek out sources of information identifying themselves with MSDOS and
batch, this group being a prime example. This is especially true
since the NT group is effectively hidden from usenet users, and pwople
who are told about usenet are told about usenet, not usually about
Google's interface to it (why should they be told about an additional
complication?), and the NT group will continue to be invisible to many
usenet users because it's caught in the Catch 22 that it won't be
carried by a large number of ISPs unless the traffic is large enough,
and the traffic can't grow large enough unless it's carried by a large
percentage of ISPs. The combination of invisibility, availability of
CMD for Win9x, and misunderstanding about what is and is not DOS will
continue to cause a high percentage of questions here that are about
things other than non-NT versions of COMMAND.COM and the non-NT
utility set.
Some people who do have access to the NT group and do understand that
this group is intended to be about non-NT COMMAND.COM and the non-NT
utility sets, have cross platform problems that are not exclusively
one or the other - these are likely to wind up here by default.
It appears to me that we can expect to see an increasing percentage of
questions that are somehow relalated to an environment using CMD, and
also can expect more messages that are about COMMAND, but want CMD
functionality from it.
The simple answer to many questions in the future may well be to
suggest using CMD and its enhancements.
Since most batch questions will be coming here anyway, perhaps the
best plan is to answer questions where asked, and refer detailed
discussion of CMD issues, regardless of operating system, to the NT
qroup. Since that group is functionally a failure as a venue for NT
specific questions due to no fault of the users, but rather to the
ISP's response to excessive usenet resource requirement combined with
a general move away from usenet as a discussion medium (in favor of
what amounts to Web based SIG BBS sites), it seems pointless to insist
that any question that even mentions NT be taken there - not just
pointless, but counterproductive because it wastes usenet resources
that are already being rationed, as do these endless discussions about
what is and is not on topic where, and what degree of severity should
be used in sending people away when they mention NT.
Maybe a different approach to the overall situation is needed - maybe
a separation of the Q&A service from the technical discussions. I can
visualize a scheme in which the NT newsgroup is just dropped, this
group is used for answering questions asked by the public, and a
mainling list tied to a web based BBS and unidirectionally from this
group is used for discussions (with pointers to the list and site
posted here automatically every week or so and included in some of the
regular's .sigs). This can also be linked with our own e-mail clients
so that the batch questions we receive are automatically forwared to
the list - well, at least those of us using competent e-mail clients
can do this automatically. If there is any interest in this concept,
I can easily set up a mailing list for discussion.
T.E.D. (tda...@gearbox.maem.umr.edu)
SPAM filter: Messages to this address *must* contain "T.E.D."
somewhere in the body or they will be automatically rejected.
Rik D'haveloose
> Timo,
> > Plain as can be. Auxiliary utilities that can be
> > run on vanilla MS-DOS and are used solve MS-DOS batch programming
> > problems are on on-topic, in their MS-DOS batch connection.
>
> Finally! I knew it all along: 4DOS is on-topic here. Thanks for that
> definition.
indeed, but do not forget the 'in their ms-dos batch connection' words
!!
Any detailed explanation of how NT-commands(ms-dos existing) are
handled/expanded/restricted? are not wanted here, imho.
Not to say that this NG should not evolve in some 'only first/third
party util' discussion group, and also should not become some NG to
promote other 'whatever you want to name it' utils/progs/emulator (which
happen to run on DOS OS).
Furthermore, i do find it not advisable to post solutions with 'utils'
if there are simple (pure batching) solutions possible. One should
allways try to give batch solutions in this NG, not workarounds (running
in batch).
Sorry, for me this NG becomes annoying (and not any more about batching)
(again sorry, if i disregard some thankfull people, which are helped
out, but without educating batching skills). This NG is not about
educating 'all' things, imho.
--
TUF Greetings from Rumbeke
Belgium
Klaus Meinhard
> This seems come as a a bit of a surprise to you, but not everything
> here revolves around you, nor around me for that matter. I was not
> referring to your postings.
You wrote, adressing me personally:
| I am very pleased to hear the latter part of that statement, Klaus,
| even if the former part is not quite true as one should be able to
| see if one "Google's" old postings from some of the more invasive
| earlier phases
so I think it is understandable that I thought you meant _my_ eralier
postings. Your second posting
> I take it you mean that I advocated that this newsgroup´s topic
includes
> 4DOS?
| No, Klaus, I don't. Further back. That's why I referred to Google.
| The history raw data is there. The interpretations are anyone's own.
was even more mysterious to me. Perhaps one explanation is that we are
both not native english speakers? So please excuse that I bothered you.
No, I don´t usually think everything revolves around me. I still think
the need for the use of correct syntax and accepted definitions of terms
should be so selfevident that no need should arise for lengthy and
deeply miring discussions. Alas.
Klaus Meinhard
finally a voice of reason (from my humble viewpoint).
> Since most batch questions will be coming here anyway, perhaps the
> best plan is to answer questions where asked, and refer detailed
> discussion of CMD issues, regardless of operating system, to the NT
> qroup.
Exactly. This is what I advocated and what saves a lot of bandwidth. I
don´t see the need of mailing list, however (they already exist, see my
D-Link page), if members here would refrain from reacting to questions /
topics / persons they don´t like.
Clay Calvert
>Klaus Meinhard <K_Mei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Timo Salmi" <t...@UWasa.Fi> wrote in message
>> Sorry, you´ll have to be more specific. Invasive phase? I looked through
>> my old postings as far back as Google allows, but nothing rings a bell.
>
>Dear Klaus,
>
>This seems come as a a bit of a surprise to you, but not everything
>here revolves around you, nor around me for that matter. I was not
>referring to your postings.
Can you please post some of the message IDs that you're referring to,
because I can't find any either.
>> Since you don´t intend to discuss what really is at the heart of much of
>> the misunderstandings here, further exchanges in this respect are really
>> moot.
>
>Yes. Thank you. I appreaciate your decision to finally let go and
>not keep insisting from me an exchange which I have stated that I do
>not wish to be deeply mired into. And just in case. Please note that
>this is not sarcasm! It is genuine.
>
> All the best, Timo
Thanks,
Dr John Stockton
news:alt.msdos.batch, Todd Vargo <t...@birdlover.com> wrote at Wed, 26 Sep
2001 09:12:31 :-
>
>"Dr John Stockton" <sp...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:NUf$pBHmNM...@merlyn.demon.co.uk...
>
>> The sort of people who want or need newsgroups like this are the sort of
>> people who keep elderly-but-functional computers, even if they sometimes
>> also have new ones. Any job that could be done on a new PC in 1996 can
>> nowadays be done on a five-year-old one.
>
>Help me out here. What's the difference between "a new PC in 1996" and "a
>five-year-old one"?
None. That's why the capabilities match so well. If one needed to do
it in 1996, and still needs to do it, one can use the same machine
equally well.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL: http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
A Newsgroup is always on-topic within itself.
Clay Calvert
<nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Clay Calvert wrote:
>>
>> On 25 Sep 2001 07:41:34 +0300, t...@UWasa.Fi (Timo Salmi) wrote:
>>
>> >Clay Calvert <ccal...@wanguru.com> wrote:
>> >> On 24 Sep 2001 23:32:07 +0300, t...@UWasa.Fi (Timo Salmi) wrote:
>> >> Oh no! The biggest source of aggravation in this newsgroup is people
>> >> telling others what they can't do. There is a vast minority here that
>> >
>
>> >> You truly think that my only goal is create 'discord'. That is
>> >> completely and utterly wrong. I do not enjoy these discussions, but
>
><LOL> Of course you do! You get off on manipulation and creating intrigues.
>Probably, you don't fool anyone anymore.
No, not really. Sometimes asking questions is better way of having
people re-think their logic. It is definitely better than saying
someone is stupid or telling them to stick things where the sun
doesn't shine.
Clay Calvert
wrote:
>
>"Clay Calvert" <ccal...@wanguru.com> wrote in message
>news:59n0rtgcr9pi5k9j9...@4ax.com...
>
>> I'd bet if web-cams were involved we'd be told to sit up straight too.
>
>I just had a vision of someone, picking their nose, asking one of the taboo
>date FAQs for the zillionth time. <g>
LOL!
Clay Calvert
Outsider <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3BB1786E...@yahoo.com...
> Clay Calvert wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 18:49:25 +0200, Outsider
> > <nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> > If there is already is a good, dedicated newsgroup for a purpose,
> > >> > e.g. NT, why is it so necessary to stubbornly want to force one's
> > >> > way into here?
> > >
> > >Yes, they do! William Allen is claiming NT emulators are on topic here,
> > >and Clay Calvert besides supporting this keeps claiming NT belongs here
> > >too.
> >
> > Are you sure about that last statement -- "keeps claiming NT belongs
> > here too."? No, I don't think so.
>
> Yes you do, albeit indirectly. You are constantly questioning the
> legitimacy of relegating NT to the NT group, even though this has
> been discussed ad nauseam.
Please. When have I done this?
Now I do have a problem with people who say you can't post fringe topics and
then they themselves post questions that are completely, way off topic. I
also have a problem when people post information that is flat out wrong.
For example, you can't say that I "constantly question the legitimacy of
relegating NT to the NT group", because that is flat out wrong.
Clay Calvert
<K_Mei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ted,
>
>finally a voice of reason (from my humble viewpoint).
>
>> Since most batch questions will be coming here anyway, perhaps the
>> best plan is to answer questions where asked, and refer detailed
>> discussion of CMD issues, regardless of operating system, to the NT
>> qroup.
>
>Exactly. This is what I advocated and what saves a lot of bandwidth. I
>don´t see the need of mailing list, however (they already exist, see my
>D-Link page), if members here would refrain from reacting to questions /
>topics / persons they don´t like.
Yes. What's going to happen now that XP is shipping on new machines?
There is no alt.msdos.batch.XP. Within two months, 95% or more of all
OEM machines sold with an MS operating system will have a CMD.exe.
This includes home users that have bought their very first PCs. They
won't know the lineage of the operating system that they use.
Less, and less people will be using Win9x and WinME in the future.
It may be time for a new group, but probably not with AMB in the
title. Something more generic like "alt.ms.command.line", which would
be available to any:
- MS operating system, to include DOS, Win9x, NT and XP
- Text based Scripting languages, such as WSH and Perl
- Third-party command line utilities. SED and NowMinus, for example
- Alternate command interpreters, such as 4DOS and Win95CMD
Just something to consider.
Dr John Stockton
news:alt.msdos.batch, Clay Calvert <ccal...@wanguru.com> wrote at Thu,
27 Sep 2001 22:17:02 :-
>
>Less, and less people will be using Win9x and WinME in the future.
East of the Atlantic, those could be "fewer".
>It may be time for a new group, but probably not with AMB in the
>title. Something more generic like "alt.ms.command.line", which would
>be available to any:
>
> - MS operating system, to include DOS, Win9x, NT and XP
> - Text based Scripting languages, such as WSH and Perl
> - Third-party command line utilities. SED and NowMinus, for example
> - Alternate command interpreters, such as 4DOS and Win95CMD
The new group(s) should be Big-8, in the news:comp.* hierarchy - perhaps
comp.os.ms.command-line - Big-8 are generally taken more seriously, and
may be better distributed.
That would ensure well-considered charters, etc.; since there is no
great hurry, it can be done right.
Questioners cannot be expected always to provide all necessary details;
but there should be a reliable convention among regular answerers to
facilitate the indication of which systems the alleged solution will run
on. If a questioner says "In my new XP system ...", then an XP-only
solution should suit him; but it should still be marked as XP-only for
the benefit of other readers. And a DOS3..XP solution should be so
marked, so that other readers see readily that it is NOT XP-only.
At present, NOWMINUS answers should be taken as OK in DOS 6.20, probably
back to DOS 3, OK in Win98 and so presumably in Win95; but I have no
idea whether anyone has tried it's environment-handling in NT or XP.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL: http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
For news:borland.*, use their server newsgroups.borland.com ; but first read
Guidelines <URL:http://www.borland.com/newsgroups/guide.html> very carefully.
Charles Dye
<ccal...@wanguru.com> wrote:
>for %%A in (*.*) do ren "%%A" "%%~nAi%%~xA"
... and in a later post on the same topic, "William Allen"
<ma...@mayfly13.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> :: Use Win95cmd extended FOR IN DO to create renaming script
> win95cmd /c FOR %%: IN (*.*) DO ECHO.REN "%%:" "%%~n:%1%%~x:">>%TEMP%.\R.BAT
This is a good place to explain a major misfeature of the
Windows 95 file system which any serious user should be
aware of.
Both of the above suggestions make use of the same features
of the same tool (Win95Cmd) but the basic approaches are
quite different. Mr. Calvert is doing the renaming within his FOR
loop. Mr. Allen is using FOR to generate a secondary batch file,
which will do the renaming after the the FOR loop is completed
and the entire list has been created. Mr. Calvert's approach is much
simpler and more readable, but Mr. Allen's is far more likely to work
correctly. Here's why:
In the disk structure used by Windows 95, long filenames take up
more than one 32-byte directory entry -- the exact number depends
on the length of the filename. All of the directory entries for one
file must be contiguous. Since renaming can change the length
of the long filename, the number of directory entries may also
change. Windows handles this situation by moving the entire
block of directory entries. In short, renaming files can change the
order in which they are stored in the directory. Since the FOR
command processes files in directory order, renaming files within
a FOR loop can cause the same file to be processed more than
once. In this specific example, it would be possible for a file to
have more than one "i" appended to its base name. Generating
the entire list of old and new names before beginning the actual
renaming neatly sidesteps the issue.
This is, by the way, a problem with the operating system itself --
Windows 95 -- and not with the tool used, Win95Cmd. Both of the
above approaches could very easily be adapted to another shell
like 4DOS, but the first method would still have a risk of "double
renaming" files and the second would still be relatively safe.
Another way to avoid this problem would be to rename the files
into a different directory, then move them back to their original
home after the loop completes.
--
Charles Dye ras...@highfiber.com
William Allen
...snip
> Both of the above suggestions make use of the same features
> of the same tool (Win95Cmd) but the basic approaches are
> quite different. Mr. Calvert is doing the renaming within his FOR
> loop. Mr. Allen is using FOR to generate a secondary batch file,
> which will do the renaming after the the FOR loop is completed
> and the entire list has been created. Mr. Calvert's approach is much
> simpler and more readable, but Mr. Allen's is far more likely to work
> correctly.
I was aware of the repeat-rename error happening with FOR IN DO,
but thanks for posting your clear explanation.
I normally use either deferral (as here) or progressive +H attribute
hiding from the FOR IN DO scan to work around the problem. The
example I posted was checked to make sure it did workaround
the problem.
In fact, I assumed that Mr Calvert was also aware of this, and
had simply published the core syntax for the task - which, of
course I also used for my version.
If a known-to-be-unused file extension is available, the method
suggested by Mr Bob Watson in post:
Message-ID: <3BB1061C...@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Appending At Beginning
is also worthwhile considering as a very good workaround.
The Win95cmd utility has been one of the most useful discoveries
I've made from reading this NG. Most of the features work quite
well in Windows 95/98 and since it's so well documented internally,
it has been (and continues to be) an excellent educational tool.
And as the useful discussions in alt.msdos.batch establish more
precisely what it can and can't do, it's beginning to prove useful for
many practical tasks, too.
--
William Allen
Timo Salmi
Dear Regulars,
MS-DOS batch enhancements and their batch usage are logically part
of valid the subjects of alt.msdos.batch. Therefore a question in
all friendship. Will Win95cmd enhancement also work under straight
MS-DOS, or is this just maybe another convenient advocacy move in
the emphasis shift game currently being played in this newsgroup?
I commend a reasonable (whatever one wishes to mean by it)
tolerance. However, it should be in everyone's rational interest to
have portable solutions whenever possible, rather than pointedly
steer them away from the original platform. Even if that directly
plays into what Microsoft currently strives at and would obviously
applaud.
Timo Salmi
Dear Regulars,
MS-DOS batch enhancements and their batch usage are logically part
of valid the subjects of alt.msdos.batch. Therefore a question in
all friendship. Will Win95cmd enhancement also work under straight
MS-DOS, or is this just maybe another convenient advocacy move in
the emphasis shift game currently being played in this newsgroup?
I commend a reasonable (whatever one wishes to mean by it)
tolerance. However, it should be in everyone's rational interest to
have portable solutions whenever possible, rather than pointedly
steer them away from the platform designation of this newsgroup.
Outsider
>
> > The Win95cmd utility has been one of the most useful discoveries
>
> Dear Regulars,
>
> MS-DOS batch enhancements and their batch usage are logically part
> of valid the subjects of alt.msdos.batch. Therefore a question in
> all friendship. Will Win95cmd enhancement also work under straight
> MS-DOS, or is this just maybe another convenient advocacy move in
> the emphasis shift game currently being played in this newsgroup?
>
> I commend a reasonable (whatever one wishes to mean by it)
> tolerance. However, it should be in everyone's rational interest to
> have portable solutions whenever possible, rather than pointedly
> steer them away from the platform designation of this newsgroup.
> Even if that directly plays into what Microsoft currently strives at
> and would obviously applaud.
My sentiments as well.
Also, there has lately been a barrage of code written with the sole
intent of sabotaging this group by purposely and willfully (actually
going out of the way to do so) breaking DOS batch techniques by using
carefully constructed modules that exploit idioscrynacies of DOS 7.x
under Windows, and for no purpose other than sabotage.
There has even been re-writing of defacto standard batch techniques
so they _will_ be broken in DOS versions prior to 7.x. We all know
who is responsible, but what are we going to do about it?
Timo Salmi
> There has even been re-writing of defacto standard batch techniques
> so they _will_ be broken in DOS versions prior to 7.x. We all know
> who is responsible, but what are we going to do about it?
Nothing! This is an unmoderated Usenet newsgroup, and an alt-NG at
that. Only unambiguous, wanton spam and binary postings are subject
to stronger measures such as complaints to the relevant ISP, and
especially in the case of binaries, maybe even cancelbots (provided
one is being currently run on the alt-NGs).
The current a.m.b situation may be unfortunate, but newsgroup
dilution and even takeovers by sheer volume and perseverance are not
uncommon in any way. On the Usenet news one can't control what
someone else decides to write, since the newspostings are not
subject to editorial policies save for the moderated newsgroups.
Individually a person can, of course, string along, counter, post
alternative / better solutions, systematically ignore, or outright
leave the newsgroup. Been there and seen it all.
Clay Calvert
Timo Salmi <t...@UWasa.Fi> wrote in message news:9pelsk$k...@poiju.uwasa.fi...
> > The Win95cmd utility has been one of the most useful discoveries
>
> Dear Regulars,
>
> MS-DOS batch enhancements and their batch usage are logically part
> of valid the subjects of alt.msdos.batch. Therefore a question in
> all friendship. Will Win95cmd enhancement also work under straight
> MS-DOS, or is this just maybe another convenient advocacy move in
> the emphasis shift game currently being played in this newsgroup?
What game is that? I don't know what you're talking about.
There is no "shift game" as far as I know, but maybe others are planning a
coup.
What I want to know is what is allowed here.
You keep saying what can't be done, but you won't pin down the details.
So, are only tools allowed that will run in pure 16-bit DOS?
Are 32-bit command-line tools off-topic?
> I commend a reasonable (whatever one wishes to mean by it)
> tolerance. However, it should be in everyone's rational interest to
> have portable solutions whenever possible, rather than pointedly
> steer them away from the platform designation of this newsgroup.
> Even if that directly plays into what Microsoft currently strives at
> and would obviously applaud.
Is portability really the issue? Win95CMD.exe will fit on a diskette, and
utitlities such as Cscript are usually already on most machines. Batching,
IMHO, is trying to leverage what may already be on the machine. SED, AWK,
etc., do not come pre-installed on any Windows machines that I've ever seen.
Maybe there are those that are trying to turn this into a UNIX group.
Cheers
William Allen
>
> Timo Salmi wrote in message
TS> > MS-DOS batch enhancements and their batch usage are logically part
TS> > of valid the subjects of alt.msdos.batch. Therefore a question in
TS> > all friendship. Will Win95cmd enhancement also work under straight
TS> > MS-DOS,
The answer is Yes.
Since Mr Salmi doesn't bother to define his terms, I'll (partially)
define them for him. "Straight" DOS includes a default DOS box
in the Windows 95/98/ME GUI. So the answer is Yes, just as it's
Yes to Long File Names, Yes to LFNFOR, and Yes to the extra
GUI-specific switches for XCOPY.
Isn't it nice that's all settled in a friendly manner? We no longer
need to discuss it.
--
William Allen
Outsider
>
> Timo Salmi <t...@UWasa.Fi> wrote in message news:9pelsk$k...@poiju.uwasa.fi...
> > > The Win95cmd utility has been one of the most useful discoveries
> >
> > Dear Regulars,
> >
> > MS-DOS batch enhancements and their batch usage are logically part
> > of valid the subjects of alt.msdos.batch. Therefore a question in
> > all friendship. Will Win95cmd enhancement also work under straight
> > MS-DOS, or is this just maybe another convenient advocacy move in
> > the emphasis shift game currently being played in this newsgroup?
>
> What game is that?
Why the one you are still playing. You still don't realize how
transparent you are, do you?
> I don't know what you're talking about.
<lol>
Outsider
Yes to anything William Gates Allen says!
Congratulations William, you have succeeded in taking over this
group almost single handedly (well you had a little help).
It's your own personal group now. Damn shame.
Clay Calvert
<nonvali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Clay Calvert wrote:
>>
>> Timo Salmi <t...@UWasa.Fi> wrote in message news:9pelsk$k...@poiju.uwasa.fi...
>> > > The Win95cmd utility has been one of the most useful discoveries
>> >
>> > Dear Regulars,
>> >
>> > MS-DOS batch enhancements and their batch usage are logically part
>> > of valid the subjects of alt.msdos.batch. Therefore a question in
>> > all friendship. Will Win95cmd enhancement also work under straight
>> > MS-DOS, or is this just maybe another convenient advocacy move in
>> > the emphasis shift game currently being played in this newsgroup?
>>
>> What game is that?
>
>Why the one you are still playing. You still don't realize how
>transparent you are, do you?
>
>> I don't know what you're talking about.
>
><lol>
Not only is there a coup planned for Unix, but check out the following
thread: "Change characters to HTML equivalents".
Zere ees a plan to take over zis groop. Eet vill be a veb forum.
: )
Clay Calvert
LOL!
Ted Davis
<ccal...@WanGuru.com> wrote:
>Is portability really the issue? Win95CMD.exe will fit on a diskette, and
>utitlities such as Cscript are usually already on most machines. Batching,
>IMHO, is trying to leverage what may already be on the machine. SED, AWK,
>etc., do not come pre-installed on any Windows machines that I've ever seen.
>Maybe there are those that are trying to turn this into a UNIX group.
>
Some of are more interested in performing tasks with safe tools than
in opening new avenues for external attack on our machines. Cscript
and WSH are *not* safe.
There is also the point that tools we were using before there even was
a Windows are still just as useful as they ever were, and even more
so, and aren't Windows exclusive (Cscript is not a solution to a
problem involving real-mode DOS (if it is ever more of a solution than
a problem), but awk or sed might be).
J. Random User is more likely to be familiar with the Unix tools than
the Windows specific tools because they have been around longer and
have established reputations and his support people tend to have at
least some Unix background.
Todd Vargo
"Ted Davis" <tda...@gearbox.maem.umr.edu> wrote in message
news:45tmrt8fhl9rqv5ve...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:11:56 -0400, "Clay Calvert"
> <ccal...@WanGuru.com> wrote:
>
> >Is portability really the issue? Win95CMD.exe will fit on a diskette,
and
> >utitlities such as Cscript are usually already on most machines.
Batching,
> >IMHO, is trying to leverage what may already be on the machine. SED,
AWK,
> >etc., do not come pre-installed on any Windows machines that I've ever
seen.
> >Maybe there are those that are trying to turn this into a UNIX group.
> >
>
> Some of are more interested in performing tasks with safe tools than
> in opening new avenues for external attack on our machines. Cscript
> and WSH are *not* safe.
The individual user/organazation has the ability/opportunity to redefine
which extensions are allowed to run on WSH. As long as the default
extensions are sensibly disabled, what is *not* safe about that?
>
> There is also the point that tools we were using before there even was
> a Windows are still just as useful as they ever were, and even more
> so, and aren't Windows exclusive (Cscript is not a solution to a
> problem involving real-mode DOS (if it is ever more of a solution than
> a problem), but awk or sed might be).
As I recall, there were virus attacks long before there was Windows. I know.
I was bit by a 360K floppy containing an infected trig tutor for DOS (3.1
was current at the time), provided to me by a college professor (I provided
the freshly formatted media). So what was your point about *not* being safe
again?
--
Todd Vargo (body of message must contain my name to reply by email)
Clay Calvert
<tda...@gearbox.maem.umr.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:11:56 -0400, "Clay Calvert"
><ccal...@WanGuru.com> wrote:
>
>>Is portability really the issue? Win95CMD.exe will fit on a diskette, and
>>utitlities such as Cscript are usually already on most machines. Batching,
>>IMHO, is trying to leverage what may already be on the machine. SED, AWK,
>>etc., do not come pre-installed on any Windows machines that I've ever seen.
>>Maybe there are those that are trying to turn this into a UNIX group.
>>
>
>Some of are more interested in performing tasks with safe tools than
>in opening new avenues for external attack on our machines. Cscript
>and WSH are *not* safe.
Nothing is completely safe, but most things can be handled in a fairly
safe manner. For example, where I work we don't allow JavaScript,
VBscript, Java, etc. through the firewall at all. However, we do have
web apps internally that do use those functions.
The world can't stop using something because it has a potential to
spread viruses. If that was the case we'd have to stop using floppy
disks (which we disable the booting from, and then password protect
the BIOS). Word, Excel, and even (dare I say it) DOS executables
wouldn't be usable either. As Todd has mentioned, viruses have been
around much longer than Windows.
>There is also the point that tools we were using before there even was
>a Windows are still just as useful as they ever were, and even more
>so, and aren't Windows exclusive (Cscript is not a solution to a
>problem involving real-mode DOS (if it is ever more of a solution than
>a problem), but awk or sed might be).
>
>J. Random User is more likely to be familiar with the Unix tools than
>the Windows specific tools because they have been around longer and
>have established reputations and his support people tend to have at
>least some Unix background.
I don't know if I agree that random users are more likely to be
familiar with Unix tools. I would think that more have exposure to
VB... definitely regular BASIC. VBscript syntax is not very different
from regular BASIC syntax, and Jscript is descended from C++.
Respectfully,
Outsider
> Batching,
> IMHO, is trying to leverage what may already be on the machine...
...in a standard, default installation.
You forgot to add that part.
Outsider
>
> Not only is there a coup planned for Unix, but check out the following
> thread: "Change characters to HTML equivalents".
When will you make a positive contribution to this group?
Outsider
>
> Clay Calvert wrote:
>
> > Batching,
> > IMHO, is trying to leverage what may already be on the machine...
>
>
> You forgot to add that part.
>
I forgot to add this:
...on a DOS based machine (not NT, OS/2, SunOS, RedHat, etc...)
Charles Dye
<ma...@mayfly13.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>I was aware of the repeat-rename error happening with FOR IN DO,
>but thanks for posting your clear explanation.
>
>I normally use either deferral (as here) or progressive +H attribute
>hiding from the FOR IN DO scan to work around the problem. The
>example I posted was checked to make sure it did workaround
>the problem.
>
>In fact, I assumed that Mr Calvert was also aware of this, and
>had simply published the core syntax for the task - which, of
>course I also used for my version.
I have no doubt that both you and Clay know about it. I was
posting for the benefit of the legions of lurking newbies (who
probably only exist in my head, but oh well.) Should have
made that clearer in my little lecture.
>The Win95cmd utility has been one of the most useful discoveries
>I've made from reading this NG. Most of the features work quite
>well in Windows 95/98 and since it's so well documented internally,
>it has been (and continues to be) an excellent educational tool.
>And as the useful discussions in alt.msdos.batch establish more
>precisely what it can and can't do, it's beginning to prove useful for
>many practical tasks, too.
I personally don't like it. It's an incomplete and buggy port; even
very simple and fundamental commands like TYPE and CHDIR
fail in interesting ways. Only an appalling arrogant company could
release a program so chock-full of showstoppers. For my money
4DOS is a far more serviceable replacement shell which supports
many of the Win-NT-type extensions, like FOR file parsing (though
not those new tilde tokens that you're having so much fun with.)
But. If you can get genuine use from WIN95CMD -- either actual
use, or educational value -- then more power to you, and keep the
posts coming. A diversity in approaches and viewpoints is a good
thing.
--
Charles Dye ras...@highfiber.com
Charles Dye
>> The Win95cmd utility has been one of the most useful discoveries
>
>Dear Regulars,
>
>MS-DOS batch enhancements and their batch usage are logically part
>of valid the subjects of alt.msdos.batch. Therefore a question in
>all friendship. Will Win95cmd enhancement also work under straight
>MS-DOS, or is this just maybe another convenient advocacy move in
>the emphasis shift game currently being played in this newsgroup?
It will only work in Windows, not under vanilla MS-DOS. It's
basically a Win9x port of the CMD.EXE shell from Windows NT.
>I commend a reasonable (whatever one wishes to mean by it)
>tolerance. However, it should be in everyone's rational interest to
>have portable solutions whenever possible, rather than pointedly
>steer them away from the original platform. Even if that directly
>plays into what Microsoft currently strives at and would obviously
>applaud.
In my opinion, reasonable tolerance needs to recognize the
existence of gray areas. Reasonable people clearly disagree
on the status of Win95Cmd, and valid arguments have been made
both for and against it.
I don't plan on using the thing myself, but it's not going to go away,
and I wouldn't suppress it if I could. Those who can't tolerate
discussion of this tool can, and probably should, politely ignore
threads concerning it. Perhaps we could agree on some
convention for subject lines when threads involve such advanced
or nonstandard (choose your term) tools:
"[Win95Cmd] Using tilde tokens for bulk renames"
"[4DOS] Five ways to display the < > and | characters"
"[sed] Converting output of DIR /B into a batch file"
"[Win95Cmd, 4DOS] Parsing files using FOR /F"
"[DRDOS, 4DOS] New use for the %_DOWI% variable"
This would allow folks to easily ignore / filter threads about tools
they're not interested in.
(What *was* the original platform? From the use of "folder" for
"subdirectory" I'd guess that the OP is using either 95/98/Me or
some flavor of NT, but beyond that I can't guess. Probably the
OP has long since been frightened off by the open display of
claws and fangs that his innocent question provoked....)
--
Charles Dye ras...@highfiber.com
Outsider
>
> >The Win95cmd utility...
> I personally don't like it. It's an incomplete and buggy port; even
> very simple and fundamental commands like TYPE and CHDIR
> fail in interesting ways. Only an appalling arrogant company could
> release a program so chock-full of showstoppers. For my money
Send me a check for $70 and I promise I will buy a copy ;).
> 4DOS is a far more serviceable replacement shell which supports
> many of the Win-NT-type extensions, like FOR file parsing (though
> not those new tilde tokens that you're having so much fun with.)
> But. If you can get genuine use from WIN95CMD -- either actual
> use, or educational value
Hmmm. Would that be education as to how "incomplete and buggy" it is,
or education as to how an "appalling arrogant company could release a
program so chock-full of showstoppers"?
> -- then more power to you, and keep the
> posts coming. A diversity in approaches and viewpoints is a good
> thing.
Yes, but this is, afterall, a DOS newsgroup. Remember?
Timo Salmi
> On 3 Oct 2001 12:27:51 +0300, t...@UWasa.Fi (Timo Salmi) wrote:
> >all friendship. Will Win95cmd enhancement also work under straight
> >MS-DOS, or is this just maybe another convenient advocacy move in
> It will only work in Windows, not under vanilla MS-DOS. It's
> basically a Win9x port of the CMD.EXE shell from Windows NT.
> threads concerning it. Perhaps we could agree on some
> convention for subject lines when threads involve such advanced
> or nonstandard (choose your term) tools:
>
> "[Win95Cmd] Using tilde tokens for bulk renames"
> "[4DOS] Five ways to display the < > and | characters"
> "[sed] Converting output of DIR /B into a batch file"
> "[Win95Cmd, 4DOS] Parsing files using FOR /F"
> "[DRDOS, 4DOS] New use for the %_DOWI% variable"
That is an excellent idea, Charles. The first genuinely and truly
constructive one. Not querulous, not supercilious, not belligerent.
I am all for it and will gladly adopt. And taken the current
atmosphere, maybe we also must have
"[MS-DOS] Delete without prompting"
It is such a good idea, that I'll consider adding your examples my
weekly posting, if it is ok with you?
All the best, Timo (aka Perfesser Pundit in news:rec.humor)
--
Prof. Timo Salmi ftp & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5
Department of Accounting and Business Finance ; University of Vaasa
mailto:t...@uwasa.fi <http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/> ; FIN-65101, Finland
Perfesser's nauseating puns: ftp://garbo.uwasa.fi/pc/ts/tspun22.zip
Timo Salmi
> On 3 Oct 2001 12:27:51 +0300, t...@UWasa.Fi (Timo Salmi) wrote:
> >all friendship. Will Win95cmd enhancement also work under straight
> >MS-DOS, or is this just maybe another convenient advocacy move in
> It will only work in Windows, not under vanilla MS-DOS. It's
> basically a Win9x port of the CMD.EXE shell from Windows NT.
Dear Charles,
Thank you for providing a straight, useful answer.
Timo Salmi
Timo Salmi
> Since Mr Salmi doesn't bother to define his terms, I'll (partially)
Dear William,
If you genuinely are a strictler for accuracy and must at the same
time play formal with titles, kindly consider bothering showing the
common courtesy of getting it right. I'd prefer Timo, though.
> Isn't it nice that's all settled in a friendly manner?
I am very sorry to have to say this, but the impression conveyed
lately is more patronizing and supercilious than thoroughly
friendly.
> We no longer need to discuss it.
True, though it rather seems that it is because the discussion is
becoming exhausted and somewhat futile. Fortunately, if one wishes
to be constructive, Charles Dye made an excellent suggestion about
marking the subjects. I can only wish that the regulars will find it
useful and adapt it. Anyway, I'll add that information to my
automated weekly posting.
All the best, Timo
--
Prof. Timo Salmi ftp & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5
Department of Accounting and Business Finance ; University of Vaasa
mailto:t...@uwasa.fi <http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/> ; FIN-65101, Finland