Any updates to DOS in past few years ?
- Bobb -
do something that is not possible using Windows, ( like xcopy/s *.jpg
c:\test\*.* ), I was wondering if there have been any updates in DOS
that folks have found that are useful.
There are still a LOT of things that are easy in DOS and cannot be done
(without a LOT of grief) in Windows and I was just thinking that for
Windows only users, how tough it would be be do things like " xcopy/s "
in 20 subfolders. WHY NOT create such utilities in Windows ?
Uncle Grumpy
>I know it's an XP newsgroup,
But you're posting here anyway. Moron.
>but since I occasionally have to use DOS to
>do something that is not possible using Windows, ( like xcopy/s *.jpg
>c:\test\*.* ), I was wondering if there have been any updates in DOS
>that folks have found that are useful.
Not since DOS 8.0 was released along with WinME in 2000.
Pipboy
> There are still a LOT of things that are easy in DOS and cannot be done
> (without a LOT of grief) in Windows and I was just thinking that for
> Windows only users, how tough it would be be do things like " xcopy/s "
> in 20 subfolders. WHY NOT create such utilities in Windows ?
There are. Look up Robocopy.
Shenan Stanley
DOS - the 16 bit OS - has not existed in quite some time.
However - your logic is fairly flawed...
You stated, "... I occasionally have to use DOS to do something that is not
possible using Windows, (like xcopy/s *.jpg c:\test\*.*) ..."
You can do that and more in Windows 2000/XP --> simply open a command prompt
or create a batch/cmd script.
In fact - try this:
Start Button --> RUN --> type in:
cmd /K xcopy /?
OK.
If you want to do such things - look for freeware utilities or learn to
write your own short batch scripts?
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Paul Randall
"- Bobb -" <bo...@noemail.123> wrote in message
news:O%23WQ3bfX...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
DOS has been revamped in XP. Some commands have been downgraded (eg
format), or eliminated (eg sys), or greatly enhanced (eg sort). Batch
programs have some enhanced features. There are two types of 'DOS' windows
within XP. They can be created by creating shortcuts to command.com and
cmd.exe. The properties for these two shortcuts are very different and can
be customized in different ways. SomeDOS software may be able to run in
little black DOS window created by one of
these shortcuts but not in the other. You can create a boot floppy from
within WXP by right clicking the floppy drive and selecting format and
checking the 'startup' box. Booting with this floppy brings you to a DOS
prompt, but only the internal DOS commands are available. Most if not all
of the external DOS commands will not run except within a DOS window under
WXP.
I don't know if or where the WXP DOS commands and batch file features are
documented by Microsoft.
-Paul Randall
Pegasus (MVP)
"Paul Randall" <paul...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:eBsQo9fX...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> "- Bobb -" <bo...@noemail.123> wrote in message
> news:O%23WQ3bfX...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >I know it's an XP newsgroup, but since I occasionally have to use DOS to
do
> >something that is not possible using Windows, ( like xcopy/s *.jpg
> >c:\test\*.* ), I was wondering if there have been any updates in DOS
that
> >folks have found that are useful.
> >
> > There are still a LOT of things that are easy in DOS and cannot be done
> > (without a LOT of grief) in Windows and I was just thinking that for
> > Windows only users, how tough it would be be do things like " xcopy/s "
in
> > 20 subfolders. WHY NOT create such utilities in Windows ?
I'm afraid there are lots of misleading statements in your
reply. It is important to realise that DOS is an operating
system, same as Windows XP or Unix. There is no DOS
under Windows!
> DOS has been revamped in XP.
*** No, it has not. DOS is an operating system. It does not exist
*** under Windows XP. You probably wanted to say this:
*** "The Command Prompt under Windows XP provides
*** some DOS-like functions."
> Some commands have been downgraded (eg format),
*** No. Format still works under the Command Prompt.
*** However, it won't let you format the system disk, and
*** for a very good reason too!
> or eliminated (eg sys)
*** The sys command is DOS specific. It would make no
*** sense having it under Windows XP.
>, or greatly enhanced (eg sort). Batch programs have some
enhanced features. There are two types of 'DOS' windows
> within XP.
*** No, there are none. However, there is a Command Prompt.
> They can be created by creating shortcuts to command.com and
> cmd.exe.
*** Command.com is a legacy command processor and
*** should not be used. Many a poster used it by mistake
*** and got very confused.
> The properties for these two shortcuts are very different and can
> be customized in different ways. SomeDOS software may be able to run in
> little black DOS window created by one of
> these shortcuts but not in the other. You can create a boot floppy from
> within WXP by right clicking the floppy drive and selecting format and
> checking the 'startup' box. Booting with this floppy brings you to a DOS
> prompt, but only the internal DOS commands are available.
*** Are you talking about the Recovery Console?
> Most if not all of the external DOS commands will not run except
> within a DOS window under WXP.
>
> I don't know if or where the WXP DOS commands and batch file features are
> documented by Microsoft.
*** Most command line commands have inbuilt help. You see it when
*** you add /?, e.g.
*** xcopy /?
*** format /?
*** ping /?
Ayush
> I don't know if or where the WXP DOS commands and batch file features are
> documented by Microsoft.
- command /?
- help command
- C:\Windows\Help\ntcmds.chm
- http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/ntcmds.mspx
To OP:
- New Command Line tools :
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/ntcmds_new_tools.mspx
- List of "Changes to MS-Dos Commands" and "Unavailable commands" :
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/dos_diffs.mspx
- Command shell overview
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/ntcmds_shelloverview.mspx
Good Luck, Ayush.
--
XP-Tips [Auto logon for Windows XP] :
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/tips/advanced/autologon.mspx
- Bobb -
"Pegasus (MVP)" <I....@fly.com> wrote in message
news:OuKQMHjX...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Excuse my phrasing of the orignal post. I do use my own scripts. My
reason for mentioning was merely that most casual users ( all of my
non-business friends) never used a Pc until Windows and have never seen
DOS ( or a DOS shell ) and do not know that they can do " xcopy/s *.jpg
>c:\test\*.* " and instead go into each folder and 'drag and drop' all
the jpg files or Cut and then paste one at a time from one folder to
another. Their PC is for home internet use, pictures and maybe some
offfice apps - none of which would ever show them how to "do it easily".
I've seen a lot of folks doing such things because they do not know that
there is an alternative and I just figured by now someone in the sw biz
would have realized that and added the features to ... XP for example.
I didn't mean to start an argument - just an observation/ discussion.
I'll check out the other tips.
Thanks.
Dave Cohen
Under winxp and similar, you are able to run dos commands in a virtual
machine provided by the processor instruction set. The version is listed
as a winxp version, but this is of no import since like all versions of
dos, the version of the commands must match that of the dos release.
The main restriction of running in a virtual environment is any program
you run must be well behaved. The help file is gone, but you can still
get useful help by typing a command followed by /?. Some of the commands
are enhanced over their forbears, others are gone, never to be found
again (and missed by only a few).
If you're serious about running dos, or just suffering from acute
nostalgia, do as I do, use bootitng from www.terabyteunlimited.com to
create a true dos fat partition. Actually, I'm not particularly
nostalgic, but still have an old release of the assembler and microsft C
from my working days. Of course I never use them now and even if I did
what would I do with the compiled output, so I suppose it is nostalgia
after all.
Dave Cohen
Pegasus (MVP)
> I didn't mean to start an argument - just an observation/ discussion.
> I'll check out the other tips.
> Thanks.
>
I have no interest in running an argument but I usually reply
when someone posts a whole lot of misleading and incorrect
information in response to a genuine question.
Paul Randall
Hmmm. You must be pretty powerful in this newsgroup. You discussed my post
so thoroughly that it doesn't even show up except for a few snippets in -
Bobb -'s post, at least not in my OE 6.
-Paul Randall
Pegasus (MVP)
In newsgroups all contributors are equal. Nobody has a special
status. My reply to your post is visible on my machine under OE,
right before Bobb's reply. I posted it exactly 6 hours after yours.
If it is invisible on yours and if you really want to see it then I can
post it again.
Bob I
Paul Randall wrote:
Nah, more likly you set your newsreader not to show your own posts.
>
Shenan Stanley
> I know it's an XP newsgroup, but since I occasionally have to use
> DOS to do something that is not possible using Windows, ( like
> xcopy/s *.jpg c:\test\*.* ), I was wondering if there have been
> any updates in DOS that folks have found that are useful.
>
> There are still a LOT of things that are easy in DOS and cannot be
> done (without a LOT of grief) in Windows and I was just thinking
> that for Windows only users, how tough it would be be do things
> like " xcopy/s " in 20 subfolders. WHY NOT create such utilities in
> Windows?
Paul Randall wrote:
> DOS has been revamped in XP. Some commands have been downgraded (eg
> format), or eliminated (eg sys), or greatly enhanced (eg sort). Batch
> programs have some enhanced features. There are two types of
> 'DOS' windows within XP. They can be created by creating shortcuts
> to command.com and cmd.exe. The properties for these two shortcuts
> are very different and can be customized in different ways. SomeDOS
> software may be able to run in little black DOS window
> created by one of these shortcuts but not in the other. You can create a
> boot floppy
> from within WXP by right clicking the floppy drive and selecting
> format and checking the 'startup' box. Booting with this floppy
> brings you to a DOS prompt, but only the internal DOS commands are
> available. Most if not all of the external DOS commands will not
> run except within a DOS window under WXP.
>
> I don't know if or where the WXP DOS commands and batch file
> features are documented by Microsoft.
Pegasus (MVP) wrote:
> I'm afraid there are lots of misleading statements in your
> reply. It is important to realise that DOS is an operating
> system, same as Windows XP or Unix. There is no DOS
> under Windows!
>
>> DOS has been revamped in XP.
> *** No, it has not. DOS is an operating system. It does not exist
> *** under Windows XP. You probably wanted to say this:
> *** "The Command Prompt under Windows XP provides
> *** some DOS-like functions."
>
- Bobb - wrote:
> Excuse my phrasing of the orignal post. I do use my own scripts. My
> reason for mentioning was merely that most casual users ( all of my
> non-business friends) never used a Pc until Windows and have never
> seen DOS ( or a DOS shell ) and do not know that they can do
> "xcopy/s *.jpg c:\test\*.*"
>
> and instead go into each folder and 'drag and drop all the jpg files or
> Cut and then paste one at a time from one folder to
> another. Their PC is for home internet use, pictures and maybe some
> offfice apps - none of which would ever show them how to "do it
> easily". I've seen a lot of folks doing such things because they do
> not know that there is an alternative and I just figured by now
> someone in the sw biz would have realized that and added the
> features to ... XP for example. I didn't mean to start an argument
> - just an observation/ discussion. I'll check out the other tips.
Pegasus (MVP) wrote:
> I have no interest in running an argument but I usually reply
> when someone posts a whole lot of misleading and incorrect
> information in response to a genuine question.
Paul Randall wrote:
> Hmmm. You must be pretty powerful in this newsgroup. You
> discussed my post so thoroughly that it doesn't even show up except
> for a few snippets in - Bobb -'s post, at least not in my OE 6.
This is what some might call 'paranoia'.
What tips (or should tip) off the fact that it is not anyone's "power" but
something on your side (Paul Randall) is the statement, "... at least not in
my OE 6 ..." from yourself (Paul Randall). That and a simple Google Groups
search returns the entirity of the post (and I laid out the entirity of this
particular thread of the post above... From *my* Outlook Express 6.0):
Good luck!
(And check your configuration as well as the settings of the news servers
you post to... In other words - if getting to these Newsgroups through a
news server ran by cableone.net, how long do they archive/keep posts?)
Shenan Stanley
> Thanks for the info.
> My OE must be goofy. Attached is a screen capture - GIF file of
> what I see for this thread. I'm not too good at sending
> attachments to newsgroups. Hopefully you can remove the .txt from
> the file name and view the gif.
> Google shows me the missing posts, mine and your reply to me.
>
> I'm pretty sure someone can remove spam postings from Microsoft
> newsgroups because I think I've seen cases where they went away.
>
> I just tried viewing this thread from another computer whose IE had
> never viewed this newsgroup microsoft.public.windowsxp.general. It
> is missing my post and your reply to it. Can you contact this
> newsgroup's moderator and find out why these posts are missing? I
> assume a longstanding MVP such as yourself knows how these
> newsgroups are moderated.
> On that same computer, Google Groups and www.tablequestions.com
> show the complete thread, including those two posts.
Read my reply.
Are you connecting directly to the Microsoft Newsgroups?
Or - are you connecting to your ISPs copy of these newsgroups?
I ask you this because either your settings prevent you from getting a
message a certain number of whatevers old or some other type of limitation
(such as not seeing your own posts, etc) OR... You are not connecting
directly to the news.microsoft.com newsgroups...
Because as you can see here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/newsgroups/reader.mspx?dg=microsoft.public.windowsxp.general&mid=006e2b33-2743-4d95-9ab6-eb3f5d83d32c
Your post is still listed in the official Microsoft Newsgroups hosted by
Microsoft (not just Google Groups.)
All of them in this thread.
Paul Randall
"Shenan Stanley" <newsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:O0QSQ12X...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Thanks for the link. I appreciate your helping me to understand what I'm
seeing. While it looks to me like my OE is going directly to
msnews.microsoft.com, I think it is possible that my ISP could be feeding me
a faulty cache.
-Paul Randall
Paul Randall
"- Bobb -" <bo...@noemail.123> wrote in message
news:O%23WQ3bfX...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Hi, Bobb
Look at these links and see for yourself what you can do with the command
line and batch files in WXP.
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/ntcmds.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/cmd.mspx?mfr=true
-Paul Randall
- Bobb -
"Paul Randall" <paul...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:%23CllA07...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Paul Randall
I think I found my problem with the 'missing' posts:
OE6 defaults to downloading 300 headers at a time. Since this is a heavily
used newsgroup, more than 300 questions & responses may have been posted
between the time I posted my response and when I checked back with the
newsgroup. The extras could not be seen by OE6 until I did something
specific to read older headers, namely, repeatedly clicking the 'get next
xxxx headers' item under the tools menu until the unseen stuff showed up.
I appologize for offending you.
-Paul Randall
Pegasus (MVP)
Good to see that you found the missing posts. And no, you did not
offend me at all. Why should you - there is nothing offensive or
insulting in your reply.
Robert Morley
> OE6 defaults to downloading 300 headers at a time. Since this is a
> heavily used newsgroup, more than 300 questions & responses may have been
> posted between the time I posted my response and when I checked back with
> the newsgroup. The extras could not be seen by OE6 until I did something
> specific to read older headers, namely, repeatedly clicking the 'get next
> xxxx headers' item under the tools menu until the unseen stuff showed up.
I've actually seen this behaviour out of OE even when there were only a few
messages involved. It seems to just get mis-synchronized at times. As you
say, repeatedly clicking on "Get Next xxx Headers" (where xxx depends on
your Options settings) seems to fix the problem. Just be aware that it may
crop up yet again at a later date.
Rob
todos_me...@hotmail.com
PAGING ROBERT MORLEY, ARE YOU THERE?
This is the one with the name that cannot be spoken
On Mar 12, 1:46 pm, "Robert Morley"
Robert Morley
>
> This is the one with the name that cannot be spoken
Yeah, I'm here (though not for much longer in this group...I don't usually
hang around here). What's up? And "name that cannot be spoken"...what?
Rob