Subj : Re: REPOST: Re: 4BATFAQ Update To : Rik D'haveloose From : Joseph A o'Loughlin Date : Tue Feb 05 2002 11:20 pm From: Joseph.A.o'Loughlin@f3.n342.z1.cereal.mv.com (Joseph A o'Loughlin) Subject: Re: REPOST: Re: 4BATFAQ Update From: "Joseph A o'Loughlin" "Rik D'haveloose" wrote in message news:a3pfdv$c13$2@news1.xs4all.nl... > Joseph A o'Loughlin wrote > ==8< > [COMMAND.COM] > ==8< > > OS/2, NT, W2k, WXP are not DOS despite being able to run command.com. > > thanks for that description....(from some a.m.b.-only reader) > although i even would add: despite being able to handle the same > batch-commands as used in (earlier) DOS. > > Anyway, if considering batch, i wonder if someone can say that batching > is possible without command.com, reason why most simple users feel it as > belonging to the (standard) OS. (oh yes, there are other cli-interfaces, > but considering the MS in the name ??) > > Just some thinking here.... > > -- > TUF Greetings from Rumbeke > Belgium > > Hi Ric Without command.com permanently loaded you can use install=c:\dos\command.com /k batch.bat or similar. To avoid command.com or alternates there were batch file compilers some of which still required command.com or similar as they only tokenised the code. An nice batch language is Rexx which allows you to use the address command to choose which environment you are trying to script. For example you could have a batch file that uses math functions from a spreadsheet then use a graphics program to render the curves. What's an a.m.b only reader? Someone else wanted to know which version of 4Dos I was using way back when. At the end it was running 4DOS 5 but I have no recollection of the original version. Dashboard, an alternate to Program Manager had a shell - I don't recall if it ran batch files. Joseph -- |Fidonet: Joseph A o'Loughlin 1:342/3 | | Origin: The Cereal Port BBS (603)899-3335 199.125.78.133 (1:132/152) --- # Origin: (1:132/152.4) * Origin: Baddog BBS (1:218/903) .