Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!copper!rschmidt
From: rschmidt@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (roy schmidt)
Subject: Re: EXE2BIN in PCDOS 4.0
Message-ID: <1991Mar20.230005.28573@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Sender: news@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
References: <1991Mar15.040327.27580@zoo.toronto.edu> <valley.669052964@gsbsun>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 23:00:05 GMT
Lines: 30

valley@uchicago (Doug Dougherty) writes:
   >teplovs@zoo.toronto.edu (Chris Teplovs) writes:
   >
   >>PCDOS 4.0, I couldn't find EXE2BIN (it doesn't seem to exist on the
   >>original floppies!).  Anyone know if this is an isolated incident,
   >>or is this a problem with PCDOS 4.0?
   >
   >IBM decided a long time ago that ordinary users didn't need EXE2BIN and
   >hence that they could afford to charge extra for it.
   >
Actually, what you are seeing is the official Microsoft line.  Microsoft
has decided that we should not write .COM programs anymore, and
therefore don't support/condone them.  A sure way to decrease the number
of .COM files is by not giving you the utility to manufacture them.

My question is, why would you want to convert a perfectly good .EXE file
to a .COM file?  An .EXE file requires far less RAM to run (.COM needs
64K regardless of object code size) so making a small .COM file does not
really make sense anyway.

Of course, MS is always immune from their own official line :-).  They
still churn out .COM files in their own packages, just like they still
use FCBs for internal DOS commands.  Sigh.
 

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Schmidt                 |  #include <disclaimer.h>     
Indiana University          |  /* They are _my_ thoughts, and you can't
Graduate School of Business |     have them, so there!  */
