Mail Archives: djgpp/2004/05/10/10:00:22
>Sterten <sterten AT aol DOT com> wrote:
>
>> however that has the disadvantage that the programs will be scattered
>> over 2 dirs. When e.g. I invoke them from batch, I don't know which
>> path to give. Some of my old .batches will no longer work
>
>You shouldn't have to use absolute paths in .bat files in the first
>place. That's what setting up the PATH environment setting is all
>about.
>
I didn't know
>> >> when I use cmd.exe I have cursor-key functionality, but this mode is
>> >> very incompatible.
>> >
>> >What's incompatible in that? Please tell the details. I find CMD
>> >very convenient for interactive command-line work; it even has
>> >TAB-completion, like Bash and other modern shells.
>
>> I don't have many examples handy ATM (gcc,nasm,gwbasic,...),
>> but about 50% of my old DOS-programs don't run. Some crash terribly.
>> With Win98, about 95% of my old DOS-programs ran.
>
>That has nothing to do with cmd.exe or doskey, though. That's the
>difference between the ways Win9x and the NT family (including XP)
>implement their DOS subsystems showing through.
>
>But you really could be more specific: "don't run" is about as
>imprecise a description as possible. How do they fail to run? Error
>message may mean nothing to you, but that doesn't mean the same is
>true for the readers of this newsgroup.
>
hmm, OK, I just experimented a bit again...
to my surprise the path - thing worked now with cmd.exe (but not with
gwbasic-shell)
I could also compile gcc-programs now in this mode ! But I'm probably not
going to use it,
since e.g. edit.com (Microsoft-editor) nor my
other favourite editor nor my directory or listing utilities work with cmd.exe
(no error message, no reaction to key-strokes or mouse clicks, just a blinking
cursor)
- Raw text -