abcscnuk@csuna.csun.edu (Naoto Kimura) (07/24/89)
I find a number of irritating quirks of MS-DOS:
* If I type "A:FOO" to run a program or batch file from the A: drive,
and such a file doesn't exist on the A: drive, it will search the
path for the file and execute whatever it finds, even if it doesn't
exist on the drive I specified on the command line.
* If I make a batch file, the output of the batch file cannot be
redirected.
I'd like to know from those people who have used OS/2 if these same
quirks occur with the command processor in OS/2.
//-n-\\ Naoto Kimura
_____---=======---_____ (abcscnuk@csuna.csun.edu)
====____\ /.. ..\ /____====
// ---\__O__/--- \\ Enterprise... Surrender or we'll
\_\ /_/ send back your *&^$% tribbles !!tarvaine@tukki.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) (07/25/89)
In article <2090@csuna.csun.edu> abcscnuk@csuna.csun.edu (Naoto Kimura) writes: >I find a number of irritating quirks of MS-DOS: MS-DOS sure has a lot or irritating quirks, the following too can be circumvented easily however (in DOS 3.x at least): >* If I type "A:FOO" to run a program or batch file from the A: drive, > and such a file doesn't exist on the A: drive, it will search the > path for the file and execute whatever it finds, even if it doesn't > exist on the drive I specified on the command line. Type "A:.\FOO" instead. >* If I make a batch file, the output of the batch file cannot be > redirected. Invoke it with another copy of COMMAND.COM: "COMMAND /C MYBATCH > RESULTS" assuming of course that you can spare the memory. >I'd like to know from those people who have used OS/2 if these same >quirks occur with the command processor in OS/2. I'd like to know that, too. The OS/2 command processor does have several enhancements over DOS, including a much-needed escape character (^) and a few new batch file commands, but my knowledge here is based on what I've read, I don't have access to an OS/2 machine or even manuals. Perhaps someone who is actually using OS/2 would care to comment? -- Tapani Tarvainen (tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)
mikemo@microsoft.UUCP (Michael Morearty) (07/26/89)
In article <2090@csuna.csun.edu> abcscnuk@csuna.csun.edu (Naoto Kimura) writes: >I find a number of irritating quirks of MS-DOS: > >* If I type "A:FOO" to run a program or batch file from the A: drive, > and such a file doesn't exist on the A: drive, it will search the > path for the file and execute whatever it finds, even if it doesn't > exist on the drive I specified on the command line. This behaves as you would expect in OS/2: if you type "A:FOO", and foo doesn't exist on A:, you will get an error message. >* If I make a batch file, the output of the batch file cannot be > redirected. This also behaves as expected in OS/2: "mybatch >results" redirects output. >I'd like to know from those people who have used OS/2 if these same >quirks occur with the command processor in OS/2. No, they don't. -- Opinions are my own, and not necessarily those of my employer. Mike Morearty (mikemo@microsoft.UUCP, uunet!microsoft!mikemo)
leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (07/30/89)
abcscnuk@csuna.csun.edu (Naoto Kimura) writes: >* If I type "A:FOO" to run a program or batch file from the A: drive, > and such a file doesn't exist on the A: drive, it will search the > path for the file and execute whatever it finds, even if it doesn't > exist on the drive I specified on the command line. For what it is worth, this only happens if you use "a:foo". If you use "a:\foo" it works the way you want. I rather suspect that it is not considered a bug by Microsoft. They seem to consiider anything that doesn't start from the root directory to be a relative path, and in case a relative path isn't correct, the PATH variable get used. I don't say it's *right*, I do say that it is (regrettably) consistent. -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short