maa@nbires.nbi.com (Mark Armbrust) (03/23/88)
If you are using ANSI.SYS or some variant, you can say: echo off echo *[A*[K*[2A * = <escape> What this does is does is to back up a line and erase the "echo off" that MS-DOS so kindly left behind. So it's a KLUDGE...flame Microsoft, not me! The number and placement of the up-line commands (<esc>[A) may need to be adjusted for different version of MS-DOS, the above is for NBI's version of 2.11. Use the debugger to create the first copy of this "program", thereafter, you can prepend it using your favorite editor. Happy Hacking! Mark Armbrust
davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (03/23/88)
In article <1256@nbires.nbi.com> maa@nbires.UUCP (Mark Armbrust) writes: | [...] | What this does is does is to back up a line and erase the "echo off" that | MS-DOS so kindly left behind. So it's a KLUDGE...flame Microsoft, not me! Why flame Microsoft. When users requested a feature they provided it. In DOS 3.3 you can put a @ (as I recall) in column one of any command and it will not be echoed. Your solution is very useful, if ugly. -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) (03/24/88)
>Why flame Microsoft. When users requested a feature they provided it.
Sure. THREE YEARS LATER!
I'd say that is typical of Microsoft's response to user requests.
--
john nelson
UUCP: {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!teddy!jpn
ARPA (sort of): talcott.harvard.edu!panda!teddy!jpnnather@ut-sally.UUCP (Ed Nather) (03/25/88)
In article <10063@steinmetz.steinmetz.ge.com>, davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) writes: > Why flame Microsoft. When users requested a feature they provided it. No, they really didn't. They made a fundamental design blunder in the first place -- "echo off" should have been the default condition. There is no disadvange whatsoever: you could use "echo on" if you WANTED the stupid thing to echo. This blunder was evident in DOS 2.0. People complained. Out came DOS 2.1 with the same stupidity entrenched. More people complained. Out came DOS 3.0 with the idiocy intact. Still more people complained. DOS 3.1 came out. Guess what? Well, maybe in DOS 3.2? No, ignorance remained triumphant despite voluminous complaints, and a flood of patches and fixes on BBSs and computer networks nation-wide. Now, DOS 3.3 -- is "echo off" the default, at long last? NO! You STILL have to include "Echo off" in EVERY batch file, and shut up its own echo with an "@" symbol. WHY? When Microsoft responds to individual user's complaints will be the day the earth stands still. -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
chuckb@tc.fluke.COM (Chuck Bowden) (03/25/88)
In article <1256@nbires.nbi.com>, maa@nbires.nbi.com (Mark Armbrust) writes: > > If you are using ANSI.SYS or some variant, you can say: > > echo off > echo *[A*[K*[2A * = <escape> > > (... more stuff deleted) I don't know if this is just in MS-DOS 3.3, but placing an "@" symbol before your command in a batch file suppresses the echo of that line. e.g., @echo off rest of stuff in .bat file @echo on works, or if you prefer: @command 1 @command 2 @etc. In some cases you will the prompt will appear twice after executing a batch file, e.g. C:\YOURDIR> C:\YOURDIR> The fix for this is to edit the batch file so that there is no blank line after the last command. Chuck Bowden, WB7R, chuckb@tc.fluke.COM John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc. M/S 232-E, P.O.Box C-9090, Everett, WA 98206
jfadams@tc.fluke.COM (Jim Adams) (03/25/88)
I don't recall which versions of MS DOS this applies to, but I simply put an
"@" sign in front of each command I'd like to keep quiet:
@d:prog %1
@dir/w
@c:
Another solution:
@echo off
d:prog %1
dir/w
c:
--
James F. Adams John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc. Everett, Washington USA
WORLD:jfadams@tc.fluke.COM
UUCP:{ihnp4!uw-beaver,ucbvax!lbl-csam,allegra,decvax!microsoft}!fluke!jfadams
ARPA:fluke!jfadams@uw-beaver.ARPA GEnie:J.F.ADAMS CIS:74036,2517 t-gregr@microsoft.UUCP (Greg Reddick) (03/28/88)
In article <10885@ut-sally.UUCP> nather@ut-sally.UUCP (Ed Nather) writes: >In article <10063@steinmetz.steinmetz.ge.com>, davidsen@steinmetz.steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) writes: >> Why flame Microsoft. When users requested a feature they provided it. > >No, they really didn't. They made a fundamental design blunder in the first >place -- "echo off" should have been the default condition. There is no >disadvange whatsoever: you could use "echo on" if you WANTED the stupid >thing to echo. This blunder was evident in DOS 2.0. People complained. ... stuff deleted ... > >When Microsoft responds to individual user's complaints will be the day >the earth stands still. > >-- >Ed Nather Note that anything that I say about Microsoft is my own personal understanding and as far as I know contains no inside information. (disclaimer) Sorry Ed, but starting with MS-DOS 3.3, you can't lay the problem on Microsoft any more. DOS 3.3 is created by IBM and licensed back to Microsoft. Course your comments about previous versions may (or may not) be valid, I'M not going to say! :-) Greg Reddick Microsoft -------- I may sound like I know what I'm talking about, but I've merely got you fooled!
wcf@psuhcx.psu.edu (Bill Fenner) (03/29/88)
I've got a good solution for you. Unplug your monitor right before you run your batch file. Then you won't have to see the echo off. -- __ _ _ _____ Bill Fenner wcf @ psuhcx.bitnet / ) // // / ' wcf @ hcx.psu.edu /--< o // // ,-/-, _ __ __ _ __ ihnp4!psuvax1!psuhcx.bitnet!wcf /___/_<_</_</_ (_/ </_/ <_/ <_</_/ (_