jmbj@grebyn.com (Jim Bittman) (10/31/90)
Apparently Turbo C defaults std-io as a TEXT device. Is there any way
to over-ride? Does Microsoft C work the same way?
A (unix) friend of mine is attempting to port an application, and is
getting frustrated, not that I can blame him. Most his complaints are
quite valid. One question (to which I had no answer) was:
"Why wasn't the 128 byte command line limit fixed between DOS
versions 1.0 and 1.1?"
I think that e-mail would be appropriate, I'll post the answer if
there are some inquiries.
Jim Bittman, jmbj@grebyn.comlsalomo@hubcap.clemson.edu (lsalomo) (11/01/90)
From article <22926@grebyn.com>, by jmbj@grebyn.com (Jim Bittman): > A (unix) friend of mine is attempting to port an application, and is > getting frustrated, not that I can blame him. Most his complaints are > quite valid. One question (to which I had no answer) was: > "Why wasn't the 128 byte command line limit fixed between DOS > versions 1.0 and 1.1?" Because real people use DOS 3.x+ *grin* ;) Cheers, Q - the "Q"uestor for knowledge (, a degree, etc.) lsalomo@hubcap.clemson.edu ibmman@prism.clemson.edu ibmman@clemson.clemson.edu ============================================================================= "Gee Wally, I think there's something wrong with the Beaver." =============================================================================
otto@tukki.jyu.fi (Otto J. Makela) (11/01/90)
In article <11280@hubcap.clemson.edu> lsalomo@hubcap.clemson.edu (lsalomo) writes: From article <22926@grebyn.com>, by jmbj@grebyn.com (Jim Bittman): > A (unix) friend of mine is attempting to port an application, and is > getting frustrated, not that I can blame him. Most his complaints are > quite valid. One question (to which I had no answer) was: > "Why wasn't the 128 byte command line limit fixed between DOS > versions 1.0 and 1.1?" Because real people use DOS 3.x+ *grin* ;) All right, so now the question is: why wasn't it fixed between DOS versions 3.01 and 3.10 ? Or between versions 3.30 and 4.01 ? I hate MicroS*t for the fact that no significant improvements have gone into the command processor since version 2.11 ! Gee, for some reason I couldn't find the original article, but to answer the question posed in the Subject: yes, stdin and stdout can both be binary files -- you just have to ioctl them to binary mode ! -- /* * * Otto J. Makela <otto@jyu.fi> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */ /* Phone: +358 41 613 847, BBS: +358 41 211 562 (CCITT, Bell 24/12/300) */ /* Mail: Kauppakatu 1 B 18, SF-40100 Jyvaskyla, Finland, EUROPE */ /* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * */
stever@Octopus.COM (Steve Resnick ) (11/02/90)
In article <11280@hubcap.clemson.edu> lsalomo@hubcap.clemson.edu (lsalomo) writes: >From article <22926@grebyn.com>, by jmbj@grebyn.com (Jim Bittman): >> A (unix) friend of mine is attempting to port an application, and is >> getting frustrated, not that I can blame him. Most his complaints are >> quite valid. One question (to which I had no answer) was: >> "Why wasn't the 128 byte command line limit fixed between DOS >> versions 1.0 and 1.1?" > >Because real people use DOS 3.x+ *grin* ;) > And DOS 3.x fixes it? I think not. Real people use DOS 4.0! :) (Sorry - I couldn't resist) The 128 byte command limit exists in DOS Version 1-4.01 (I haven't seen 4.03 or 5.0 yet) and in OS/2 1.0 - 1.21 (All of which I have run and yes there are newer versions of OS/2). I guess Microsoft doesn't expect folks to type much. :) Cheers! Steve -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- steve.resnick@f105.n143.z1.FIDONET.ORG - or - apple!camphq!105!steve.resnick Flames, grammar errors, spelling errrors >/dev/nul The Asylum OS/2 BBS - (408)263-8017 IFNA 1:143/105.0