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> 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 Indiana University | /* They are _my_ thoughts, and you can't Graduate School of Business | have them, so there! */