Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!phigate!ehviea!sun4dts!derek
From: derek@sun4dts.dts.ine.philips.nl (derek)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: documentation printing
Message-ID: <740@sun4dts.dts.ine.philips.nl>
Date: 12 Jun 91 13:22:48 GMT
References: <1991Jun11.105816.31353@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Lines: 29

(Raymond W. Arritt) arritt@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:

}Shareware and PD programs often contain a file 'printdoc.bat' or
}some such, which prints out the documentation file.  I've noticed
}that most of the time these work by 'copy program.doc prn' rather
}than 'print program.doc'.  The problem is that copy-to-prn locks
}up my system until the file is printed, whereas 'print' would 
}spool so I could do other stuff while the file was printing
}(this is under MS-DOS 3.3+; I don't know if other versions behave
}the same way).

}Is there a good reason for using copy-to-prn rather than 'print'?
}At best it's an annoyance; at worst, it gives a bad first impression
}(which is the sort of thing that makes users less inclined to pay a 
}shareware registration fee...)

}Granted one could always go in and print the docs manually -- but then
}why bother to include the batch file in the first place?

There's a very good reason - if print has not already been installed (it's
a TSR) and the batch file is called from another program, such as a shell,
then, at best you will get an error message saying that the you cann't 
install a TSR at this time, at worst, the system will hang. This, I 
imagine will give an even worse impression. The copy ... version is,
mostly, safe.

Best Regards, Derek Carr
DEREK@DTS.INE.PHILIPS.NL           Philips I&E TQV-5 Eindhoven, The Netherlands 
Standard Disclaimers apply.