Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!iuvax!iucs!bobmon From: bobmon@iucs.UUCP (RAMontante [condition that I not be identified]) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: DOS Echo off patch Message-ID: <4750@iucs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 24-Nov-87 11:01:29 EST Article-I.D.: iucs.4750 Posted: Tue Nov 24 11:01:29 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 27-Nov-87 22:46:15 EST References: <2131@killer.UUCP> <7000006@fthood> Reply-To: bobmon@iucs.UUCP (RAMontante [condition that I not be identified]) Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington Lines: 37 > >I can't help but responed to this one... :-) > >Page 7-39 in the manual says: > > To prevent a batch file line form being displayed > you can palce a @ before the command. > >Oh... you mean you don't have a manual? And I can't help but respond... 8-) Chapter 7 is only 20 pages long, and it's talking about directory structure, nothing about batch files. Oh... you mean your manual isn't for Zenith's MS-DOS 3.1? Seriously... I think we all forget occasionally that this group is read by people more experienced AND LESS experienced than us, and that some of those who most need help are least prepared to realize how much variation there is in "DOS", even when it appears to be the same version number (viz., PC-DOS 3.1 vs. Zenith MS-DOS 3.1 vs TI MS-DOS 3.1 -- the biggest thing they have in common is the almost-CP/M file-naming convention we all inherited from PC-DOS 1.0 :-). Most DOS documentation is not written to be easy reading for inexperienced/new users, so they may not have found that particular item among their zero-to-four-or-more manuals; and maybe it's just not there, in that version. (None of the various "echo-off" patches work for me, including this one (yes, I tried it, even though I know it came out AFTER v3.1, what the heck...no, it doesn't work)). Please, people, when you talk about particular feature of DOS, especially features that have escaped someone's attention, indicate what flavor of DOS you're talking about. Be kind to the ignorant -- we were (are?) in that condition too. Bob Montante