Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!mtxinu!rtech!cpsc6a!cpsc6b!crs From: crs@cpsc6b.cpsc6a.att.com (Chris (No Problem!) Seaman) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: BAT files and ECHO OFF Message-ID: <528@cpsc6b.cpsc6a.att.com> Date: 11 May 89 17:12:26 GMT References: <161@infovax.UUCP> <1802@ubu.warwick.UUCP> <13629@ncoast.ORG> Sender: news@cpsc6b.cpsc6a.att.com Organization: AT&T (CPSC), Oakland, CA Lines: 31 allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: [ Discussion (and flames) regarding patches to DOS3.3 for echo off... ] -> There IS a valid reason to want to patch the 3.3 executable. It's called -> COMPATIBILITY. What if I want to run the same .BAT file on my Toshiba T1000? -> (DOS 2.11 in ROM. Run the BAT file and watch it b*tch about the blasted @.) -> -> ++Brandon -> -- -> Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@ncoast.org -> uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu If compatibility is what you are after, then a patch is definitely not the answer. What about the millions of users of DOS (ANY version) who do NOT have a patched command.com? Since batch files intended for a patched version may not have an 'echo off' at the beginning, these users might have to watch the whole bloody batch file print on screen as it executes. If someone wants to patch their command.com, and someone else has the procedure, then go for it. But make sure that, if compatibility is an issue, that any batch files created reach the lowest common denominator. As for my personal batch files, they all begin with '@echo off'. -- Chris (Insert phrase here) Seaman | o\ /o See crs@cpsc6a.att.com | || "Attack of the Killer Smiley"! ..!att!cpsc6a!crs | \vvvvvv/ Coming Soon | \____/ to a newsgroup near you!