Sam Heywood wrote:
>D:\TEST>dr
>Command or filename not recognized
>
>D:\TEST>DIRMAGIC (C) Copr. 1988 ZD Co
>Command or filename not recognized
>
>D:\TEST>Michael J. Mefford
>Command or filename not recognized
>D:\TEST>
>
>-
>
>It appears that command.com tri
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 00:55:36 +0200 (CEST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
wrote:
> that is it ... really not sooo hard to understand is it ???
OK, now I understand everything you were trying to explain
and now it all makes perfect sense to me. Thanks.
So, if you rename any file
Hi
14 Sep 2001, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SH> It appears that command.com tried three times to execute
SH> the program.
Haven't you read my previous message ?!?
batch files are interpreted, like basic, perl, php whatever.
This means that an interpreter (command.com) read
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 21:22:41 +0200 (CEST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
wrote:
> try to add a @ as the first char of your bat.
OK, I did that.
> it will not echo the name of the program, but the error message will
> remain.
> Simply because the @ means that command.com should not ec
Hi
14 Sep 2001, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
C:\4.BAT [1] Invalid path "MZ @k@a@- /,"
com and exe are executed.
bat is INTERPRETED !!!
>> SH> As an experiment I re-named DR.COM to DR.BAT and found that part
>> SH> of the program would still run!
>> How
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 19:03:03 +0200 (CEST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
wrote:
> Hi
> 14 Sep 2001, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> TM> but didn't really know if that extended to .BAT.
>>> it does not
>>> C:\4.BAT [1] Invalid path "MZ @k@a@- /,"
> SH> The above
Hi
14 Sep 2001, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> TM> but didn't really know if that extended to .BAT.
>> it does not
>> C:\4.BAT [1] Invalid path "MZ @k@a@- /,"
SH> The above indicates that a part of the program actually ran,
SH> i.e., a part of the program designed to
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 16:30:37 +0200 (CEST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
wrote:
> TM> but didn't really know if that extended to .BAT.
> it does not
> C:\4.BAT [1] Invalid path "MZ ká- /,"
The above indicates that a part of the program actually ran,
i.e., a part of the program d
Hi
14 Sep 2001, "Thomas Mueller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
TM> I knew DOS would run a .COM even if it were named .EXE, or an .EXE
TM> even if it were named .COM,
yes
TM> but didn't really know if that extended to .BAT.
it does not
C:\4.BAT [1] Invalid path "MZ ká- /,"
com and exe ar
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001 08:45:16 -0400 (EDT), Thomas Mueller wrote:
> I knew DOS would run a .COM even if it were named .EXE, or an .EXE even if it
> were named .COM, but didn't really know if that extended to .BAT. DOS will run
> an .EXE in preference to a .BAT or will run a .COM in preference to a
from Sam Heywood:
> Regarding the behavior of executables running in DOS, it doesn't
matter whether the file has a COM, EXE, or BAT extension. If you type
the name of the file at the command prompt and omit the file extension
and then press enter, the program will run if it is in the searc
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 02:38:23 -0400 (EDT), Thomas Mueller wrote:
> from L.D. Best:
>> According to F-6, the file name is majority.bat with not extensions
>> beyond that.
>> It is NOT a text file; it is an executable of some sort ... binary
>> except for a few words
Hi folks,
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 02:38:23 -0400 (EDT), Thomas Mueller wrote:
> Windows recognizes more filename extensions as executable than does DOS, such
> as .pif and .scr. Can a file in Windows .EXE format have a name ending in .BAT
> and still be recognized as an .EXE? I could ask the same
from L.D. Best:
>According to F-6, the file name is majority.bat with not extensions
>beyond that.
>It is NOT a text file; it is an executable of some sort ... binary
>except for a few words here and there... including "this program cannot
>be run in DOS mode" or words
Wed, 12 Sep 2001 20:26:48 -0400, Glenn McCorkle wrote:
> What does F-prot have to say about it?
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 03:21:01 -0400, L.D. Best wrote:
>> According to F-6, the file name is majority.bat with not extensions
>> beyond that.
>> It is NOT a text file; it is an ex
What does F-prot have to say about it?
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 03:21:01 -0400, L.D. Best wrote:
> According to F-6, the file name is majority.bat with not extensions
> beyond that.
> It is NOT a text file; it is an executable of some sort ... binary
> except for a few words he
According to F-6, the file name is majority.bat with not extensions
beyond that.
It is NOT a text file; it is an executable of some sort ... binary
except for a few words here and there... including "this program cannot
be run in DOS mode" or words to that effect.
On Tue, 11 S
really the *complete* file name, "majority.bat", and is it
really just a text file that one who understands advanced batch
programs involving Windows stuff may just examine in an ascii file
viewer to figure out what it is supposed to do?
Sam Heywood
-- This mail was written by user
Anyone heard of it? I got it in the mail today. It does not run in DOS
mode, or so it says. It does apparently mess with registers and other
stuff.
I'll be forwarding it to my chief techie.
l.d.
-- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
19 matches
Mail list logo
