From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

Hola!

I'm an old fart who, like so many other old farts, (re)discovered DOS
and old PCs and all the fun and non-fun that go with it. I was pretty
excited to sign up for eternal-september and get back into News, and alt.msdos.batch sounded real promising because, well, I'm writing a lot
of .BAT files now. Just like I did in my pre-teen years. :D

But most of the talk here is about Windows batch files. Which, last I
checked, bears but a faint resemblance to MS-DOS .BAT files.

Is this just how it has become, or is there some other group where
actual MS-DOS batch stuff is discussed?

Or alternatively, is all that is needed someone to ask/talk about it for
this group to reclaim its former glory? :)

Grumpy old greets,
/ltning

--
http://floppy.museum
~ love over gold ~


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On 24 Oct 2025, Eirik =?UTF-8?B?w5h2ZXJieQ==?= <ltning-september@redbench.floppy.museum> wrote in alt.msdos.batch:

Hola!

I'm an old fart who, like so many other old farts, (re)discovered
DOS and old PCs and all the fun and non-fun that go with it. I was
pretty excited to sign up for eternal-september and get back into
News, and alt.msdos.batch sounded real promising because, well,
I'm writing a lot of .BAT files now. Just like I did in my
pre-teen years. :D

But most of the talk here is about Windows batch files. Which,
last I checked, bears but a faint resemblance to MS-DOS .BAT
files.

Incorrect.

Is this just how it has become, or is there some other group where
actual MS-DOS batch stuff is discussed?

Or alternatively, is all that is needed someone to ask/talk about
it for this group to reclaim its former glory? :)

Most of what you know about DOS batch files also applies to Windows and
vice versa. There is little need to separate the discussions.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 00:56:27 +0100, Eirik +verby wrote:

Hola!

I'm an old fart who, like so many other old farts, (re)discovered DOS
and old PCs and all the fun and non-fun that go with it. I was pretty
excited to sign up for eternal-september and get back into News, and alt.msdos.batch sounded real promising because, well, I'm writing a lot
of .BAT files now. Just like I did in my pre-teen years. :D

But most of the talk here is about Windows batch files. Which, last I checked, bears but a faint resemblance to MS-DOS .BAT files.

Is this just how it has become, or is there some other group where
actual MS-DOS batch stuff is discussed?

Or alternatively, is all that is needed someone to ask/talk about it for
this group to reclaim its former glory? :)

Grumpy old greets,
/ltning

Whatever happened here, this is still an MS-DOS group. You can still
ask/post about MS-DOS batch file. It's at least, why I'm still here for.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 00:56:27 +0100
Eirik +verby <ltning-september@redbench.floppy.museum> wrote:

Hola!

I'm an old fart who, like so many other old farts, (re)discovered DOS
and old PCs and all the fun and non-fun that go with it. I was pretty
excited to sign up for eternal-september and get back into News, and alt.msdos.batch sounded real promising because, well, I'm writing a lot
of .BAT files now. Just like I did in my pre-teen years. :D

But most of the talk here is about Windows batch files. Which, last I checked, bears but a faint resemblance to MS-DOS .BAT files.

Is this just how it has become, or is there some other group where
actual MS-DOS batch stuff is discussed?

Or alternatively, is all that is needed someone to ask/talk about it for
this group to reclaim its former glory? :)

Grumpy old greets,
/ltning

Old fart type discussions of the Golden Age of Batch still welcome to me.
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

Nil wrote:

But most of the talk here is about Windows batch files. Which,
last I checked, bears but a faint resemblance to MS-DOS .BAT
files.

Incorrect.

I stand corrected. I thought the batch language in CMD was dramatically improved, with more advanced flow control and loop statements (akin to
4dos/ndos)? I may also have gotten things mixed up with PowerShell, which
is of course an entirely different beast.
Sorry!

Is this just how it has become, or is there some other group where
actual MS-DOS batch stuff is discussed?

Or alternatively, is all that is needed someone to ask/talk about
it for this group to reclaim its former glory? :)

Most of what you know about DOS batch files also applies to Windows and
vice versa. There is little need to separate the discussions.

Roger that!

/Eirik

--
http://floppy.museum
~ love over gold ~


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

JJ wrote:

Whatever happened here, this is still an MS-DOS group. You can still
ask/post about MS-DOS batch file. It's at least, why I'm still here for.

Cool, then here's a question: I've been spending some (too much) time writing myself an "init"-type system of .bat files for my DOS machines. It's not as advanced as it might sound, but it allows me to keep config files for various NICs, sound cards and other hardware around, and then I copy the ones that apply to a given piece of hardware into the "active" directories for the hardware type, and it does its thing.

Now having seen some of the samples I've learned from, it occurs to me someone must have done something similar before, and re-inventing this particular
wheel may not be the best use of my time.

Has such a thing ever been done, and achieved any significant popularity? In other words, would there be such tools out there already, with a library of "driver wrappers" and such?

If not, and if there is any interest, I'd be happy to publish what I've got (some of it can be downloaded from the museum URL below).

Take care,
/Eirik

--
http://floppy.museum
~ love over gold ~


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 01:22:17 +0100, Eirik +verby wrote:

JJ wrote:

Whatever happened here, this is still an MS-DOS group. You can still >>ask/post about MS-DOS batch file. It's at least, why I'm still here for.

Cool, then here's a question: I've been spending some (too much) time writing myself an "init"-type system of .bat files for my DOS machines. It's not as advanced as it might sound, but it allows me to keep config files for various NICs, sound cards and other hardware around, and then I copy the ones that apply to a given piece of hardware into the "active" directories for the hardware type, and it does its thing.

Now having seen some of the samples I've learned from, it occurs to me someone
must have done something similar before, and re-inventing this particular wheel may not be the best use of my time.

Has such a thing ever been done, and achieved any significant popularity? In other words, would there be such tools out there already, with a library of "driver wrappers" and such?

If not, and if there is any interest, I'd be happy to publish what I've got (some of it can be downloaded from the museum URL below).

Take care,
/Eirik

I can't remember which, but I once used a DOS boot CD where its startup
script provides a menu to select which ATAPI/SCSI/USB CD-ROM driver to load. But that's only for CD-ROM. Not for multiple type of devices. And I haven't seen any boot media which include many type of devices and device models.

Driver configurations script would be useful as a reference when the driver documentation is not available. It'll act as a hint on how to properly use a specific driver, as some may require other driver to be loaded first. Aside from how to properly configure it.

Though, it'd be more useful if all of the drivers are included in the
package, as sometime is a pain to find driver for a specific device. While someone may already collected device drivers in one package, I doubt it includes the script(s) to load each of them.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 11:49:22 +0700
JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 01:22:17 +0100, Eirik +verby wrote:

JJ wrote:

Whatever happened here, this is still an MS-DOS group. You can still >>ask/post about MS-DOS batch file. It's at least, why I'm still here for.

Cool, then here's a question: I've been spending some (too much) time writing
myself an "init"-type system of .bat files for my DOS machines. It's not as advanced as it might sound, but it allows me to keep config files for various
NICs, sound cards and other hardware around, and then I copy the ones that apply to a given piece of hardware into the "active" directories for the hardware type, and it does its thing.

Now having seen some of the samples I've learned from, it occurs to me someone
must have done something similar before, and re-inventing this particular wheel may not be the best use of my time.

Has such a thing ever been done, and achieved any significant popularity? In
other words, would there be such tools out there already, with a library of "driver wrappers" and such?

If not, and if there is any interest, I'd be happy to publish what I've got (some of it can be downloaded from the museum URL below).

Take care,
/Eirik

I can't remember which, but I once used a DOS boot CD where its startup script provides a menu to select which ATAPI/SCSI/USB CD-ROM driver to load. But that's only for CD-ROM. Not for multiple type of devices. And I haven't seen any boot media which include many type of devices and device models.

Driver configurations script would be useful as a reference when the driver documentation is not available. It'll act as a hint on how to properly use a specific driver, as some may require other driver to be loaded first. Aside from how to properly configure it.

Though, it'd be more useful if all of the drivers are included in the package, as sometime is a pain to find driver for a specific device. While someone may already collected device drivers in one package, I doubt it includes the script(s) to load each of them.

If loading 'pure' '.sys' drivers, then one'd need config.sys's
rudimentary menu system (DOS6+) to select between them. Not really much
help for probing h/w and selecting the correct driver at that level.
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.msdos.batch

On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 00:56:27 +0100, Eirik +verby <ltning-september@redbench.floppy.museum> wrote:

But most of the talk here is about Windows batch files. Which, last I >checked, bears but a faint resemblance to MS-DOS .BAT files.

In my opinion, the resemblance is a lot more than faint. The Windows
NT enhancements are powerful and useful, but the majority of the
syntax is unchanged. MS-DOS batch files will usually work without
modification on a Windows NT based system.

Is this just how it has become, or is there some other group where
actual MS-DOS batch stuff is discussed?

It looks to me like alt.msdos.batch.nt was intended for the Windows NT
specific discussions, while this group was intended for pure MS-DOS.

Or alternatively, is all that is needed someone to ask/talk about it for
this group to reclaim its former glory? :)

Batch (and Usenet as well) is essentially a relic at this time. For productivity use, there are much better options available. A bit like
horses or classic cars: No longer useful, but interesting to some
people.

Either way, the posting volume these days is very low, so nobody's
complaining about slightly off-topic content, it seems.
--
RoRo
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2