4DOS's DIR command in Win98

4DOS's DIR command in Win98

Post by Tom Ha » Thu, 20 Aug 1998 04:00:00



I have for many years used a variety of aliases to format output from the 4DOS
DIR command.

I just got a new machine that has Win98 installed on it, and I'm finding that
none of my 4DOS aliases for DIR appear to work -- I seem to get nothing but
the bare bones of directory information, and it's never formatted -- I get one
column or two column output, neither of which bears any resemblance to the
appearance of those command outputs on my old machine (Win3.1/MS-DOS 6.22).

There are _many_ other problems with the new box (I *hate* Win98, btw), but
this is one particularly annoying problem. Any help would be most appreciated.

Tom

--
Remove '.spoo' before replying via e-mail

 
 
 

4DOS's DIR command in Win98

Post by Jay Sag » Fri, 21 Aug 1998 04:00:00


Is it possible that you have a different file system (e.g., FAT32 vs.
FAT)?  I did not read the help file for DIR very carefully just now, but
I did notice that it speaks of different defaults depending on the kind
of file system.

Also, have you tried entering the DIR command lines manually to see if
they do what they are supposed to?

-- Jay Sage

 
 
 

4DOS's DIR command in Win98

Post by Edwin Delsman en Fleur Hondiu » Fri, 21 Aug 1998 04:00:00



>I have for many years used a variety of aliases to format output from the
4DOS
>DIR command.

>I just got a new machine that has Win98 installed on it, and I'm finding
that
>none of my 4DOS aliases for DIR appear to work -- I seem to get nothing but
>the bare bones of directory information, and it's never formatted -- I get
one
>column or two column output, neither of which bears any resemblance to the
>appearance of those command outputs on my old machine (Win3.1/MS-DOS 6.22).

You wouldn't by any chance be using environent variables in your aliases
that you forgot to set on your new OS? Or do you aliases rely on short
filename layouts? In that case, try adding /Z to your aliases to force FAT
format.

Otherwise, if you want any help, at least post your aliases and the results
you'd like to get from them!

 
 
 

4DOS's DIR command in Win98

Post by Tom Ha » Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:00:00



Quote:>Is it possible that you have a different file system (e.g., FAT32 vs.
>FAT)?  I did not read the help file for DIR very carefully just now, but
>I did notice that it speaks of different defaults depending on the kind
>of file system.

>Also, have you tried entering the DIR command lines manually to see if
>they do what they are supposed to?

Yes, I think the FAT32 makes the difference. I think I've solved the problem
now.

Thanks to all who replied.

Tom

--
Remove '.spoo' before replying via e-mail

 
 
 

4DOS's DIR command in Win98

Post by Entil-z » Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:00:00




Quote:>Yes, I think the FAT32 makes the difference. I think I've solved the problem
>now.

For what it's worth, 4DOS doesn't care if you're using FAT12, FAT16,
FAT32 or FAT32X as the drive's filing system.  What makes the
difference is whether or not the operating system supports long
filenames.  This has a definite effect on DIR listings.

My $0.02.

 
 
 

4DOS's DIR command in Win98

Post by Martin Whittake » Sat, 22 Aug 1998 04:00:00





> >Yes, I think the FAT32 makes the difference. I think I've solved the problem
> >now.

> For what it's worth, 4DOS doesn't care if you're using FAT12, FAT16,
> FAT32 or FAT32X as the drive's filing system.  What makes the
> difference is whether or not the operating system supports long
> filenames.  This has a definite effect on DIR listings.

> My $0.02.

Can you explain further?  You would not be using 16-bit DOS, Win3, or
Win95 in a FAT32X partition.  16-bit DOS' cannot read FAT32 or FAT32X.
So, what are you trying to say?

FAT32(x) partitioned directories in W95/98 confuses 4DOS? (DOS
version(s)).  I think that was the original complaint.


 
 
 

4DOS's DIR command in Win98

Post by Edwin Delsman en Fleur Hondiu » Sun, 23 Aug 1998 04:00:00






>> >Yes, I think the FAT32 makes the difference. I think I've solved the
problem
>> >now.

>> For what it's worth, 4DOS doesn't care if you're using FAT12, FAT16,
>> FAT32 or FAT32X as the drive's filing system.  What makes the
>> difference is whether or not the operating system supports long
>> filenames.  This has a definite effect on DIR listings.

>> My $0.02.

>Can you explain further?  You would not be using 16-bit DOS, Win3, or
>Win95 in a FAT32X partition.  16-bit DOS' cannot read FAT32 or FAT32X.
>So, what are you trying to say?

I think he means to say that any file system using long file names (such as
NTFS, HPFS, and so on would give the same output, and all non-LFN
filesystems would still produce the old layout. For instance, if you have a
networked environement you might encounter both kinds of behaviour on
different volumes. You could get the LFN behaviour on Novell, Win NT4, OS2,
...

Quote:

>FAT32(x) partitioned directories in W95/98 confuses 4DOS? (DOS
>version(s)).  I think that was the original complaint.

FAT32 does not 'confuse' 4dos. 4dos is adjusting to behaviour expected of
LFN supporting file systems. The complaint was that he didn't like it, but
hey, you can have whatever you want if you make your aliases right.

Edwin Delsman to the rescue

 
 
 

4DOS's DIR command in Win98

Post by Entil-z » Sun, 23 Aug 1998 04:00:00


My comment addressed (or at least tried to address) the original
poster's complaint that the output of his DIR commands was different
now that he is using Win98 as his OS.

Someone else posted a follow-up message suggesting that it might be a
result of the user's new drive being formatted with FAT32.

My message was intended to debunk this idea before the user went too
far.  (God forbid that he might have completely reformatted his drive
to fix this DIR "problem.")  Since the output of the DIR command has
nothing whatsoever to do with the structure of the file allocation
table(s), the original poster should be looking for a simpler
solution.  Naturally, the answer is to alter his alias(es) for
directory listings.

Sorry for any confusion generated on my part.

 
 
 

4DOS's DIR command in Win98

Post by Norman L. DeFore » Wed, 26 Aug 1998 04:00:00


: I have for many years used a variety of aliases to format output from the 4DOS
: DIR command.

: I just got a new machine that has Win98 installed on it, and I'm finding that
: none of my 4DOS aliases for DIR appear to work -- I seem to get nothing but
: the bare bones of directory information, and it's never formatted -- I get one
: column or two column output, neither of which bears any resemblance to the
: appearance of those command outputs on my old machine (Win3.1/MS-DOS 6.22).

: There are _many_ other problems with the new box (I *hate* Win98, btw), but
: this is one particularly annoying problem. Any help would be most appreciated.

: Tom

I used to have the use of a Windows 95 machine and found this annoying at
times -- especially when the directory being listed had no long names.

My solution was to create TWO shortcuts to 4DOS.  The first ran 4DOS
normally with long filename support.  For the second shortcut, I changed
the properties to disable support for long filenames.

From memory so this will not be exact:

1. I right clicked on the shortcut and selected "Properties" from
   the menu that popped up.

2. Searching through all of the settings, I found one setting that
   would instruct Windows 95 to lie to the DOS programme about it's
   capabilities.  I am not sure if the option was to lie about long
   filename support or lie completely about whether the programme is
   running under Windows.  In any case, selecting the option to lie to
   the DOS programme provided me with a shortcut to 4DOS that would
   use short filenames only.

I labelled one shortcut "4DOS LFN" and the other one "4DOS SHORT"
and then chose the one that was most suitable for the job at hand.

--

http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html    (A Speech Friendly Site)
.........................................................................
"I'd offer to change your mind for you, but I don't have a fresh diaper."
                     -- Leah to pro-spammer in news.admin.net-abuse.email
.........................................................................
Spammers, see:      http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html#Contact
Spammees, see:             http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Antispam.html

 
 
 

4DOS's DIR command in Win98

Post by Norman L. DeFore » Thu, 27 Aug 1998 04:00:00





: > : I have for many years used a variety of aliases to format output from the
: > : 4DOS DIR command.
: >
: > : I just got a new machine that has Win98 installed on it, and I'm finding
: > : that none of my 4DOS aliases for DIR appear to work -- I seem to get
: > : nothing but the bare bones of directory information, and it's never
: > : formatted -- I get one column or two column output, neither of which
: > : bears any resemblance to the appearance of those command outputs on my
: > : old machine (Win3.1/MS-DOS 6.22).
: >
: > : There are _many_ other problems with the new box (I *hate* Win98, btw),
: > : but this is one particularly annoying problem. Any help would be most
: > : appreciated.
: >
: >
: > I used to have the use of a Windows 95 machine and found this annoying at
: > times -- especially when the directory being listed had no long names.
: >
: > My solution was to create TWO shortcuts to 4DOS.  The first ran 4DOS
: > normally with long filename support.  For the second shortcut, I changed
: > the properties to disable support for long filenames.
: >
: > From memory so this will not be exact:
: >
: > 1. I right clicked on the shortcut and selected "Properties" from
: > ...............

: Why not simply use the /z parameter on DIR, to use the old FAT format?

For two reasons:

1. The /z parameter forced short names to be displayed but the directory
   display *still* wasn't always the same as seen with the short name
   version.  Some switch combinations didn't work the same with long
   filename support even with the /z switch  (I think the justify names,
   /j  was one that gave me trouble but this was about two years
   ago so I can't be sure.  Whatever the problem with /z not acting
   exactly as though no long filename support was present, it may have
   been changed by now but I no longer have access to a Windows 95
   machine to test it.)

2. It was much more convenient when "foo" was some programme that couldn't
   handle long filenames, to be able to type at the command line:

      for %f in ( bar*.* ) do  foo %f

   instead of having to type:


   all of the time to force a short filename -- especially if I needed to
   run foo or some other programme with other parameters over and over.

      for %f in ( bar*.* ) do  change %f "old" "new"
      for %f in ( bar*.* ) do  change %f "cat" "dog"
      for %f in ( bar*.* ) do  change %f  26  ""
      for %f in ( bar*.* ) do  change %f  13,10  10
      for %f in ( bar*.* ) do  change %f  32,10  10
      for %f in ( bar*.* ) do  change %f  09,10  10

(Bonus points for those who know what the last four commands are for.)

--

http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html    (A Speech Friendly Site)
.........................................................................
"I'd offer to change your mind for you, but I don't have a fresh diaper."
                     -- Leah to pro-spammer in news.admin.net-abuse.email
.........................................................................
Spammers, see:      http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html#Contact
Spammees, see:             http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Antispam.html

 
 
 

4DOS's DIR command in Win98

Post by Edwin Delsman en Fleur Hondiu » Thu, 27 Aug 1998 04:00:00



>> Why not simply use the /z parameter on DIR, to use the old FAT format?

>For two reasons:

>1. The /z parameter forced short names to be displayed but the directory
>   display *still* wasn't always the same as seen with the short name
>   version.
>2. It was much more convenient when "foo" was some programme that couldn't
>   handle long filenames, to be able to type at the command line:

>      for %f in ( bar*.* ) do  foo %f

>   instead of having to type:



I'm using 4NT at the moment, so I can't check it, but I remember there was a
4dos.ini setting called Win95LFN or something like that. It enables you to
switch off long file name support.

That seems a lot less troublesome than letting Windows lie to DOS programs.

You could try starting a separate 4dos instance with a different ini file
that disables LFN support. Copy your 4dos.ini to SFN.ini, add Win95LFN=NO to

Edwin delsman.

ps. It seems you got my mail adress backward. Keeps gnimmaps to a minimum.

 
 
 

4DOS's DIR command in Win98

Post by Norman L. DeFore » Fri, 28 Aug 1998 04:00:00



[snip]
: I'm using 4NT at the moment, so I can't check it, but I remember there was a
: 4dos.ini setting called Win95LFN or something like that. It enables you to
: switch off long file name support.

: That seems a lot less troublesome than letting Windows lie to DOS programs.

: You could try starting a separate 4dos instance with a different ini file
: that disables LFN support. Copy your 4dos.ini to SFN.ini, add Win95LFN=NO to

: Edwin delsman.

: ps. It seems you got my mail adress backward. Keeps gnimmaps to a minimum.

Well, my solution worked for me and just required checking one box for
the shortcut properties but your tactic may be better.  I'll try to
remember it in case I ever get the use of a Windows 95 machine again.

Thanks.

--

http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html    (A Speech Friendly Site)
.........................................................................
"I'd offer to change your mind for you, but I don't have a fresh diaper."
                     -- Leah to pro-spammer in news.admin.net-abuse.email
.........................................................................
Spammers, see:      http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html#Contact
Spammees, see:             http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Antispam.html

 
 
 

4DOS's DIR command in Win98

Post by Norman L. DeFore » Mon, 31 Aug 1998 04:00:00




[snip]
: >       for %f in ( bar*.* ) do  change %f  26  ""
: >       for %f in ( bar*.* ) do  change %f  13,10  10
: >       for %f in ( bar*.* ) do  change %f  32,10  10
: >       for %f in ( bar*.* ) do  change %f  09,10  10
: >
: > (Bonus points for those who know what the last four commands are for.)

: strip eofmark (idiot systems that don't recognize eof in text files);
: crlf --> lf (dos --> unix);
: strip trailing blanks;
: strip trailing tabs;

: --

Full points!  I was going to send you a dancing girl as a prize but
the uuencoded transporter log wouldn't fit on my ISP's email system.
I'll have to limit myself to sending you a virtual pat on the back
instead.

--

http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html    (A Speech Friendly Site)
.........................................................................
"I'd offer to change your mind for you, but I don't have a fresh diaper."
                     -- Leah to pro-spammer in news.admin.net-abuse.email
.........................................................................
Spammers, see:      http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Profile.html#Contact
Spammees, see:             http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~af380/Antispam.html

 
 
 

1. bash, dir, command.com and recompiling ls under Win98 using DJGPP

I am considering compiling `ls` using DJGPP under DOS for the following
reason, and was wondering whether this was ultimately doomed to
failure....

Being sick of command.com, I have begun the switch to bash[1]. I've
seamlessly grafted it ( :) ) into my DJGPP tree, and all seems fine, apart
from two things:

1. the Win98 MS-DOS prompt is awful. Any alternatives welcomed. A Windows
   equivalent of an xterm would be good!

2. more on-topic, `dir` seems to be part of command.com, so I can't do
   either `dir` or `ls`, which is a bit of a nightmare. Do I need to get
   the whole of Cygwin to get `ls`? Or, and this is where DJGPP comes in,
   can I recompile `ls` from source using gcc under Win98 DOS?

Any advice welcome.

J-P

[1] Some might wonder why I'm not using my Linux partition. This is
largely because I want to upgrade to RedHat 7.0, and to do so requires a
lot of spare time and will have to wait till Christmas!

2. Kaypro 2000, Need DOS

3. Bug with 'dir' command in 4OS2

4. Intel PCCARD (PRO100/16) malfunction in OS/2

5. My NT installation wants '\' in the dir command

6. Fire GL and Win2000 problems?

7. Dos Network Redirector interface, peculiaraties of 'dir' command

8. help to get "Matlab" "turbo C++" "Corel Draw" and "Igor"

9. Bug with 'dir' command in 4OS2

10. Q: How can I get '4DOS' command 'dir' to do the same as 'Windows DOS7'?

11. REP: Q: How can I get '4DOS' command 'dir' to do the same as 'Windows DOS7

12. 4DOS and COMMAND.COM: 'FOR' incompatibility

13. Bug in Rev D of 4DOS - 'delay' command