Would it be feasible to throw together an "@ECHO.COM" application which would manually execute a normal "ECHO OFF" line if the DOS version is below 3.3 and simply terminate otherwise? The only caveat to this is that I''m not 100% certain that a command executed from within a .COM file from within a batch file like this would work back "upstream" and turn ECHOes off for the rest of the original batch file.
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ------- Original Message ------- On Friday, February 25th, 2022 at 8:54 PM, Bret Johnson <bretj...@juno.com> wrote: > This question is more about DOS in general than specifically about FreeDOS. > But, there are enough experienced and creative users around FreeDOS that > someone may be able to help me come up with a solution. > > I have a large set of DOS environments I use for testing. Basically, I have a > bunch of different versions of DOS that I can boot to (MS-DOS, PC-DOS, > FreeDOS, DR-DOS, from versions 3.0 to the latest of each). DOS versions 1 & 2 > were so lackluster that I don't bother even testing with them. I have a copy > of the commercial program called System Commander which allows me to install > and boot all these different versions of DOS from a single partition on a > hard drive. I know there are other ways to accomplish the same feat, but I > bought a copy of System Commander a long time ago so that is what I use. > > I have all these DOS's installed on a Virtual hard drive so that I can run > them in different Virtual Machines with different types of CPUs (from the > lowly 8088 all the way up to modern CPUs). Again, this is a test environment > so that as I write programs I can verify they work whenever and wherever > they're supposed to. > > On the Virtual hard drive part of what System Commander does as you boot is > "restore" the hidden boot files (IO.SYS & MSDOS.SYS for MS-DOS, IBMBIO.COM & > IBMDOS.COM for PC- and DR-DOS, or KERNEL.SYS for FreeDOS), along with the > COMMAND.COM, CONFIG.SYS, and AUTOEXEC.BAT files so that the virtual machine > boots with the correct test environment. > > The problem is that the older versions of DOS don't work exactly like the > newer versions, particularly when it comes to batch files. For example, prior > to DOS version 3.3 you couldn't CALL one batch file from another, and also > prior to DOS version 3.3 you couldn't use the @ symbol at the beginning of a > line in a batch file to hide the output of the line (sort of similar to what > happens with the ECHO OFF you normally put at the beginning of batch files > but the @ symbol only works for a single line instead of the entire batch > file like ECHO OFF does). > > So, I have a relatively short AUTOEXEC.BAT file set up for each OS I boot, > which is unique to each OS. The main thing this small AUTOEXEC.BAT does is > set up some environment variables to identify the OS that booted which can be > used later in other batch files. At the end of the "simple" AUTOEXEC.BAT > file, I then jump to a "master" AUTOEXEC.BAT file that is common to all the > booted DOS's. Because each version of DOS is a little different, the "master" > AUTOEXEC.BAT file needs to do some "IF-THEN" scenarios based on which version > of DOS is running. I want the overall environment to be pretty much the same > (as much as I can, anyway) no matter which DOS is running. Having a "master" > AUTOEXEC.BAT file lets me make most of my changes in one common place instead > of needing to do the same thing a bunch of different times for each DOS > version. > > One problem I haven't figured out how to handle correctly is the ECHO OFF vs > @ECHO OFF issue. In older versions of MS- and PC-DOS (prior to version 3.3), > and all versions of DR-DOS, the "@ECHO OFF" command does not work at the > beginning of batch files. You need to use a simple "ECHO OFF" instead. If > they see an "@ECHO OFF" they display an "unknown command" error (it tries to > find an executable files called "@ECHO"). I'm trying to figure out a way for > all the "common" batch files (all batch files other than the small > AUTOEXEC.BAT file) to detect whether they can put the "@" at the beginning of > the line or not to keep the screen from getting unnecessarily cluttered and > confusing. I cannot figure out a way to do this. I'll go through some of the > things I've tried (to no avail -- the all put "unnecessary stuff on the > screen). > > I've tried creating an ECHO environment variable. With older versions of DOS: > > SET ECHO=ECHO OFF > > and with newer versions of DOS: > > SET ECHO=@ECHO OFF > > then at the beginning of all batch files I put a: > > %ECHO% > > That works with older versions of DOS but not newer versions. With newer > versions, it sees the "%" at the beginning of the line instead of the "@" and > looks for an executable file called "@ECHO" instead of seeing the "@" as the > "hide this line" character. > > Another option would be to create an actual @ECHO.BAT file and always put an > @ECHO as the first line of all batch files, but that won't work either. The > "@ECHO OFF" line will show up on the screen (which is what I'm trying to > avoid), and in addition you must CALL the @ECHO.BAT file instead of just > running it. And you can't use CALL in older version of DOS. > > I've also thought of trying to use aliases/macros with ANSI or DOSKEY (or > clones of those) but that won't work either. ANSI will only create > aliases/macros for single characters (not entire words like ECHO or @ECHO), > and DOSKEY (or a clone) macros only work at the > > command-line and not in batch files. Something like aliases in FreeDOS or > 4DOS might work (I'm not sure), but that defeats the purpose of the testing > which requires "native" DOS versions. > > I'm stumped. Right new it seems as if my only viable option is to always use > "ECHO OFF" instead of "@ECHO OFF" and just live with the cluttered screens in > later versions of DOS even though they could be avoided if I wasn't trying to > boot so many old DOS's on the same machine. > > I realize this is a minor issues in the grand scheme of things, but would > still like to figure out a solution if there is one. It's also interesting > when you experiment with the different DOS's to see what kinds of > compatibility issues there are. I've found DR-DOS isn't nearly as compatible > with MS-DOS as it's supposed to be. I've also heard/read that MS-DOS and > PC-DOS were for all practical purposes exactly the same up through version > 6.1, but I've found that not to be true either. From a compatibility > perspective, FreeDOS is actually pretty good (not perfect, but definitely > better than DR-DOS). > > Anyway, any other ideas on how to resolve the ECHO/@ECHO issue? > > _______________________________________________ > > Freedos-user mailing list > > Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
