Batch+ is basically Batch with a whole bunch of extra commands to make it 10x more powerful.
These commands will all be released so you can just use them with normal Batch projects.
Here are the commands so far:
CURSOR
PRINTCOLOR
WAIT
WINDOW
MSGBOX
COMPI
It won't let me put more than two URL's so I uploaded a list here.
CURSOR toggles the visibility of the console cursor. That little flashing input line that shows you where you're typing.
PRINTCOLOR, as you've seen the thread, lets you draw images with console-space pixels.
WAIT pauses the script for a specified number of intervals.
WINDOW creates basic text windows, not very useful but a neat tool.
MSGBOX obviously displays a message box. This actually is still being worked on to make it more advanced. Such as I need to make it where you can set the type of message box, buttons, text, and title. Also it DOES return the value of the button you pressed so you can make advanced Batch codes with this. MSGBOX is kind of revolutionary. Because you can actually get user input in a new way, without cross-coding or file transfers.
COMPI will be used to compile your .BAT or .CMD files to .COM files.
I will get downloads up when they are done.
Suggest any command and I will work on it.
I WILL take all commands and try my best with each one. Think of this as a way to get free stuff.
Batch+ Project
Moderator: DosItHelp
Re: Batch+ Project
nitt wrote:CURSOR toggles the visibility of the console cursor. That little flashing input line that shows you where you're typing.
Add switches to set the cursor to each position on the window.
nitt wrote:PRINTCOLOR, as you've seen the thread, lets you draw images with console-space pixels.
Hmm, add the possibility to write text in different colors (back- and foreground colors).
nitt wrote:WAIT pauses the script for a specified number of intervals.
On the right hand it can be done with ping. On the left hand you can download wait.exe or sleep.exe from M$ resource kit.
nitt wrote:WINDOW creates basic text windows, not very useful but a neat tool.
Creates a HTA file, but doesn't work for me. I tried your example command line but it results in an empty window with the following source text:
Code: Select all
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type></HEAD>
<BODY></BODY></HTML>
nitt wrote:MSGBOX obviously displays a message box. This actually is still being worked on to make it more advanced. Such as I need to make it where you can set the type of message box, buttons, text, and title. Also it DOES return the value of the button you pressed so you can make advanced Batch codes with this. MSGBOX is kind of revolutionary. Because you can actually get user input in a new way, without cross-coding or file transfers.
Currently not in your list.
But what is it good for? Batch has a console window. All you can do with a message box can also be done by ECHO, SET /P or CHOICE.
nitt wrote:COMPI will be used to compile your .BAT or .CMD files to .COM files.
Currently not in your list.
As I told you before: It is NOT POSSIBLE to COMPILE a batch code and it is not NOT POSSIBLE to create a real 16 Bit .com executable from a batch code! Please learn how a compiler works and what a .com file is before telling us you could do that.
Regards
aGerman
Re: Batch+ Project
aGerman wrote:nitt wrote:CURSOR toggles the visibility of the console cursor. That little flashing input line that shows you where you're typing.
Add switches to set the cursor to each position on the window.nitt wrote:PRINTCOLOR, as you've seen the thread, lets you draw images with console-space pixels.
Hmm, add the possibility to write text in different colors (back- and foreground colors).nitt wrote:WAIT pauses the script for a specified number of intervals.
On the right hand it can be done with ping. On the left hand you can download wait.exe or sleep.exe from M$ resource kit.nitt wrote:WINDOW creates basic text windows, not very useful but a neat tool.
Creates a HTA file, but doesn't work for me. I tried your example command line but it results in an empty window with the following source text:Code: Select all
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type></HEAD>
<BODY></BODY></HTML>nitt wrote:MSGBOX obviously displays a message box. This actually is still being worked on to make it more advanced. Such as I need to make it where you can set the type of message box, buttons, text, and title. Also it DOES return the value of the button you pressed so you can make advanced Batch codes with this. MSGBOX is kind of revolutionary. Because you can actually get user input in a new way, without cross-coding or file transfers.
Currently not in your list.
But what is it good for? Batch has a console window. All you can do with a message box can also be done by ECHO, SET /P or CHOICE.nitt wrote:COMPI will be used to compile your .BAT or .CMD files to .COM files.
Currently not in your list.
As I told you before: It is NOT POSSIBLE to COMPILE a batch code and it is not NOT POSSIBLE to create a real 16 Bit .com executable from a batch code! Please learn how a compiler works and what a .com file is before telling us you could do that.
Regards
aGerman
*sigh*
All of this has been explained already but you refuse to listen. A lot of this is just you bashing and ranting. Not really even going to give word on it.
I do like the idea of the CURSOR command also being able to set the cursor's position. I may work on that.
And I'm working on a command that sets the background color of the selection...
DONE! You can now use the "/p" switch to set the cursor's position.
-
orange_batch
- Expert
- Posts: 442
- Joined: 01 Aug 2010 17:13
- Location: Canadian Pacific
- Contact:
Re: Batch+ Project
Thanks for your efforts nitt. I do have a request, not sure of the possibility though. Maybe your cursor utility would work but I can't test it just yet. Edit: Testing these now, I see my request should be possible seeing how the console is overwriting itself. 
Whenever I do any amount of echo whatevers, I always add a blank echo after so the next echo whatevers I do are spaced nicely. This also leaves a space at the bottom of the console window once it starts to scroll.
But once the window starts to scroll, when I do set /p "var=Input: ", it's stuck against the bottom of the window and doesn't look so nice. Is it possible to make a command that can be executed beforehand, that would be like doing echo twice, but then pulls the line position back up two lines?
Like... doing set /p "var=Input: " normally, the output:
And with a command that could do what I said, like suffixline then set /p "var=Input: "...
Also, just wondering but is it possible for any of these programs to not be reliant on any .NET framework? If you can't do my request without .NET, I'm afraid it might be useless to me...
Whenever I do any amount of echo whatevers, I always add a blank echo after so the next echo whatevers I do are spaced nicely. This also leaves a space at the bottom of the console window once it starts to scroll.
But once the window starts to scroll, when I do set /p "var=Input: ", it's stuck against the bottom of the window and doesn't look so nice. Is it possible to make a command that can be executed beforehand, that would be like doing echo twice, but then pulls the line position back up two lines?
Like... doing set /p "var=Input: " normally, the output:
Code: Select all
Input: _And with a command that could do what I said, like suffixline then set /p "var=Input: "...
Code: Select all
Input: _
Also, just wondering but is it possible for any of these programs to not be reliant on any .NET framework? If you can't do my request without .NET, I'm afraid it might be useless to me...
Last edited by orange_batch on 29 May 2011 16:44, edited 3 times in total.
Re: Batch+ Project
XP initially was distributed without .net so any apps requiring it are per definition incompatible !
Many people are not going to install .net just because an app requires it.
Many people are not going to install .net just because an app requires it.
Re: Batch+ Project
Ed Dyreen wrote:XP initially was distributed without .net so any apps requiring it are per definition incompatible !
Many people are not going to install .net just because an app requires it.
Isn't it like SP1 that has .NET framework in it?
Re: Batch+ Project
No, not in any servicepacks, installed seperately, distributed as '.NET Framework'. Takes longer to install than XP 
I am pretty sure nitt, the project you asked I was working on ?
It's an unattended for XP with all that on it.
I am pretty sure nitt, the project you asked I was working on ?
It's an unattended for XP with all that on it.
Re: Batch+ Project
Ed Dyreen wrote:No, not in any servicepacks, installed seperately, distributed as '.NET Framework'. Takes longer to install than XP
I am pretty sure nitt, the project you asked I was working on ?
It's an unattended for XP with all that on it.
I don't get what you're saying. If you are complaining that some computer don't have .NET, then I might as well quit the whole project because Linux doesn't have CMD.
-
Cleptography
- Posts: 287
- Joined: 16 Mar 2011 19:17
- Location: scriptingpros.com
- Contact:
Re: Batch+ Project
...and windows doesn't have bash...well kind of. DOS batch projects are just useless in general cmd.exe is dead they mine as will throw it in the way back machine. Time to move up to Powershell, so much more useful.
Re: Batch+ Project
Cleptography wrote:...and windows doesn't have bash...well kind of. DOS batch projects are just useless in general cmd.exe is dead they mine as will throw it in the way back machine. Time to move up to Powershell, so much more useful.
Ubuntu and Windows 7 are the only good operating systems (I managed to get both on my laptop
). If you use anything else, you seriously need to upgrade.Re: Batch+ Project
@nitt
Who's complaining ?, I'm answering a question. your question.
@Cleptography
What makes the Power in Powershell ? U probably mean less useless as CMD. It depends on the situation.
@nitt
O man... I can't take it anymore! STOP you're killin me 
No really nitt come on, most modern devices that need to be fail proof run a linux.
Many devices like DVD-players decoders cell-phones, they use modified versions of the Linux kernel. Many Linux distributions have been released based upon the Linux kernel.
So Ubuntu runs just as good or bad as any other linux using the same kernel.
The need to update is subjective:
No I never update, because I don't see the advantage.
Yes I always update, sometimes it is causing me problems, but people say it's a good thing.
No I can't update, It would be to costly to rewrite the software we currently use. etc..
How old are you ? this is rhetoric.
So does my Intel386sx also need to update to 7
ps: buidyear 1981, Germany
I don't get what you're saying. If you are complaining that some computer don't have .NET, then I might as well quit the whole project because Linux doesn't have CMD.
Who's complaining ?, I'm answering a question. your question.
Isn't it like SP1 that has .NET framework in it?
@Cleptography
Time to move up to Powershell, so much more useful.
What makes the Power in Powershell ? U probably mean less useless as CMD. It depends on the situation.
@nitt
Ubuntu and Windows 7 are the only good operating systems (I managed to get both on my laptop
O man... I can't take it anymore! STOP you're killin me No really nitt come on, most modern devices that need to be fail proof run a linux.
Many devices like DVD-players decoders cell-phones, they use modified versions of the Linux kernel. Many Linux distributions have been released based upon the Linux kernel.
So Ubuntu runs just as good or bad as any other linux using the same kernel.
The need to update is subjective:
No I never update, because I don't see the advantage.
Yes I always update, sometimes it is causing me problems, but people say it's a good thing.
No I can't update, It would be to costly to rewrite the software we currently use. etc..
How old are you ? this is rhetoric.
So does my Intel386sx also need to update to 7
ps: buidyear 1981, Germany
Last edited by Ed Dyreen on 29 May 2011 23:51, edited 2 times in total.
-
orange_batch
- Expert
- Posts: 442
- Joined: 01 Aug 2010 17:13
- Location: Canadian Pacific
- Contact:
Re: Batch+ Project
The majority of users still use Windows XP at 41%, myself included. My computer is circa 2004 and when I installed Windows 7, I lost a lot of functionality due to insufficient drivers. I should buy a new computer, but I can't afford it and don't have much of a need to. Granted Windows 7 is great and has much more than XP, but XP actually still outperforms it on average.
Ignoring all that, so is it impossible to program this stuff without .NET? Just to reassure you, it's not installed with Windows nor does it come in any service packs.
Ignoring all that, so is it impossible to program this stuff without .NET? Just to reassure you, it's not installed with Windows nor does it come in any service packs.
-
Cleptography
- Posts: 287
- Joined: 16 Mar 2011 19:17
- Location: scriptingpros.com
- Contact:
Re: Batch+ Project
@ Ed
What makes the Power in Powershell, I hope you are kidding. I respect very much your ideas Ed as your solutions have proved quite useful on these forms, but this is beyond me.
less useless "as" "than", meaning that both are useless but one more than the either...?
Depending on the situation, no in every situation. The fact that now Powershell ships natively with newer version of Windows will inevitably make cmd useless. Powershell is what linux has been doing for years Mr. Billy Gates just finally caught up with the times, or should I say they finally have a developer Mr. Jeffrey Snover who has created something beautiful. Ability to create your own web dialect, parsing capabilities, cross coding capabilities. I mean even compared to vbscript one or two lines of powershell will do what would take quadruple the amount in vb. Being able to incorporate c# etc... etc... Where is the Power in Powershell, well it is not in the program itself but in the hands of the person using it.
Ed Dyreen wrote:What makes the Power in Powershell ? U probably mean less useless as CMD. It depends on the situation.
What makes the Power in Powershell, I hope you are kidding. I respect very much your ideas Ed as your solutions have proved quite useful on these forms, but this is beyond me.
less useless "as" "than", meaning that both are useless but one more than the either...?
Depending on the situation, no in every situation. The fact that now Powershell ships natively with newer version of Windows will inevitably make cmd useless. Powershell is what linux has been doing for years Mr. Billy Gates just finally caught up with the times, or should I say they finally have a developer Mr. Jeffrey Snover who has created something beautiful. Ability to create your own web dialect, parsing capabilities, cross coding capabilities. I mean even compared to vbscript one or two lines of powershell will do what would take quadruple the amount in vb. Being able to incorporate c# etc... etc... Where is the Power in Powershell, well it is not in the program itself but in the hands of the person using it.
Re: Batch+ Project
I admit whenever I hear powershell, I get this allergic reaction, wanting to avoid it.
Maybe due to the fact they introduced it in bad times, the vista times, how was it called again the monad project. I heard alot of bad things about it back then.
You are absolutely right !
Maybe due to the fact they introduced it in bad times, the vista times, how was it called again the monad project. I heard alot of bad things about it back then.
You are absolutely right !
Last edited by Ed Dyreen on 30 May 2011 01:12, edited 1 time in total.
-
Cleptography
- Posts: 287
- Joined: 16 Mar 2011 19:17
- Location: scriptingpros.com
- Contact:
Re: Batch+ Project
lol just like everything that Microsoft puts out there we may not like it but we eventually give into it.