Re: Alternative to rar split files?
- From: Rikishi 42 <skunkworks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:02:47 +0100
On 2007-10-30, Uwe Grauer <unews@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Any arguments why type can't be used or why copy should be saver?type file2 >> file1
type file3 >> file1
Type is usually used for viewing text files, similar to more. Either of
these would possibly be the better choice:
copy /b file1+file2+file3+file4 complete.file
or
copy /b file* complete.file
None.
It used to matter, a *very* long time ago. I remember from my first PC (DOS
2.40) that the TYPE command was only used for text files. It would show
binary files, until it hit a char 26, which was used as EOF marker in text
files. That's where the /b option of the COPY command comes from. You had to
use it, if you wanted a binary copy.
That's no longer true since at least DOS 5.x, probably 3.x.
But as you can see - even from my posts - old habits don't die. I'm still
putting the /b after COPY, knowing perfectly it's pointless. :-)
--
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying.
The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
Douglas Adams
.
- References:
- Alternative to rar split files?
- From: Luca
- Re: Alternative to rar split files?
- From: Stephen Chadfield
- Re: Alternative to rar split files?
- From: Luca
- Re: Alternative to rar split files?
- From: Uwe Grauer
- Re: Alternative to rar split files?
- From: David Bolt
- Re: Alternative to rar split files?
- From: Uwe Grauer
- Alternative to rar split files?
- Prev by Date: Re: Pico on OpenSuse 10.3??
- Next by Date: Re: HP Photosmart not found
- Previous by thread: Re: Alternative to rar split files?
- Next by thread: Re: Alternative to rar split files?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|