11 Apr
2011
11 Apr
'11
10:02 p.m.
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
I had an experience similar to Liam's, where EDIT refused to run without
QBASIC being present.
However, I certainly can neither debate it, nor explain the difference
between your experience and the one that Liam and I had, because I do not
remember which version of MS-DOS (or PC-DOS?), whether it was EDIT.COM v
EDIT.EXE (nor
whether the first two bytes were or were not MZ), etc.
I asked the question, hoping that somebody else remembered, and knew the
history of why and what had changed in which versions.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
>>The EDIT.COM file is run in what seems like a
DOS box
>>under many Windows operating systems and has the same
>>(probably since it is actually the same identical file that I
>>am using - at least it says MS-DOS EDITOR V2.0.026)
>>commands in all systems.
THAT is very useful data, since it is now apparent that there are version
differences.
While all
interesting, I was aking about the intertwining of "EDIT" and
QBASIC, to the extent that EDIT wouldn't run without QBASIC being present.
As Liam mentioned, EDIT was piggy-backed on the QBASIC code.
I have never used
QBASIC, so EDIT was certainly not piggy-backed on the
QBASIC code -
unless I did not realize it was being done. And since I can be sure
which file is executing
is PATH is not used, then it must be EDIT.COM that is being executed.
I must be missing something in your explanation.