2 ms·

Indeed. I first encountered DOS in the 3.2-ish days. I'm pretty sure the manual did not include 'net' or 'ipconfig'... But the current Windows command line tha

• seabee 15y ago
  But there is no reason why it should look so ugly in 2011. Linux and OS X have much nicer versions of DOS, although I don't know why they removed the 'dir' command... </s>
  • voyou 15y ago
    The problem here is using "cmd.exe". powershell.exe (see http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb978526.aspx http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb978526.aspx) is really a very nice shell (and I believe it supports "dir").
    • cubicle67 15y ago
      I'm a regular Linux/OSX user, but recently needed to do some Windows work. I heard the same things about powershell (powerfull, very nice, just like the ones I'm used to) It's not. It's limited and it looks ugly as hell. Hated it. Please stop telling people it's good (but yes, it does support both ls and dir (but strangely there were a few things I could do in cmd that I couldn't do in powershell (can't remember what now though)))
    • MrKurtHaeusler 15y ago
      I tried powershell. Seems like a lot to learn before it is actually better than cmd. I mostly just use cygwin's bash as my cli on windows.
    • eropple 15y ago
      Powershell doesn't solve the biggest problem of dealing with cmd.exe: it's still cmd.exe. It's still running in an identical, terrible, interface. Compare the environment in which it runs to iTerm2 on OS X or even gnome-terminal, and it's sadly, sadly ineffective. Hell, my SSH client is a better "console" than the wrapper around cmd.exe/powershell. (And at times I've used it as such, installing cygwin and sshd solely so I could get a sane console in something that wasn't cmd.exe or rxvt.) The difference between the Windows console and the a Unix one is that you can't fix the Windows console. Some programs, i.e. Console, try, but the Windows CLI is buried way too deeply in CSRSS and ends up depending so tightly on the crap you see exposed in cmd.exe that attempts to build something better have largely failed.
      • rix0r 15y ago
        Actually, you just mean the console, not cmd.exe. cmd.exe is just an command interpreter (like bash) that needs a console/terminal (like xterm) just as any other CLI application does. In other words, is not cmd.exe that sucks, but the Windows console. If Microsoft improved the console, cmd would immediately become nicer to use (though still hobbled by an inane scripting language). </pedantry>
        • eropple 15y ago
          No--cmd.exe is very tightly tied to the underlying command line infrastructure. This is a large part of why alternatives such as Console are so bad--they can only access the command interpreter and infrastructure as a stream, which rules our most character-mode applications. (Cygwin/rxvt get around this by not using the Windows infrastructure at all; curses can be built for Windows and works in cmd.exe, but character-mode code written for cmd.exe will break hard in rxvt.) Sadly, for most definitions, cmd.exe is the console and the interpreter.
  • joshu 15y ago
    nicer versions of DOS?
    • lambda_cube 15y ago
      It's a joke, he/she is playing ignorant for humorous purposes. I smiled. :)
  • MrKurtHaeusler 15y ago
    debian still seems to have "dir". It is an actual binary executable too, and not a script, alias, symlink or builtin like I thought it was.