Premium CCleaner and Avast cleaner

Steve Hayes wrote:

XDEL could delete files in subdirectories, just as XCOPY copies files
in subdirectories eg if you are in the root directory and type

xdel *.tmp /s

it will remove all the .tmp files on that drive.

How is that different than using "del *.tmp /s"? If you don't want to
get prompted on each matching file when specifying a wildcarded filespec
then add the /q switch.

I don't know when the /s switch got added but was probably using it back
in Windows 95 (MS-DOS 7), perhaps earlier but MS/IBM-DOS pre-Windows is
too far back to remember (those memory paths long ago got repurposed).

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 17:30:28 +0200, Steve Hayes
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 22:05:20 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Steve Hayes wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:

Steve Hayes wrote:

I once used DR-DOS, which had an XDEL command, which did reach
directories at all levels, and that worked in Windows 98, but not
in Windows XP or later.

I remember DELTREE. Maybe that was somewhere else. 4DOS?

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/...ime-in-windows

Not needed in NT-based versions of Windows due to availability of
the 'rd' (or 'rmdir') command along with its /s switch to recurse
the directory hierarchy.

But is there an equivalent of xdel?

Without knowing what XDEL did (compared to to existing DOS/Windows
commands), I cannot tell you if there are equivalents included in
Windows (and I haven't played with MS/IBM-DOS for a couple decades).
I've not had occasion to use Caldera's DR-DOS although I know some
bootable floppy images used it for their OS under which some utility
program would load (rare few programmers still code in instruction code
targeting a specific CPU's instruction set).

XDEL could delete files in subdirectories, just as XCOPY copies files
in subdirectories

eg if you are in the root directory and type

xdel *.tmp /s

it will remove all the .tmp files on that drive.


Is that different from "del /s *.tmp" being run from a standard Command
Prompt in the root directory?

C:\Windows\System32del /?
Deletes one or more files.

DEL [/P] [/F] [/S] [/Q] [/A[[:]attributes]] names
ERASE [/P] [/F] [/S] [/Q] [/A[[:]attributes]] names

names Specifies a list of one or more files or directories.
Wildcards may be used to delete multiple files. If a
directory is specified, all files within the directory
will be deleted.

/P Prompts for confirmation before deleting each file.
/F Force deleting of read-only files.
/S Delete specified files from all subdirectories.
/Q Quiet mode, do not ask if ok to delete on global
wildcard
/A Selects files to delete based on attributes
attributes R Read-only files S System files
H Hidden files A Files ready for
archiving
I Not content indexed Files L Reparse Points
- Prefix meaning not

If Command Extensions are enabled DEL and ERASE change as follows:

The display semantics of the /S switch are reversed in that it shows
you only the files that are deleted, not the ones it could not find.

--

Char Jackson

In message , VanguardLH
writes:
Steve Hayes wrote:

XDEL could delete files in subdirectories, just as XCOPY copies files
in subdirectories eg if you are in the root directory and type

xdel *.tmp /s

it will remove all the .tmp files on that drive.

How is that different than using "del *.tmp /s"? If you don't want to
get prompted on each matching file when specifying a wildcarded filespec
then add the /q switch.

Perhaps one of them leaves the skeleton of (now empty) directories, but
the other removes those two?

I don't know when the /s switch got added but was probably using it back
in Windows 95 (MS-DOS 7), perhaps earlier but MS/IBM-DOS pre-Windows is
too far back to remember (those memory paths long ago got repurposed).

(Yes, I've been using it for a long time too.)

I also like to run RED (http://www.jonasjohn.de/red.htm) occasionally.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If this power [television] is ever brought to mechanical perfection, there is
little reason, except the desire to be gregarious, that anyone but a few
should go in person to any place of entertainment again. - BBC yearbook 1930

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

In message , VanguardLH
writes:
Steve Hayes wrote:

XDEL could delete files in subdirectories, just as XCOPY copies files
in subdirectories eg if you are in the root directory and type

xdel *.tmp /s

it will remove all the .tmp files on that drive.

How is that different than using "del *.tmp /s"? If you don't want to
get prompted on each matching file when specifying a wildcarded filespec
then add the /q switch.

Perhaps one of them leaves the skeleton of (now empty) directories, but
the other removes those two?

I previously mentioned the 'rd' (aka 'rmdir') command and it's /s switch
for recursion. It also has a /q switch to eliminate prompting on each
match if a wildcarded filespec is used.

In message , VanguardLH
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

In message , VanguardLH
writes:
Steve Hayes wrote:

XDEL could delete files in subdirectories, just as XCOPY copies files
in subdirectories eg if you are in the root directory and type

xdel *.tmp /s

it will remove all the .tmp files on that drive.

How is that different than using "del *.tmp /s"? If you don't want to
get prompted on each matching file when specifying a wildcarded filespec
then add the /q switch.

Perhaps one of them leaves the skeleton of (now empty) directories, but
the other removes those two?

I previously mentioned the 'rd' (aka 'rmdir') command and it's /s switch
for recursion. It also has a /q switch to eliminate prompting on each
match if a wildcarded filespec is used.

Yes, I thought there was something like that.

So, that still doesn't answer (looks back: it was you asking!) how xdel
differs from del.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If this power [television] is ever brought to mechanical perfection, there is
little reason, except the desire to be gregarious, that anyone but a few
should go in person to any place of entertainment again. - BBC yearbook 1930

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:24:56 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Steve Hayes wrote:

XDEL could delete files in subdirectories, just as XCOPY copies files
in subdirectories eg if you are in the root directory and type

xdel *.tmp /s

it will remove all the .tmp files on that drive.

How is that different than using "del *.tmp /s"? If you don't want to
get prompted on each matching file when specifying a wildcarded filespec
then add the /q switch.

I don't know when the /s switch got added but was probably using it back
in Windows 95 (MS-DOS 7), perhaps earlier but MS/IBM-DOS pre-Windows is
too far back to remember (those memory paths long ago got repurposed).

Well I didn't know it had been added until I read this.

Problem solved. Thanks.


--
Steve Hayes
http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://khanya.wordpress.com

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 22:13:49 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , VanguardLH
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:

In message , VanguardLH
writes:
Steve Hayes wrote:

XDEL could delete files in subdirectories, just as XCOPY copies files
in subdirectories eg if you are in the root directory and type

xdel *.tmp /s

it will remove all the .tmp files on that drive.

How is that different than using "del *.tmp /s"? If you don't want to
get prompted on each matching file when specifying a wildcarded filespec
then add the /q switch.

Perhaps one of them leaves the skeleton of (now empty) directories, but
the other removes those two?

I previously mentioned the 'rd' (aka 'rmdir') command and it's /s switch
for recursion. It also has a /q switch to eliminate prompting on each
match if a wildcarded filespec is used.

Yes, I thought there was something like that.

So, that still doesn't answer (looks back: it was you asking!) how xdel
differs from del.

Apparently it doesn't any more.

But at the time xdel was introduced, it differed in that it could
recurse subdirectories.

There was also a dos utility called global.com which could make any
command recurse subdirectories, but since del can now do it on its
own, it's probably not needed any more.


--
Steve Hayes
http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://khanya.wordpress.com