You don’t need that 90 byte whereis program any more


Yes, you can write a whereis program in 90 bytes but Windows Server 2003 and Windows Vista both come with a version of WHERE.EXE, so you don't even need the batch file any more.

Comments (10)
  1. Anonymous says:

    It seems that <i>where</i> was written on the cheap too:

    C:> where

    ERROR: The operation completed successfully

  2. Anonymous says:

    And now, thanks to our friend the copy command, so does my XP machine :)

    @David

    Is that Vista? On Server 2003 I get:

    C:>where

    ERROR: Invalid syntax

    Type "WHERE /?" for usage help.

  3. Vista SP1:

    where

    ERROR: The operation completed successfully.

    Type "WHERE /?" for usage help.

  4. MadQ says:

    Now try

    C:>where where

    for enlightenment.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Neat, but still *far* from my infinitely-profitable program!

    http://www.peetm.com/blog/?p=55

  6. anony.muos says:

    So WHY does all Vista EXEs if run under XP give the "is not a valid Win32 application" error? What is the reason for the behavior? I don’t wish to know the technical reason, I want to know did MS design it on purpose so people may not "get" and "use" Vista binaries in XP? Like how one can use msconfig from XP under 2000, did MS deliberately limit such use under XP?

  7. Anonymous says:

    Perhaps it can answer this age old question that comes up every time someone produces a batch file like the one referred to?

    WHERE *secret_batchfile_advanced_syntax_guide*

  8. Anonymous says:

    I don’t wish to know the technical reason

    Why not? Because that’s the explanation (manifests) – not the conspiracy theory you obviously prefer.

  9. Anonymous says:

    [offtopic]

    So WHY does all Linux EXEcutables if run under XP give the "*****" error? What is the reason for the behavior? I don’t wish to know the technical reason, I want to know did Ubuntu, Redhat, etc. design it on purpose so people may not "get" and "use" Nix binaries in XP? … did Linux community deliberately limit such use under XP?

    [/offtopic]

  10. Anonymous says:

    @Paul Coddington

    The syntax for Raymond’s batchfile is actually included for a bit. If you run ‘for /?’ you get a lot of inromation about it :)

Comments are closed.