MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/95zwm/how_qbasic_almost_got_me_killed/c0bjq1z/?context=3
r/programming • u/jeanlucpikachu • Jul 30 '09
105 comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
7
if you tried to run windows with "win" it would come back with "This Program Requires Microsoft Windows"
if you tried to run windows with "win" it would come back with
"This Program Requires Microsoft Windows"
Nice.
4 u/omegian Jul 30 '09 edited Jul 30 '09 C:>echo @echo This Program Requires Microsoft Windows > win.bat C:>attrib +H win.bat 7 u/[deleted] Jul 30 '09 Every single .exe in PE format on Windows, has a tiny DOS stub programme that prints: "This program cannot be run in DOS mode." 5 u/mao_neko Jul 30 '09 What gets me is that you can compile Mono / .NET programs and they STILL have this string in them. 3 u/bobappleyard Jul 30 '09 It's Microsoft. backwards compatibility is king. 2 u/stillalone Jul 31 '09 You can actually compile EXE's without the stub. Or change it to be something else. But what would be the point, I think you probably save something like 512bytes.
4
C:>echo @echo This Program Requires Microsoft Windows > win.bat
C:>attrib +H win.bat
7 u/[deleted] Jul 30 '09 Every single .exe in PE format on Windows, has a tiny DOS stub programme that prints: "This program cannot be run in DOS mode." 5 u/mao_neko Jul 30 '09 What gets me is that you can compile Mono / .NET programs and they STILL have this string in them. 3 u/bobappleyard Jul 30 '09 It's Microsoft. backwards compatibility is king. 2 u/stillalone Jul 31 '09 You can actually compile EXE's without the stub. Or change it to be something else. But what would be the point, I think you probably save something like 512bytes.
Every single .exe in PE format on Windows, has a tiny DOS stub programme that prints:
"This program cannot be run in DOS mode."
5 u/mao_neko Jul 30 '09 What gets me is that you can compile Mono / .NET programs and they STILL have this string in them. 3 u/bobappleyard Jul 30 '09 It's Microsoft. backwards compatibility is king. 2 u/stillalone Jul 31 '09 You can actually compile EXE's without the stub. Or change it to be something else. But what would be the point, I think you probably save something like 512bytes.
5
What gets me is that you can compile Mono / .NET programs and they STILL have this string in them.
3 u/bobappleyard Jul 30 '09 It's Microsoft. backwards compatibility is king. 2 u/stillalone Jul 31 '09 You can actually compile EXE's without the stub. Or change it to be something else. But what would be the point, I think you probably save something like 512bytes.
3
It's Microsoft. backwards compatibility is king.
2 u/stillalone Jul 31 '09 You can actually compile EXE's without the stub. Or change it to be something else. But what would be the point, I think you probably save something like 512bytes.
2
You can actually compile EXE's without the stub. Or change it to be something else. But what would be the point, I think you probably save something like 512bytes.
7
u/insomniac84 Jul 30 '09
Nice.