View Single Post
Old 03-05-2020, 05:30 PM   #33
snarkophilus
Wannabe Connoisseur
snarkophilus ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.snarkophilus ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.snarkophilus ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.snarkophilus ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.snarkophilus ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.snarkophilus ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.snarkophilus ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.snarkophilus ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.snarkophilus ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.snarkophilus ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.snarkophilus ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 426
Karma: 2516674
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Geelong, Australia
Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kobo Aura 2, Sony PRS-T1, Sony PRS-350, Palm TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf View Post
You've got it all wrong. You do not need to fire up a command prompt. You just double click the .bat file and it runs the command prompt and the command prompt closes when done. I know for sure that the .bat works under Windows proper. I don't have to play around with the .bat to get it working. Yes you may prefer Cygwin, but native Windows just works better in this case.
You seem to be making the assumption that there's a .bat file I can click on somewhere. If I don't have an Windows Explorer window open in the right folder then I've got to nagivate to that folder before I could double click on said .bat file. Then I get the negatives of a command prompt that closes and tosses away any output that I might be interested in reading.

And thanks to Geek's commit, I don't have to play around with the .sh file anymore either to get it working.

Yes, I do prefer cygwin, and no, native Windows doesn't just work better in this case for me.
snarkophilus is offline   Reply With Quote