Command Shell Preview Version 2.0 Released
Posted by Tom Warren on 12 March 2004 - 18:20 · 73 comments & 4878 views
About the Author
Full name: Tom Warren
Forum name: creamhackered
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Tom Warren
Forum name: creamhackered
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(1 reply)
#1 Posted by bangbang023 on 12 Mar 2004 - 18:33
- well since they didn't remove me from the beta when I asked, since I didn't have Longhorn, I will start testing it finally.
-
(1 reply)
#2 Posted by divertom15 on 12 Mar 2004 - 18:38
- ooo version 2
-
#2.1 Posted by Jugalator on 14 Mar 2004 - 02:06
- I hope a recent version of this one will be available at least in Longhorn Beta 1
That would be christmas to me as a software developer being a fan of these sort of things. Of course, a pretty Aero interface would be nice, but I'll be damned if this wouldn't be even better
-
(7 replies)
#3 Posted by xStainDx on 12 Mar 2004 - 18:48
- What is this like a linux terminal??
-
#3.1 Posted by Rudy on 13 Mar 2004 - 07:23
- its a mix between Command Prompt and a linux terminal
ex: to view help you can type: help whatever or man whatever
to list the files/folder in a directory you can type the usual dir or ls -
#3.2 Posted by Tom Servo on 13 Mar 2004 - 15:32
- A help command is in virtually every command line. Also the existance of "ls" doesn't mean anything (or for that matter, all other aliases that exist in both DOS and *NIX variations), it's just an alias to get-children. So please stop these Linux referrals. It's getting frankly annoying to see everyone shouting "OMG LINOOX!!!11" each time something in a MS product ressembles to it.
-
#3.3 Posted by Rudy on 13 Mar 2004 - 23:13
- try to open a regular command prompt and type ls......it wont work
i think its great MS is changing the command prompt because it could be much better
i just wish they would add built in ssh support -
#3.4 Posted by Tom Servo on 14 Mar 2004 - 01:27
- You don't get it, do you? The actual command is "get-children", which has been aliased to both "dir" and "ls". The aliases are just something the developers did for fun and convenience, and not because they're trying to mix the command prompt with a "linux terminal".
LOOK:
QUOTE FS::G:/temp> dir alias:/ | where "value -like get-children"
Key Value
--- -----
dir get-children
ls get-children
gch get-children
Not to mention that the parameters to get-children don't resemble anything of GNU ls. -
#3.5 Posted by mr_da3m0n on 14 Mar 2004 - 04:24
- It looks _very_ SQL-ish to me, somehow, especially that "where value -like" part
-
#3.6 Posted by Tom Servo on 14 Mar 2004 - 11:46
- Maybe. One of the ideas behind MSH seems to be breaking commands up into their bare functionality. get-children for instance has just a few simple parameters, which include a simple globbing include/exclude filter, a recursing option and a name parameter that does return just the name of a File instead of a FileInfo object. That's all. If you want filtering, grouping and what do I know, you get to pipe get-children's output thru other Cmdlets like for instance where-object (aliased to where), which is quite powerful yet simple, and pick-object (aliased to pick), which allows you to pick and show different properties of objects. For instance on get-children, you get LastWriteTime, Length and Name shown by default, but FileInfo has way more properties than that. Anyway, the processing and pipeline model of the MSH is pretty powerful, especially since it passes objects and not strings. Now in the example above, the ressemblance to SQL is merely a coincidence.
-
#3.7 Posted by Jugalator on 15 Mar 2004 - 10:11
- Hehe, seems like MS has learned from what made the *nix shell so good. A lot of it is all about a great diversity of minimalist commands and piping to form rather complex actions. That's much better than a set of "regular" commands that are designed for a particular purpose and not making as much use of piping.
-
#4 Posted by Mav Phoenix on 12 Mar 2004 - 19:24
- Beefed up cmd I think.
-
(3 replies)
#5 Posted by dougkinzinger on 12 Mar 2004 - 19:24
- It's kind of cool, it needs some more attention....
-
#5.1 Posted by longwilli on 12 Mar 2004 - 22:41
- hey doug there is no need to bond, neobond already told you in a different thread yet you still do it why?
-
#5.2 Posted by markjensen on 13 Mar 2004 - 01:05
- I agree with you, Doug. Microsoft's focus on the GUI experience has let the commandline atrophy, and it is behind where the *nix distros are at now. Linux is catching up on the GUI, and it looks like Microsoft has realized that there are a lot of nice tools & functionality that can be done be via command line.
And, Microsoft's focus on GUI has made them the market leader that they are, so it was money & time well-spent for them!
This competition makes both OSes better.
(as for people ragging on the use of bold, get over it. It may be a mild annoyance, but there really is no harm.)
-
#6 Posted by nw_raptor on 12 Mar 2004 - 21:14
- wow... awesome news creamy!
-
#7 Posted by Tom Servo on 12 Mar 2004 - 22:53
- The old release of MSH ran on WinXP/Win2k3 aswell FYI. What do you think was I using as shell the last few months? You just needed to install .NET 1.2.30703.
-
(2 replies)
#8 Posted by kuya on 12 Mar 2004 - 23:47
- does anyone have a screen shot?
-
#8.1 Posted by Jugalator on 13 Mar 2004 - 00:19
- I doubt they'll be very exciting
(probably just a console window)
But it's still pretty big news! Would be interesting to try it out for sure.
-
(7 replies)
#9 Posted by Trust on 13 Mar 2004 - 01:38
QUOTE Command Shell Preview Version 2.0 available to beta testers
hmmm... I think I DONT need that...-
#9.1 Posted by Tom Servo on 13 Mar 2004 - 01:59
- Thanks for your wise and insightful contribution. It is really appreciated! Because everyone cares if you need a certain beta project or not. Bozo.
-
#9.2 Posted by Mav Phoenix on 13 Mar 2004 - 09:07
- Are you the real Tom or just an imposter?
-
#9.4 Posted by Trust on 13 Mar 2004 - 16:51
QUOTE (#9.1) Thanks for your wise and insightful contribution
Thank you to you too... for your abosolute useless reply later Tom Bozo Servo-
#9.5 Posted by Rudy on 13 Mar 2004 - 23:15
QUOTE (#9.4) Thank you to you too... for your abosolute useless reply later Tom Bozo Servo
LOL nice one-
#9.6 Posted by Tom Servo on 14 Mar 2004 - 01:30
- Couldn't figure out anything original than remixing my reply. Try harder next time, moosefarker.
-
(1 reply)
#10 Posted by Mattimeo on 13 Mar 2004 - 02:25
- I wouldn't mind a screenshot or two...*shrug* I have been waiting on this for sometime. I think it would be a great edition to MS.
-
#11 Posted by Osiris on 13 Mar 2004 - 06:47
- yeah im sure its not thrilling but yet again a screenshot would be nice...
-
(1 reply)
#12 Posted by FISKER_Q on 13 Mar 2004 - 07:04
- Damn a test program for a command prompt
I'm not in the test though
I would like to be though.
-
#13 Posted by Mr. Black on 13 Mar 2004 - 07:58
- Anyone have some screenshots of this in action?
(Plz PM them to me if you do - th
-
(2 replies)
#14 Posted by CheeseCow on 13 Mar 2004 - 08:18
- Well it took them long enough. Hopefully, it will use the Windows theme, not the old-style widgets. I'm looking forward to recompiling my Windows kernel.
-
#14.1 Posted by Jugalator on 13 Mar 2004 - 15:48
- Man, you guys are weird...
Who cares about the widgets? It's a text window. Of all programs in the world, I'd care least about three title bar widgets for a text window.
And what does this have to do with recompiling kernels?
-
#14.2 Posted by smoke on 14 Mar 2004 - 00:33
- It still has a scrollbar and border that should look like the rest of the system though. I mean other systems have it that way why not this too? Plus most other systems have choices for transparent backgrounds.
If you think that way then notepad, MS word or messagers should not adopt the systems look because they are just text windows too.
Last edited by 12110 on 14 Mar 2004 - 02:06
-
(1 reply)
#15 Posted by Cardinal on 13 Mar 2004 - 10:20
- A screenshot would violate their agreement with Microsoft I think.
I'm sure they'd love to but would risk losing their beta testing rights.
-
#16 Posted by Tom Servo on 13 Mar 2004 - 12:22
- What do you folks expect from a screenshot?! It's a freakin' console window!
-
#17 Posted by ThunderRiver on 13 Mar 2004 - 13:10
- Yeah well, couldn't download it until very very early this morning. The passport service died on BetaPlace yesterday.
Screenshots aren't necessary as it is nothing interesting but a scripting engine. Other than that, for those that think it is a useless crap, buzz off! No one cares what you think.
-
#18 Posted by Angel Blue01 on 13 Mar 2004 - 13:37
- What exactly does this do?
-
(12 replies)
#19 Posted by Tom Servo on 13 Mar 2004 - 14:01
- Here's a "screenshot" of MSH here (my customized prompt though):
QUOTE Microsoft Command Shell (msh)
FS::G:/...Files/Microsoft command shell Preview>
And I'm not kidding you. Spectacular!!! Happy now? No? Well, no surprise! It's a console application!
Last edited by 413 on 13 Mar 2004 - 14:06 -
#19.2 Posted by Tom Servo on 13 Mar 2004 - 15:50
- Actually, the default path seperator in MSH is / instead of the backslash (strange the comment script strips the actual backspace char)
And that FS:: thing is legit. Provider qualified paths are provider::path, with the double colon. Doing for instance "cd fs:://someputer/someshare" will change your location to that share without creating a drive letter, however the provider qualification is required. The shell has lots of nifty superficial features, doing deeper, it gets even better.
The standard MSH prompt is:
MSH 1 C:/>
Where 1 increases with each line you typed. The provider::path> thing is my customized one. -
#19.3 Posted by Jugalator on 13 Mar 2004 - 15:53
- Oh, sorry, I got totally confused and thought you were trying to post a screenshot after all, but saw that FS gibberish.
OK, but that's interesting! I heard the developers are even looking into adding IntelliSense for it. Hehe
This seems to finally give Windows users a powerful shell. I recently tried out Longhorn and it seems they're trying to make the file system more abstract than before, so the FS:: thing doesn't really come as a surprise, as they might now look at stored data in other ways, not just in the regular DOS-related way. -
#19.4 Posted by Tom Servo on 13 Mar 2004 - 15:59
- Actually, in MSH, drives are virtualized. All actions are channelled thru providers. The FS provider obviously cares about physical drive issues. But the drive letters dont mean much. Or rather drive "phrases", since you're not limited to one letter.
You can for instance detach drive letter C and assign it to the registry demo provider, and reattach the drive that was on letter C in MSH to drive Foo:, and voila, suddenly you see your registry on C: and your old C: drive on Foo:
It also allows the old subst.exe things via the providers, just more efficient. -
#19.5 Posted by Tom Servo on 13 Mar 2004 - 16:03
- Quick demo. The preview program has a public GuestID, and is open for all, so it won't hurt.
QUOTE G:/> new-drive -n wee -prov FS -r g:/temp
name provider current
---- -------- -------
wee FS
G:/> cd wee:
wee:/> dir *.exe
Directory: FS::G:/temp
LastWriteTime Length Name
------------- ------ ----
12/04/2003 2:00:19 25200272 indy.exe
18/04/2003 15:51:17 2827787 msh.exe
16/04/2003 15:17:13 24468304 VPC_52_Trial.exe
wee:/> -
#19.6 Posted by Tom Servo on 13 Mar 2004 - 20:05
- The commands have their own style, not DOS nor UNIX. They added DOS and UNIX aliases though, but the parameters are still MSH style.
-
#19.7 Posted by Jugalator on 14 Mar 2004 - 02:00
- So you're able to develop your own providers? Would be cool if they allowed this and released guidelines on how to do it.
-
#19.8 Posted by Tom Servo on 14 Mar 2004 - 02:02
- The guidelines are available in the beta. You can code your own Cmdlets (commands in verb-noun style) and your own providers.
-
#19.9 Posted by mr_da3m0n on 14 Mar 2004 - 04:17
QUOTE
The standard MSH prompt is:
MSH 1 C:/>
Where 1 increases with each line you typed. The provider::path> thing is my customized one.
Sounds very csh-ish to me ^_^
(At least on OpenServer that's the default prompt)
Well, it was about time windows got a decent shell...
And please, people, stop saying it's linux-ish, it should be more unix-ish, and even there, very different from anything you've seen. I'm looking forward to it -- right now I do my windows scripting using Perl.
-
#19.11 Posted by Jugalator on 15 Mar 2004 - 10:08
QUOTE (#19. 
The guidelines are available in the beta. You can code your own Cmdlets (commands in verb-noun style) and your own providers.
Great
Maybe that could mean direct support for other file systems. Like Linux ext2/3 support. I suppose "FS::" is basically for NTFS and FAT32, maybe one could make an "EXT2::" for Linux drives.
-
(1 reply)
#20 Posted by BananaMan on 13 Mar 2004 - 14:46
- Very cool. You can browse the registry as you would folders on a physical disk, the scripting language is mighty powerful too.
-
#20.1 Posted by Jugalator on 13 Mar 2004 - 15:41
- Yay -- this is the news I want to hear
From what I've heard, MSH will be a pretty big improvement in the non-GUI field of Windows.
What I want isn't stupid *screenshots* about this thing, but a nice document with the features. And not a marketing / PR speech, but the actual scripting features.
-
(9 replies)
#21 Posted by markjensen on 13 Mar 2004 - 15:15
- have the implemented something like 'tab completion'? I miss that every time I have to work on a Windows box..
-
#21.2 Posted by Jugalator on 13 Mar 2004 - 15:42
- Yup, it might need a registry edit to be enabled for pre-Windows XP though.
However, on XP directory/file name completion works like a dream without having to do anything. I wonder for how long the parent has been sleeping. -
#21.3 Posted by Tom Servo on 13 Mar 2004 - 15:52
- And I think adding parameter /x to the cmd.exe (shortcut) does the same.
-
#21.5 Posted by markjensen on 13 Mar 2004 - 20:25
- Ok, a few quick replies...
QUOTE Eh? Tab completition is even in old cmd.exe!
QUOTE Yup, it might need a registry edit to be enabled for pre-Windows XP though.
However, on XP directory/file name completion works like a dream without having to do anything. I wonder for how long the parent has been sleeping.
QUOTE And I think adding parameter /x to the cmd.exe (shortcut) does the same.
Are you sure you don't have some 3rd party (or other registry hack) on your PCs???? -
#21.6 Posted by ThemeNorth on 13 Mar 2004 - 21:07
- Of course it'll insert a tab if you type cd [TAB], there's nothing to complete. If however you type cd C:/prog [TAB] (or something similair) it'll auto-complete to "C:/Program Files".
-
#21.7 Posted by markjensen on 13 Mar 2004 - 21:16
- Ah-ha! that worked!
But the "of course" isn't obvious. In Linux it will show me all available options when I type "cd [TAB]". It just isn't quite the same behavior, is all.
Nice feature. Will they have it work on command names, too? -
#21.8 Posted by Tom Servo on 13 Mar 2004 - 22:54
- Probably. I requested automatic matching of ambiguous commands. For instance when I type g-chi and get-children is the only match to it, that it'll execute that match. They said they were considering it, so you wouldn't even need command tab completition, which will however be implemented though.
-
(2 replies)
#22 Posted by badriram on 13 Mar 2004 - 18:32
- I would love to see what other features they are going to add. Maybe some unix style commands, or a grep replacement?
-
#23 Posted by tra on 14 Mar 2004 - 11:19
- .NET Framework 2.0 is in that download...
"This is an early preview of the Command Shell. This is a new Windows component that is planned for release with Windows codename: Longhorn. The preview can be installed from our download page and supporting documentation is included within the download. Attendees at the October PDC conference can still access the earlier preview from the download page. Please note that the earlier preview only works with the PDC preview of Longhorn"