China DOS Union

```
@Echo off
Md temp
For %%a in (*.inf) Do Type %%a >Temp\%%a
Copy Temp\*.inf /y
Del Temp\*.inf
Rd Temp


Converting many *.inf, *.ini, etc. Unicode formats to ANSI can reduce file size without changing functionality!

Everyone, think about it, can we make a registry cleanup based on this principle?

[ Last edited by electronixtar on 2006-10-23 at 08:24 ]
```

Can converting Unicode to ANSI format really ensure that the functionality remains unchanged? Although I don't know if it's correct, I have some doubts about this statement. Those who know, please explain the principle.

Because Unicode uses 2 bytes to store English, while ANSI only uses 1 byte. Many inf files in the system are completely sufficient with ANSI.

Bidirectional test of a text,

1. ANSI. The name is RVI.txt, and the content is as follows:

{N=2,300,14}
V1:=((C-O)+2*(REF(C-O,1)+REF(C-O,2)+REF(C-O,3)))/6;
V2:=((H-L)+2*(REF(H-L,1)+REF(H-L,2)+REF(H-L,3)))/6;
NUM:=SUM(V1,N);
DENUM:=SUM(V2,N);
RVI:NUM/DENUM;
RVISIG:(RVI+2*(REF(RVI,1)+REF(RVI,2)+REF(RVI,3)))/6

The test code:

cls
::@Echo off
del /s /q RVI.inf RVI_cheng.inf
echo.
For %%a in (RVI.txt) Do Type %%a >RVI.inf
echo.
For %%a in (RVI.inf) Do Type %%a >RVI_cheng.inf
start RVI.inf
start RVI_cheng.inf
exit

Test results:
RVI.inf - - - UNICODE encoding, normal display.
RVI_cheng.inf - - - ANSI encoding, abnormal character display. As follows:

{ N = 2 , 3 0 0 , 1 4 }

V 1 : = ( ( C - O ) + 2 * ( R E F ( C - O , 1 ) + R E F ( C - O , 2 ) + R E F ( C - O , 3 ) ) ) / 6 ;

V 2 : = ( ( H - L ) + 2 * ( R E F ( H - L , 1 ) + R E F ( H - L , 2 ) + R E F ( H - L , 3 ) ) ) / 6 ;

N U M : = S U M ( V 1 , N ) ;

D E N U M : = S U M ( V 2 , N ) ;

R V I : N U M / D E N U M ;

R V I S I G : ( R V I + 2 * ( R E F ( R V I , 1 ) + R E F ( R V I , 2 ) + R E F ( R V I , 3 ) ) ) / 6


2. UNCODE. The name is RVI_other.txt, and the content remains unchanged.

The test code, except for changing the file name, is the same:
:clss
::@Echo off
del /s /q RVI_other.inf RVI_other_cheng.inf
echo.
For %%a in (RVI_other.txt) Do Type %%a >RVI_other.inf
echo.
For %%a in (RVI_other.inf) Do Type %%a >RVI_other_cheng.inf
start RVI_other.inf
start RVI_other_cheng.inf
exit

Test results:
Generate RVI_other.inf and RVI_other_cheng.inf. Both displays are the same as the original, but both are ANSI encoding.

This test shows that this Type method can indeed cause a change in character encoding, but the mechanism is not clear. Especially in the first test, UNICODE -> ANSI causes abnormal character display, while in the second test, using UNCODE code also displays normally, which is puzzling.

[ Last edited by nipo on 2008-5-11 at 01:40 PM ]

Can your BAT run normally?

It can also be done with cmd /a(/u) and it's safe..

Reply to floor 5:

I am using .cmd and it runs normally.

Reply to floor 6:

Thank you for the tip. I also saw the relevant post and checked cmd/?.

The reason I am interested in the method of this post is not only for encoding conversion but also for its TYPE function. This can at least theoretically confirm that Unicode-encoded files can be operated independently in the DOS environment.

Specifically, I am still a novice in text processing. I hope to attract the attention of all experts to this issue. Let's work together to accelerate the solution of this problem.

This issue is very important for DOS. If the Unicode issue is not solved, it will compress the living space of DOS. Not only in text processing but also in many applications such as the network. Once it is solved, DOS will get a new world.

[ Last edited by nipo on 2008-5-11 at 09:47 PM ]