I am running several batch files in my unattended installation for my corporate image. I want to be able to capture all the text (commands being called, errors, sucesses, etc) into a text file.

Is there a way to do this? I could use >> after every line to append to a single log file, correct?

The >> commend will redirect the output and append it to the specified file, so that is what you want to do dk.

This WILL work, however it will be time consuming to implement.
Your better off using a 'master' batch file, to run all of your other batch files

for example, if you run 1.bat, 2.bat and 3.bat during install. Instead of adding >> file.txt to every line you could do this:

exec_all.bat:

1.bat >> file.txt
2.bat >> file.txt
3.bat >> file.txt

that will save you adding >> to each line each of the files.

--- Dave

Indeed. Good point DD86.

It's what I had originally hoped to do. But the problem is that they all run at different points of the process, and some are called by registries. (runonce, etc)

I'm sure the system would accept >> after any of those commands where ever they are e.g. registry. Why not give it a try on a virtual machine to see if it works that simply.

I tried...it didn't seem to take. I'm still experimenting.

Have you tried using a loader file for the batch file?

Call X.bat > file.txt

Actually I'm not sure what the second > is for I've always just used one.

Yeah me too, just the one >.

> means write to the specified file--overwriting any existing content.
>> means append to the specified file--preserving the existing content.

Indeed Taco.

You could try calling " cmd.exe /C "bat1.bat >> file.txt" " dkreifus, that may do the trick.
Or you could settle for a registry entry of "bat1caller.bat" which contains the line "bat1.bat >> file.txt" as a work around - it's still nicer than adding >> to every line in your original scripts.

Edit: I'm pretty sure I've just said what Phonics said, but anyway. The calling script idea should definatly work, the cmd command is unknown, and could be a way of doing it without the additional file.. or it could just fail.