Apparently even this site ComputerHope has a download to the utility I am using...
http://www.computerhope.com/dutil.htm
Should I not use it? Again not trying to be an idiot but if you know something I don't etc let me know.
That is a utility for converting documents... It's not a BAT to EXE converter.
I'm also aware of something windows 7 64 bit did with the kernel to protect it which again might be why going hand in hand with everything you have said might mean that the EXE version of the bat file isn't working.
hate to break the news, but the kernel has nearly nothing to do with it, really. There are a few "varieties" of EXE2BAT converters. Note that some misname themselves "compilers" but none of them are.
The earliest variety converted PURE DOS batch files into COM executables. This only worked on very small batch files because the COM executable was really just a tiny stub that ran the BAT that was pasted onto the end of the COM file. These were 16-bit, and usually the compiler program had a simple parser that tried to "optimize" things, usually failing quite miserably.
Another early variant was a "sort-of" compiler; it did convert the Batch into a true blue ASM file which you could assemble into an Object file which could then be linked into an executable. Later variants even made those steps automatic. However, no compiler of this sort works with anything but pure DOS commands. Also, they compile to 16-bit DOS executables.
Nowadays, the only 32-bit "compiler" Batch programs that can be found are those that simply paste the batch file as a resource or on the end of a generic executable, which merely writes that resource to a temporary file and then runs it through the same command interpreter, and another variant which tries to hide it's shame by literally
encrypting the batch file resource, so you can't see it as plain text if you open the resulting executable.
of course, Process Monitor can see the resulting batch file in memory, and you can simply find the bat that was extracted by the stub executable anyway, so I'm not sure what the real point of those would be.
The main problem with them, is- while you control the batch file, you really have no idea *censored* the stub program truly does. It could very well be sending some crazy usage data to some unrelated third party or it could really be a trojan downloader (seen examples of both). And truly it's never worth it to "compile" any batch file. Anybody who thinks so is fooling themselves.
the batch you posted tells you the problem in the comment.
:: UAC stops below from running. Not be elevated stops from running.
you can run a Batch file via UAC of course, but when you use a "batch 2 exe converter" it may very well be running the stub program as admin, and it
should be running the batch file as admin as well, but bat2exe converters are notoriously poorly written and it's highly possible that the person who wrote it is retarded and therefore the batch file that is run by the stub program is not elevated at all, and it's impossible to get it to run elevated without changing the "stub" program.
