From:	Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: command.com vs. cmd.exe
Date:	Mon, 23 Sep 2002 09:41:59 CDT
Organization:	Rice University, Houston TX
Lines:	26
Message-ID:	<3d8f2837.sandmann@clio.rice.edu>
References:	<3D8EBEC6 DOT 4030404 AT wanadoo DOT fr>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	clio.rice.edu
X-Trace:	joe.rice.edu 1032792760 14856 128.42.105.3 (23 Sep 2002 14:52:40 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT rice DOT edu
NNTP-Posting-Date:	23 Sep 2002 14:52:40 GMT
X-NewsEditor:	ED-1.5.9
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

>   Is there in WinNT4, Win2000 and/or WinXP a line command controller 
> (i.e. MSDOS emulation windows controller) named COMMAND.COM, in addition 
> to the NT usual CMD.EXE ?

Yes, but it should typically be avoided under those platforms if at all
possible.  In general, you should just use what's in the environment
variable "COMSPEC" - which indicates if you are under CMD or command.

>   In that case, where is it typically stored (\WINDOWS or \WINNT) or its 
> subdir SYSTEM32?

It's in the system32 subdirectory - but \Winnt can be named other names
in the install; so you should use the "SYSTEMROOT" environment variable
to find out where.

>   Second point: somebody (usually competent) told me that (on Win2000 
> and/or WinXP) cmd.exe called a command.com when it has to handle a *.bat 
> file. Is that true, and under which conditions?

This is incorrect.  Windows 2000 and XP call CMD.EXE to process .bat 
files, and have an expanded syntax which can be used in them.

There are some compatibility differences between CMD.EXE and command.com 
(some are described on the DJGPP Win2000 compatibility page) - but
usually CMD.EXE behaves better.

- Raw text -