Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 07:41:13 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Quirk with command.com shell on XP
In-Reply-To: <10301120355.AA22010@clio.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1030112074010.29737A-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Charles Sandmann wrote:

> I use CMD.EXE exclusively (whenever I've had to use command.com I've found
> some problem that needed to be fixed anyway) - and I've never seen any 
> problems.  Given the enhanced capabilities of CMD.EXE, why not recommend
> using it instead?

Doesn't Windows 2000/XP invoke command.com when a DOS program is 
launched, even if your default shell is cmd.exe?