Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 21:31:27 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id: <2593-Mon13Jan2003213126+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to: <10301121803.AA21102@clio.rice.edu> (sandmann@clio.rice.edu)
Subject: Re: Quirk with command.com shell on XP
References:  <10301121803 DOT AA21102 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
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

> From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
> Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 12:03:33 -0600 (CST)
> 
> > > 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?
> 
> For any DOS type application, Win NT/2K/XP create a separate process
> NTVDM which contains the virtual DOS machine - and inside that virtual
> machine it always has command.com loaded (in the DOS machine).

If command.com is loaded into every VM running a DJGPP program, we
still need to tell users how to control the size of the environment
it can support, right?